What does an Enfield really sell for these days

[Jack Stanley]

I'd like to get an idea what a Savage number four mk1 is worth these days . I see one on gunbroker for over five "C" notes and I'm just amazed , it wasn't very many years ago and they were two hundred bucks . Since there wasn't a bid on that particular rifle all I have is the sellers view point of what they are worth , so ok that's one , what do the rest of you think they sell for ?

Thanks , Jack

[Multigunner]

The earliest Savage contract rifles, the No.4 MkI vs the much more common No.4 MkI* should bring much more.
There may be some out there worth the price, but those would be very different from the run of the mill.
The earliest Savage Contract rifles were No.4 ( no Mk) "trials" rifles, some with six groove bores and magazine cut offs as well as the rear mounted bolt removal latch. These are worth a bit to say the least.

As for run of the mill No.4 MkI*. A very good condition correct full military trim example could run 300 bucks +/- a few bucks.
A Sporterized VG cond thats still restorable shouldn't cost more than 150 USD.

I'm going by what I myself would charge, not what I'd be willing to pay.

One may find either for far less if they've been on the rack of a shop for some time and the shop owner is willing to lower the price to move them out.

[bubba.50]

i paid $100.00 for the one i have now. it's in excellent condition other than the "sporterising" someone did to it. but a fore-arm/handguards, and bands from sarco will fix that.

doesn't seem that long ago that j&g sales and a couple other advertisers in sotgun news had'em for around 2bills with the savages runnin' a bit higher.

for what it's worth, bubba.

[doubs43]

I looked at six Enfields yesterday in a local gun shop and nearly laughed out loud at the completely out of reason prices on them. Three had been "customized" and two of those were #1 rifles. The three still in military trim were all #4 rifles and beat to hell. They wanted $200 for the cut up models and $300 for the #4's. Completely out of reason for what they were.

Some years back I had a Savage #4 Mk I with a six groove barrel in excellent condition. Later I had a #4 Mk 2 that was new in the mummy wrap. I sold both and wish I still had them. The only Enfield I still have is a #1 Mk III made in 1916 by LSA. It has the cut-off and a walnut stock. The rear sight is a windage adjustable model apparently not original to the rifle. The bore is pristine and it's VERY accurate.

BTW, when a seller tells you that the Savage rifles marked "U.S. Property" are rare and worth more than other Enfields, ask him who made more #4 Enfields than any other manufacturer. Yep, Savage did.

[sav300]

You want aussie prices on Enfields? Try used guns.com.au

[atr]

I recently sold a Savage No.4 MkI* two groove in very good condition,,,with a spotless bore
for $250.00

[doubs43]

You want aussie prices on Enfields? Try used guns.com.au

That reminds me of yet another rare Enfield I once owned. Going by memory alone, I believe that a run of 1,000 #1 rifles were produced at the Lithgow facility in 1956 to make certain that the machinery and tooling was still functional. I had one of those rifles in outstanding condition and foolishly sold it too.

[bubba.50]

forgot about those. i had a no.1 mk3 with lithgow under the bolt handle on the ring where the stock/fore-arm meet. it was in excellent condition except for some paint stripes that were regimental markings or some such. it was $39.95 when the local rose's store was closin' out. wish i'd'a bought all they had but it's true what they say about hindsight.

[Multigunner]

forgot about those. i had a no.1 mk3 with lithgow under the bolt handle on the ring where the stock/fore-arm meet. it was in excellent condition except for some paint stripes that were regimental markings or some such. it was $39.95 when the local rose's store was closin' out. wish i'd'a bought all they had but it's true what they say about hindsight.

Painted stripes are usually cadet school markings denoting condition of the rifle.
Green means the rifle is servicable, Yellow means safe to shoot but worn or has issues, Red means don't fire live ammunition not safe.

Sometimes good barreled actions were stocked using salvage cadet rifle or DP Drill rifle stocke sets, so its hard to say which might be in the original or proper wood.

[bydand]

Savage made trials rifles? ROTFLMAO! I have a 1931 trials rifle and it SURE AS HELL WAS NOT made by Savage!. Yes,It does have a mag cut-off
Many early ones were converted to T's as was this one.

Nice try Ed

[bydand]

While I am at it, Enfields can sell for a couple of hundred to well over a thousand depending on which model they are, and No4Mk1 T's are selling for INSANE prices.
We won't even talk about a L42A1 since they only released a certain number. Da Gubmint thinking it was safer to protect the innocent public by chopping them up!

