The Lee Enfield Family of Rifles
Two names; Lee and Enfield. For anyone remotely privy to small arms of the World Wars or indeed common and affordable milsurp rifles used for hunting in Canada or Australia or the UK, those names should be abundantly familiar. Lee, from James Paris Lee of Scotland who lived in Canada and the United States for a time, the inventor of the box magazine, had his family name applied to the Lee family of rifles for having designed the action. The 1888 Lee Metford was the beginning of what would become the Lee Enfield, which back then, fired a brand new .303 British cartridge which then used black powder.
That is where the story begins, back when the venerable .303 used a big round-nosed bullet, likely made of pure lead and seated atop a charge of black powder even though the French had invented smokeless powder (Poudre B as they called it) in 1886 for their Lebel rifle. That design revolutionized Military firearms overnight and rendered all other designs of the time obsolete, including the M1873 Springfield Trapdoor from the US and the tried-and-true Martini-Henry of Her Majesty Queen Victoria’s Military.
So, where does ‘Enfield’ come into it? It comes via the name it replaced, ‘Metford,’ which refers to the style of rifling in the barrel. The Metford rifling was just fine for black powder, but the hot smokeless cordite powder that was developed in the late ‘80s, that is 1880s, proved to be too much. If memory serves, less than 10,000 rounds would see to the Metford rifling being shot out, which is no good for a standard-issue Military rifle. It was replaced with Enfield rifling, which could survive a far greater round count and so in 1895 the Lee Enfield was born. There are various different models of Lee Metford and Lee Enfield that we could get bogged down into with different magazine styles, barrel lengths and so on and so forth so this piece will focus on the more mainstream ones. In 1907 is when we arrive at perhaps the most widely used model, or at least the initial variant of it. Replacing the MLE, “Magazine, Lee Enfield” or colloquially often referred to as the “Long Lee” or “Emily” (M-L-E), comes the SMLE, “Short, Magazine, Lee Enfield” or sometimes colloquially referred to as “Smelly” (S-M-L-E). A bit of a vulgar nickname, but likely generally used with endearment.
The initial SMLE was of the Mk.III (mark three) designation. It had a 25.2” (64cm) barrel which made it overall sufficient for both foot soldiers and cavalry. How things used to be done, the infantry would receive rifles with long barrels of typically 30” (76.2cm) or more and the cavalry would receive carbines that were significantly shorter. Over time, many Armed Forces were standardizing on a mid-sized rifle to improve logistics. Britain’s answer to that was the Mk.III SMLE.
The barrel was fully encased in its wooden stock, a fixed bayonet did not contact the barrel in the slightest which means in theory accuracy would not be affected by the application of a bayonet (though admittedly I have not tested this theory myself) and the rear sight was adjustable for both elevation and windage. Also present, a volley sight on the left-hand side of the stock, meant for volley fire at ranges in excess of 2000yd (1830m+) and a magazine cut-off. A worry of box magazines early on in their widespread use in the Military was that soldiers would recklessly burn through their munition quickly. As such, a magazine cut-off would, as the name implies, cut off access to the ammunition in the magazine thereby rendering the rifle to be a single-shot, requiring a fresh cartridge be inserted for each shot. When the enemy charges, the magazine cut-off can be disengaged and so the soldier (only under the strict orders of their officer in charge) may proceed to begin using the ammunition in the magazine. Then, only under the strict orders of their officer, they may reload their magazine to either utilize again, or engage the magazine cut-off to resume single-shot fire or to cease fire altogether.
In the early 1900s, it was still believed that line-formation and volley fire, as was widely seen throughout the 18th and 19th centuries, would still be the standard of war tactics. As such, soldiers were rigorously trained on how to stand, when to load, when to aim, when to fire, when to reload and so on. A fantastic source of old British uniforms and the orders that British soldiers followed back in the day, as recent as World War Two but also as far back or perhaps even earlier than the mid-19th century, is ‘britishmuzzleloaders’ on YouTube. A Canadian and given his tendency of wearing kilts, likely of Scottish descent. I digress, but again, if you’re interested in the ridged and orderly ways of line formation from well over a century ago, he’s your man. You’ll know you found him when you found the moustache that alone could win a war.
The Mk.III Lee Enfield would see its true trial by fire 7 years after its adoption. Summer 1914, the onset of World War One. The vicious nature of that conflict would change Military tactics forever, but so too did it require changes to the Lee Enfield. Not so much to improve performance, it seemed to perform well, at least well enough that the Australians and Indians would go on to use the platform for decades to come right through World War Two and the Korean War. In 1915, the Mk.III* (mark three star) was developed. For the most part it was a standard Mk.III but without the volley sights, magazine cut-off, and the rear sight had its windage adjustable feature done away with. Some transitional models may have a combination of Mk.III and Mk.III* features, since why waste the Mk.III parts that had already been manufactured? Stop manufacturing them but still use what’s already been made.
