No4 Mk1 Information Please

[Combloc1]

Hey guys. I'm generally not a bolt action guy but I found this old clunker locally and, being that it looked like a good honest specimen and I don't think they've been imported for a long time, I decided to pick it up. I know very little about British bolt actions but I do have some slight idea what is what. I know it's just a plain jane Fazakerley made in November of 1954 but what attracted me to it was the fact that it has a nice patina and nobody has done any "enhancements" to it such as switching out parts, steaming the cosmoline out of the stock, sanding the stock, etc.. It also looks to have a pristine bore (I haven't swabbed the dust and cosmoline out yet though) and all of the numbers are matching right down to the No9 bayonet and scabbard. Anywho, I remember when these were being imported by the gadzillions for 90 bucks each but that was a while ago now.
I guess what I'm asking is...do these things have any monetary value these days or are they still just clunky ol' shooters? I did a partial disassembly and, as far as I can tell, it's never been reworked nor had any parts replaced. If it's worth anything I might pass it along but I don't mind keeping it if it's worthless. The action is slick, stock fitment good and I'm sure it would make an excellent shooter. Here are a few pictures for you and I can take any others that you might want to see. Thanks!






Representative condition of the stock:




Most bunged up area:




Some serial numbers bits:


















Last are just a few general pictures showing condition and import stamp:














Barrel looks to still have some storage cosmoline down there but it should come out mirror bright after a patch or two. In hand it's already has much more shine than the photo implies:



Anywho, any thoughts about value or just shooter would be appreciated. As I said, I'm not really much of a bolt action guy but this old clunker just appealed to me. Thank you!

 

[Sistema1927]

Probably not one that will attract collector attention, being as it is a post-war example with wear, but it should prove to be a very good shooter. Nice rifle, I wouldn't kick it out of my gun safe.

Value? Hard to tell these days. They are going for more than during the "glory days" of surplus imports, but not as high as the folks who own them or as low as those who want them wish.

 

[boom boom]

Actually, the No. 4 Mk 2 is one that gets quite a bit of attention from collectors, especially some of the variants. They are supposedly more accurate than the Mk. 1 because the trigger no longer hangs off of the trigger guard. These did not have the heavy use that WWII era rifles had nor the rough wartime machining or oversized chambers. These were made when the Brits still had a thriving firearms industry and trained professionals.

If it is a decent price, you will probably regret not buying it in the future.

 

[Slamfire]

Actually, the No. 4 Mk 2 is one that gets quite a bit of attention from collectors, especially some of the variants. They are supposedly more accurate than the Mk. 1 because the trigger no longer hangs off of the trigger guard. These did not have the heavy use that WWII era rifles had nor the rough wartime machining or oversized chambers. These were made when the Brits still had a thriving firearms industry and trained professionals.

If it is a decent price, you will probably regret not buying it in the future.

Yupe, it is a MK2. I have a couple and have compared them to the MK 1*'s that I own All are perfectly satisfactory for cannon fodder. I never noticed any superiority in trigger pull between the lot, but what I have noticed, is that the wartime versions show all the evidence of hurry. My Savage has a two groove barrel in which the interior does not have a high degree of surface refraction: in other words, came gray from the factory. While the Canadian models show a much higher degree of surface polish than any other wartime manufacturer, the machining circles in the throats have all the appearance of a wood rasp. My MK2 five groove barrels are nice and bright and the throats show nice transitions. My MK2 bolts are smoother, showing less tooling marks. The rear sight has 1 MOA clicks, I like that. Once I bedded a couple of No 4 Mk1's, accuracy was slightly inferior to the MK2's, but not enough to prove a trend. Overall, I would say the MK2 is a better built rifle, but functionally, the average recruit will never notice the difference.







Stamped sheet metal front sight protector. Not as pretty as milled, but functionally identical




I have found references to American troops landing, I think D Day, who had not been trained to load their rifles. I do know that my Uncle, 101 Airborne, dropped over Normandy with only 20 rounds of familiarization with the 1919 he carried. His squad was so ignorant of the operation of the thing, that they did not know that the weapon did not have a safety. They put a belt in the gun, chambered a round, and then proceeded to set it up. The guy on the front, I assume he was installing the bipod, had his hand over the muzzle, and bumped the trigger mechanism on the ground. The machine gun discharged and shot his finger off! One other Uncle was dead within 20 days of arriving in theater. And that was not uncommon for replacement Infantry. The life expectancy of regular Infantry was pretty short in all conditions. Anyone remember the Iwo Jima flag raising picture? Of the six men holding the flag, three were dead within days. If the picture had not made such an impression, that President Roosevelt wanted the Marines back in the states for a bond drive, it is questionable how many of the living three would have walked off the island,

By 1944, 1945, front line troop losses were such, there was not a lot of time to train recruits on weapons.

 

[boom boom]

Nice rifle, my WWII vintage Savage is refinished and someone blurred the lettering probably when removing the old Suncorite. I got it cheap because someone had jammed the bolt in the action which can be done on the No. 4, Mk. 1*. I also have the war time expedient pig sticker bayonet which is a pretty sorry excuse for one. It looks like a landscape timber nail with a mount. The closest runup to this was the ridiculous rod bayonet of the 1903.