[doubs43]

My local pawn dealer showed me a #4 Mk I* yesterday.... Longbranch, 1942. It has a 2-groove barrel and 2-position flip rear sight. Magazine has a sizable dent in it's bottom and all sling swivels are missing. The top of the buttstock at the rear is missing some wood. The bore was dirty so grading it wasn't possible. It's coming out of hock next week if the owner doesn't reclaim it.... which I doubt. I'm thinking between $100 & $125... maybe.

The only model Enfield I truly crave to own is the #1 Mk V. They didn't make many and they're very rare.

[Multigunner]

Savage made trials rifles?
Wrong term I suppose, "evaluation" rifles would serve better, early production or pre production examples the British would have tested to be sure Savage could manufacture a quality product. Not sure about the magazine cut off but these had the round button type cocking piece, rear mounted bolt release, and are said to have had six groove bores and been notably accurate rifles.

A true Trials rifle would have been a No1 MkVI , later standardized as the No.4. Some retained the cut off plate.

When pre war trials rifles ran out then BSA Shirley rifles were converted.

[Jack Stanley]

Sounds like prices are all over the place but then all that does depend on what the particular piece is and its condition . I recently saw one at a show , made by Savage that had been fitted with the adjustable rear sight instead of the flip sight . I think the tag was $275 .

I suppose the long and short of this is I don't have near the knowlege of Enfields to price anything but a shooter .

Jack

[218bee]

It seems like some guys try to get as much as possible when selling them.
Best bet is gun shows and local gunshops in my opinion....it seems most on GunBroker are overpriced and I dont like buying one without first fondling it a bit and looking at all things I forget to ask about.
Anyway it seems in my neck of the woods prolly $250-350 is going rate but I got one at an auction for $125 a few years ago.....so keep looking

[skeet1]

I paid $200.00 for my 1950 Longbranch No. 4 Mk1* about two years ago at the gun show in Tulsa. It has the usual stock dings but the barrel and metal are as new, a great gun. I have seen others in similar condition for around $300.00.

Ken

[roberto mervicini]

last fall paid $125 for Rifle No5 MK1( Jungle Carabine ) in excellent condition.
______
roberto

[Rio Grande]

last fall paid $125 for Rifle No5 MK1( Jungle Carabine ) in excellent condition.
______
roberto

Roberto, that'as not a typical price :)

$200 - $300-plus for a #4. $300-plus for a #5 - sometimes way-plus.

[roberto mervicini]

Roberto, that'as not a typical price :)

$200 - $300-plus for a #4. $300-plus for a #5 - sometimes way-plus.

The seller, older gentleman, just posted the ad on a french-canadian sight similar to Creig list, no picture just the description, I know it was a good deal and I jump on it ...transfer the fund before seeing it.... I got lucky!!
_______
roberto

[303Guy]

I wonder what an 1896 MLE MkI* cavelry carbine is worth? I have one. And it's a shooter. The woodwork is long 'sporterized'.

http://i388.photobucket.com/albums/oo327/303Guy/MVC-542F.jpg

[Multigunner]

I wonder what a 1896 MLE MkI* cavelry carbine is worth? I have one. And it's a shooter. The woodwork is long 'sporterized'.


Cool!
I really like the carbines, especially the swept forward bolt handle.

Probably the first high powered rifle I fired as a youngster was a M1917, and of course the bolt knob whacked the knuckle of my trigger finger hard enough that I don't even remember the recoil , just that whack on the knuckle.
Many years later when I got my first No.4 rifle on the first shot the bolt knob cracked my knuckle in just the same way.
I was pleased to read a period evaluation of the M1917 rifle, and even experianced Ordnance Officers were complaining about the bolt knob whacking their knuckle.
Once you get used to it this at least serves to remind one to not engage in stock crawling and the best position to avoid a bruised knuckle also encourages the proper finger position on the trigger.

Still I would probably alter the bolt handle if I ever got around to building a sporter on the stripped SMLE action I've put aside for that purpose.

With luck you may run across the parts needed to restore your carbine, but first check a few catalogs of BSA and other commercial sporters built on these actions.
If your carbine is now wearing cut down military wood it could be a cheap replacement stock used to put the old girl back in shooting condition after an original sporter stock bit the dust.

I stopped trading in rifles long ago, I figured I'd traded off too many nice ones that I should have held onto. Of course if I had kept all that passed through here I'd have to have another addition put on the old house just to store them.

[leadman]

Shoot from the left shoulder and you don't have to worry about the bolt handle.