The Mk.III* platform, as mentioned, would go on to see use for decades to come. The next big development would be in 1939, though not adopted until 1941. The №4 Mk.I (number four mark one) Lee Enfield. The notch-and-post tangent sights were replaced with long-radius aperture sights, meaning instead of a post in a notch, there was a post that was to be centred within a circle. Initially designed with a flip-up ladder style of sight, with a knob that you can turn to raise or lower the rear aperture, the design was simplified for the sake of mass-production for World War Two. A 300yd (274m) ‘battle sight’ and for longer range engagements, it can be flipped for 600yd (548m). Only two positions, much like many submachine guns at the time though those were generally for 50/100, whether it be in yards or meters. The №4 also utilized a far thicker barrel than the Mk.III which improved accuracy and was also mostly floating in the stock save for the underside of the stock applying a measured amount of pressure on the barrel.
According to ‘EnfieldAccurizing’ on YouTube, the Mk.III was designed to manage 2–4” or 5–10cm at 100yd (91m), which is on par with the U.S. Rifle Rifle, Caliber .30, M1, better known as the M1 Garand. The later №4 Mk.I, with its focus set to improving the accuracy of the Mk.III, was designed to manage within 2” or 5cm from the factory at 100yd (91m). This is skipping a design, but the later №4 Mk.2 (they stopped using Roman numerals for the ‘mark’ designation at some point in the 1940 or ’50s) saw to an alteration being done to the trigger to further improve accuracy. This was done retroactively to many №4 Mk.I Lee Enfields, giving them the designation №4 Mk.I/2. There was also the №4 Mk.I* which, like the Mk.III*, sought to decrease the cost per unit. The №4 Mk.I had a new button-style of removing the rear sight but the Mk.I* reverted to a more Mk.III style of bolt removal which was cheaper and faster. Overall, to my understanding, the №4 is cheaper to produce than the Mk.III* platform.
So, what was the design that I had skipped over in mentioning the №4 Mk.2? It is a design that saw some use at the tail end of World War Two; the №5 Mk.I Lee Enfield, or colloquially known as the “Jungle Carbine.” Very neat nickname, and allegedly invented to improve sales on the commercial market. The №5 (which never saw any variants beyond the Mk.I to my understanding) was produced between 1944–1947. With its shorter barrel of 18.8” (48cm) it weighed nearly 1kg (2.2lb) lighter than the №4 which was itself 4.11kg or 9.06lb, which puts the №5 at around 7lb. Lighter weight means more felt recoil, so the brass buttplate with its trapdoor housing a bottle of oil and a pull-through rope for cleaning the bore with a padded buttplate. It will likely be of little use these days, however. Those pads, allegedly, have hardened significantly over the past 70+ years.
What also comes with a shorter barrel is a larger muzzle flash, since the powder spends less time in the barrel igniting which means there’s more powder going off at the end of it when the bullet escapes. Therefore, a conical muzzle flash was included to help with that matter. One last sort of standard-issue infantry variant of the Lee family of rifles is one comes quite late and originates in India. The Ishapore 2A and 2A1. I’ll take a brief moment to identify some of the most common names for the rifles of different national origins. Longbranch Lee Enfields are from Canada (of which, to my knowledge, there are no Mk.III variants). Savage are from the United States, Lithgow (pronounced lith-go) are Australian, and Ishapore are Indian. Others would be from England, save for commercially-made AIA Lee Enfields in .308 made in Australia.
That last mention leads us nicely into what makes the Ishapore 2A/2A1so fascinating. Not only was it designed so recently in 1962 and in service since 1963, but it’s chambered in 7.62 Nato as per Nato requirements. So the Indians wanted to stick with the venerable Mk.III* style of rifle at least as a platform kept in reserve, but .303 was unacceptable due to Nato standardization, thus they had to make the change. It is allegedly the last bolt-action designed for a Military Force that isn’t specialized for sniping. Produced until 1974, roughly a quarter-million were made. The Indian Army no longer uses them, but they are still in use by the Indian Police.
In terms of the ‘sniping’ role, Lee Enfields have been modified in World War One for such a purpose, but more predominately known is the №4 Mk.I(T). At the top of this piece, the very first image, Sergeant Harold A. Marshall holds that designation of Lee Enfield. Again according to ‘EnfieldAccurizing’ on YouTube, the №4 Mk.I(T) required 5 rounds within 1” (2.5cm) at 30yd (27.4m), 5 rounds within 3” (7.5cm) at 100yd (91m), 7 rounds within 5” (12.5cm) at 200yd (182m), and 6 out of 7 rounds within 10” (25cm) at 400yd (364cm).
Nato standardization enters the fray once again with the L42A1, in which №4 Mk.I(T) rifles were converted to 7.62 Nato, and such conversions were used from 1970 through to roughly the end of the Cold War in 1990.
For a less specialized role it can also be mentioned that the Canadian Rangers, for whom the №4 Lee Enfield appears on their badge/logo, used the №4 Lee Enfield right through to the mid-late 2010s. Perhaps with some even being used by Canadian Rangers a full 130 years after the initial 1888 Lee Metford, in 2018.
Even the L42A1 that was mentioned had seen frontline use, including the in Gulf War, as recently as 1990 or maybe even 1991 over 100 years since the Lee bolt was designed in 1888.
Such concludes much of the history of the Lee family of rifles, from .303 to 7.62 Nato, and believe it or not, there are AIA-manufactured №5 variants made on the commercial market chambered in 7.62x39 and uses AK/Kalashnikov magazines.
This is essentially my first written piece for the Canadian University Shooting Federation and I hope you enjoyed it. You can contact me via the link below where you can direct any comments or criticism.
To reach Norman, contact info@cusf.ca