Re infantry lifespan--individual replacement in line units made things worse as many of these new troops became casualties pretty quick which made both morale and unit effectiveness questionable. I do know that Decision in Normady author Carlo D'Este was pretty critical of WWII American infantry tactics and doctrines in WWII. Similar issues on the replacement problem persisted in Korea and Vietnam.

While Gen MacArthur had his problems, I think his employment of the U.S. Army and infantry in WWII Pacific via island hopping was superior to a strategy by the Navy to take on heavily fortified islands as far as costs of men were counted. The counter of course is the return to the PI championed by MacArthur which some Navy strategists claim was a waste and peripheral to defeating the Japanese. My grandfather did not make it back from that campaign, sad to say.

 

[Enfielder]

I have the same rifle built 13 months prior with a serial of 371-. Check this info out: https://www.enfield-rifles.com/irish-contract-enfield_topic5620.html

 

[boom boom]

I have the same rifle built 13 months prior with a serial of 371-. Check this info out: https://www.enfield-rifles.com/irish-contract-enfield_topic5620.html

From the pix above and your source, the O/P's rifle was apparently due to be sent to the Irish Republic. From what I remember, those bring a premium.

 

[Slamfire]

From the pix above and your source, the O/P's rifle was apparently due to be sent to the Irish Republic. From what I remember, those bring a premium.

Every one of the MK2's that I saw, which arrived in the 1990's, came from Ireland. I have one, in the wrap. The importer had to cut the wrap to stamp his import marks, but otherwise, it is in the wrap. It is my memory that the ads from Century Arms indicated Ireland as the source. I bought mine from a local gun store where the in the wrap rifles were standing in boxes, muzzle up, on the store floor. Must have been thirty feet of them. The store owner was really upset because someone unwrapped one, to see what they looked like. The unwrapped rifle looked greasy, but otherwise new. The store owner looked greasy, a little wild eyed, and parboiled, because the value of these rifles were due to being new in the wrap military rifles. Since I was the only person on the shop floor at the time, I got the evil eye. I want to say, even now, I did not do it! Those rifles sold for a premium, but they were all gone within the week. I am glad I got mine when I did.

A whole bunch of WW2 era No 4 MK1's came out of Canada in the same time period, and so did a bunch of M1917's. These M1917's had the bolt serialized to the receiver and the receiver ring was notched for the stripper clip. Which is un necessary in my opinion as the action has plenty of clearance for a 30-06 clip. The notch will give them away. I took the bolt out and found a better, so my rifle is going to confuse someone in the future. I bedded that action, which made the groups rounder, and changed the zero, but the barrel had been used so much, it was not a tack driver.

 

[GooseGestapo]

I have a #4Mk1 that was FTR in ‘51. I replaced the rear dog leg sight with a milled vernier sight like the op’s. It’s a Fazerkerly, like the rifle, so it’s now “correct”, and has a splendid bore. Shoots ~2.5MOA with good ammo.

Last year at CMP Talladega, I watched a fellow shooting a Savage Mk2 with a Parkerhale reciever sight and match ammo with Sierra MatchKings win the Modern Military Match, beat a bunch of AR’s. Shot a 94 off hand, 99 timed fire and 100x7x prone!
They’ll shoot! I much prefer the SMLE’s, with only the Springfield 03/A3 being more accurate.
My .303 prefers the Hornady 174gr BtHpt Match over 43.0gr BLC2 in once fired PPU brass. Duplicates MkVII ball at 2,440fps, lower pressure, and +/-2moa. For a Hunting Load I use a 150gr Hornady over 47.0gr. BLC2 Or, 180gr PPU SemiPtBt over 43.0gr. It prefers.312” though the bore is .3115” x .303”.

 

[lysanderxiii]

I have a #4Mk1 that was FTR in ‘51. I replaced the rear dog leg sight with a milled vernier sight like the op’s. It’s a Fazerkerly, like the rifle, so it’s now “correct”, and has a splendid bore. Shoots ~2.5MOA with good ammo.

Last year at CMP Talladega, I watched a fellow shooting a Savage Mk2 with a Parkerhale reciever sight and match ammo with Sierra MatchKings win the Modern Military Match, beat a bunch of AR’s. Shot a 94 off hand, 99 timed fire and 100x7x prone!
They’ll shoot! I much prefer the SMLE’s, with only the Springfield 03/A3 being more accurate.
My .303 prefers the Hornady 174gr BtHpt Match over 43.0gr BLC2 in once fired PPU brass. Duplicates MkVII ball at 2,440fps, lower pressure, and +/-2moa. For a Hunting Load I use a 150gr Hornady over 47.0gr. BLC2 Or, 180gr PPU SemiPtBt over 43.0gr. It prefers.312” though the bore is .3115” x .303”.

174 grain boat tail at 2450 fps is closer to Mk 8 or Mk 8z Ball.