I had a Savage "US Property" I sold about 6 months ago for about $250. I traded away another #4 MK1* since then. I am keeping my last one, a #4MKII, a really good shooter in excellent condition.

I may even take it along on the elk hunt this year.

[303Guy]

... carbines, especially the swept forward bolt handle.I'm not away of any Lee Enfields having swept forward bolt handles. I never had any issue with bolt handle strike but I have had my thumb being rudely shoved onto my nose! Those Lee Enfield stocks really were not made for long necked folks like me!

I originally was going to chop off the tip of the barrel to restore the crown sharpness but when I discovered it was an original carbine barrel I refrained. Paper patching proved it to be still pretty accurate.

[Multigunner]

I'm not away of any Lee Enfields having swept forward bolt handles.

I'm not sure which carbines had the swept forwards bolt handle, but I've seen several models with this feature. The handles were also very closely fitted to the stock , likely to better fit inton saddle scabbards.
These may have been Lee Metfords rather than Lee Enfields, but I think this feature was carried over.

Theres a photo of the BSA Lee Speed Officers carbine on this site, it has the flattened knob swept forwards bolt handle. The knob is checkered as well, a real class act.
http://www.rifleman.org.uk/Lee-Speed.htm

Lower on the page is a catalog illustration of models No.1 fitted for bayonet, No.2 not fitted for bayonet, and No.3 "trade pattern".
All with flatten swept forwards bolt handle.

The No.5 of course has a bolt more like that of the No.4, except for the hollow handle, which some No.4 rifles also had.



I never had any issue with bolt handle strike but I have had my thumb being rudely shoved onto my nose! Those Lee Enfield stocks really were not made for long necked folks like me!

I originally was going to chop off the tip of the barrel to restore the crown sharpness but when I discovered it was an original carbine barrel I refrained. Paper patching proved it to be still pretty accurate.


Best to counter bore if absolutely necessary, but if at all restorable even counter boring probably shouldn't be done.

PS
One might find a deactivated wall hanger with the necessary parts to restore your carbine.

[Jack Stanley]

303guy , is it just the short stocks that shove your thumb or do the longer stocks do it as well ? I can remember seeing number fours with two different length stocks .

Jack

[longbow]

The going rate in Canada depending on condition seems to range from about $200.00 to $500.00.

I lucked out a while ago and picked up a nice No. 4 for $150.00 and it came with a W & C Scott & Son side by 10 ga. (needs work but who can argue for $150.00!).

Longbow

[303Guy]

I can remember seeing number fours with two different length stocks That's new to me. I always thought they were all the same length.

It's just my long neck. I do well with short stocks and high scope mounts and low recoil. The emphasis being on low recoil!:mrgreen: Today I tried out a new load in my sporterized LE I* of 1902 vintage and didn't feel the need to pull it into my shoulder particularly tightly. It gave a nice push and deep 'boom'. 192gr boolit doing 2250 fps.

My Dad had a rifle with a flattened bold handle knob and close fit to the receiver but not forward swept that I can remember?! I'll have to check - interesting. This one is a sporter model with engraving and all. It now carries a new No4 barrel that I had fitted. I gave that rifle to my nephew-in-law. I wish I hadn't. Heck, it was my Dad's! Hopefully my young great-nephew will inherit it from his Dad. I've started taking the young fellow out hunting.

[Jack Stanley]

I think it was the late seventies that somebody got a large shipment of number fours and had them lined up on a rack at the gun show . I noticed the muzzles of some of them were shorter than the rifle next to them so I asked the owner . As it turns out this batch that was still wrapped , and had the serial number consecutive ( I think) and every other one had a buttstock that was about an inch shorter . The rest of the rifle was the same the rest of the rifle was normal . The fella said it was for the lads with the shorter length of pull .

Jack

[BruceB]

The easily-interchangeable butt-stocks on the #4 Rifles allowed the tailoring of length-of-pull to the soldier.

Canadian -issue lengths were Bantam ("B"), Short ("S"), Normal ("N"), and Long ("L"). There MAY have been an extra-long as well, but I don't recall for sure.

I'm also not certain if earlier Lee-Enfields were issued with different stock lengths.

The training cadre did make an effort to get the correct length fitted for each individual.

[Jack Stanley]

Thanks BruceB , Are the stocks marked in some way so that someone shopping gun show tables could easily tell ?

Jack

[Multigunner]

The easily-interchangeable butt-stocks on the #4 Rifles allowed the tailoring of length-of-pull to the soldier.