Mk 7 (or Mk VII) was a flat based 174 grain bullet.

 

[mustanger98]

My prior understanding was that MkVII (174gr FMJ) and MkVIII (174gr FMJ-BT) run the same speed, the bullet style being the only difference. Then, last night in another thread, I saw it noted that MkVIII was loaded hotter to run in machineguns. While I wouldn't suggest running machinegun ammo in a SMLE or No4Mk1/Mk2, I see no reason a handloader shouldn't load BT's.

 

[boom boom]

My prior understanding was that MkVII (174gr FMJ) and MkVIII (174gr FMJ-BT) run the same speed, the bullet style being the only difference. Then, last night in another thread, I saw it noted that MkVIII was loaded hotter to run in machineguns. While I wouldn't suggest running machinegun ammo in a SMLE or No4Mk1/Mk2, I see no reason a handloader shouldn't load BT's.

Boattails do fine if the bore has little wear and is on spec. If the barrel is worn and/or the bore is not close to the nominal bore diameter, boattail accuracy tends to suffer versus flat based bullets. The flat based tend to slug up to ride the lands while the boattails don't. Course, every rifle is different and bullets can differ as well.

From what I understand, the French used their Balle D boattail bullets in machine guns to extend ranges of suppressive fire well beyond that of flat bullets, as these are area firearms, precision not needed as much. Shooters adopted them because of greater accuracy potential as did the U.S. Army for increased machine gun range which then found the boattail ammo was overshooting the existing firing ranges.

 

[mustanger98]

Okay, we're back to "depends on the barrel", which is generally the case.

 

[lysanderxiii]

Boat-tails improve the drag coefficient, better velocity at longer ranges. That's why Mk 8 was used in the MG, they wanted better long range performance.

Inside 300 yards, the benefits of a boat-tailed bullet are marginal.

That said, both the Mk 7 and Mk 8 (or Mk VII and Mk VIII, before 1944) bullet had an aluminum tip to the core, and were longer than solid lead core bullets. Therefore, a modern lead core 175 grain flat based bullet would have a slightly worse drag coefficient than the longer Mk 7 bullet.

The idea that flat-based bullets 'expand' and ride the grooves better is largely untrue. Any loss of accuracy is more likely due the the simple fact that boat-tails have more geometry that has to be accurately manufactured into the base of the bullet, and thus more chance for inconsistency, especially with FMJ bullets and the exposed lead base. Base geometry has a huge influence on accuracy. A look at Sierra's Matchking line-up, they are all boat-tails, except the 53 gr .224 and the 125 gr .308 (only 4%). If flat-based bullets were 'inherently' more accurate, you'd think a higher percentage of match bullets, intended for accuracy above all else, would be flat-based.

By the way, Balle D bullets were solid bronze, and used in both rifles and MGs.

 

[boom boom]

Boat-tails improve the drag coefficient, better velocity at longer ranges. That's why Mk 8 was used in the MG, they wanted better long range performance.

Inside 300 yards, the benefits of a boat-tailed bullet are marginal.

That said, both the Mk 7 and Mk 8 (or Mk VII and Mk VIII, before 1944) bullet had an aluminum tip to the core, and were longer than solid lead core bullets. Therefore, a modern lead core 175 grain flat based bullet would have a slightly worse drag coefficient than the longer Mk 7 bullet.

The idea that flat-based bullets 'expand' and ride the grooves better is largely untrue. Any loss of accuracy is more likely due the the simple fact that boat-tails have more geometry that has to be accurately manufactured into the base of the bullet, and thus more chance for inconsistency, especially with FMJ bullets and the exposed lead base. Base geometry has a huge influence on accuracy. A look at Sierra's Matchking line-up, they are all boat-tails, except the 53 gr .224 and the 125 gr .308 (only 4%). If flat-based bullets were 'inherently' more accurate, you'd think a higher percentage of match bullets, intended for accuracy above all else, would be flat-based.

By the way, Balle D bullets were solid bronze, and used in both rifles and MGs.

Regarding Balle D, from English language translations of French doctrine, Balle D was primarily designed to increase effective machine gun ranges as the Lebels were not designed to be particularly accurate at range but rather for close in battle. This interpretation goes with the French battle doctrine of cran and the idea that superior elan would compensate for material deficiencies. Thus, infantry charges and bayonets were considered more important than the French using accuracy at the distance. Except for colonial troops and calvary, the Berthiers appear to have been largely absent from the initial battles of WWI.

The Battle of the Frontiers proved that particular adage to be untrue. To the best of my knowledge, the French did not ascribe to the area fire doctrine that led the Brits to have volley sights but they could have.

I was discussing a used well worn bore or one that is out of spec as wartime Enfields often were. Boattails, just like flat base bullets, can be more accurate or less accurate in a particular rifle barrel.

The problem with a boattail bullet in a worn bore is that gas can escape on either side more readily as the boattail acts to funnel gas around the bullet to deleterious effect. The flat based tends to resist the gas blow by a bit better in a worn bore.