Canadian -issue lengths were Bantam ("B"), Short ("S"), Normal ("N"), and Long ("L"). There MAY have been an extra-long as well, but I don't recall for sure.

I'm also not certain if earlier Lee-Enfields were issued with different stock lengths.

The training cadre did make an effort to get the correct length fitted for each individual.


Strangely enough the "Bantam" butt stocks were developed during WW1 for companies of very small young men who insisted on being allowed to serve their country even though they were far below the minimum height and weight requirements for infantry.
Many who'd joined were not really in good enough condition to have handled the hardships, probably because their small stature was due more to malnutrition as youngsters, which was not incommon in England before WW1 and for many years afterwards, than if they'd been genetically small built.
Still some battalions served with great valor.
The extra short butts came in handy later on when heavy cold weather gear (Canada?)and increasingly bulky web gear got in the way, and also made handling rifles while in vehicles a bit easier.
These would also have been handy for native levies from countries where the population was fairly small.
I'd heard most if not all Irish contract No.4 rifles were fitted with the bantam butt stocks, no reason given.

The Bantam stock wouldn't have been universally useful in Asia, because pre WW2 most Asian professional soldiers were above average height.
During WW2 so many of the Chinese pre war professional military were killed early on that volunteers from provinces where the average person was much smaller resulted in attempts to create a shorter and lighter version of the U S M1917 rifle for their use. Photos of the time show Chinese officers standing together, some a foot and a half taller than others, and very different in appearance due to having come from the Northern regions.

[gew98]

"Strangely enough the "Bantam" butt stocks were developed during WW1 for companies of very small young men who insisted on being allowed to serve their country even though they were far below the minimum height and weight requirements for infantry.
Many who'd joined were not really in good enough condition to have handled the hardships, probably because their small stature was due more to malnutrition as youngsters, which was not incommon in England before WW1 and for many years afterwards, than if they'd been genetically small built."
Ah eddie... the bantams were organized...but it was'nt so much of "their insolent insistence" to serve as you equate it but the very fact England needed to bodies.

Now on enfields..jeez a mechanically sound matching original finish Enfield will always hold it's value and shooting qualities. Can't say the same for alot of other rifles of the same eras.
Couple months back I found a gorgeous No4Mk2 that is South African Naval marked and was rebarreled by South Africa in may/1960 - which has the lovely crossed rocket & rifle logo on th ebarrel Knox form. I paid $175 for it and it's matching throughout with a cherry bore.
A retired army buddy of mine recently acquired his late brothers arms & pointy things and in the lot was a flat new 1941 Lithgow No1 MkIII . It's only blemish is some fool sanded the wood many moons ago. As well in the lot was a flat new 1942 Remington 03 . We took all these rifles out into the back yard range. Now keep in mind my retired Army buddy has a mismatch No4 in military trim he uses for deer and it's spot on as a shooter. He shoots the lithgow and it's a dream though jis old eyes have a wee bit of trouble wiht the open sights. He shoots my south african No4 and it's dead nutz as well. He shoots the remington jobber and well...it's 6" plus high to the right and seems to increse it's right direction with every shot. Seems the flat new rifle has a problem with that delicate rear sight moving on it's own.
I used some heavy axle grease under the sight base to keep it from walking on it's own. Accuracy was still problematic - bad stock to barrel fit no doubt.
I pulled out my 1911 SMLE ( matching and not FTR'd ) and it is only out done in accuracy by my matching Patt'14.
So the old feller is gonna keep the lithgow , give the 03 to his grandson as it's about useless for anything but a wallhanger. I loaned him my copis of Ordnance went up fron and Shots fired in anger... he sees now that 'back then' the smart shooters had mucho problems wiht the issue 03's and he can now commiserate with them. But his two 303's..spot on nary a hiccup.
I have seen mismatch No4's in my area in the $175 - $200 range ( shooter not collector quality ). No1's that match minimally $400 and up if they have not been sanded or FTR'd. Patt'14's generally always over $300 as even mismatched they shoot damn good. Between the N1's, 4's and Patt'14 rifles they are accurate and durable and no dang delicate bits to fall off and or break.

[adrians]

i paid $200 for a plain ole ishy 2a1 ,,maybe a bit overpriced but heck i'm happy with it so there[smilie=l:

[303Guy]

You don't seem find Ishy's just lying around so that's probably a good price.

On the recoil causing thumb strike, be on the bolt handle or nose is really a moot point with cast in the Lee Enfield. Recoil just isn't sharp enough.

[Multigunner]

The first bantam battalions were recruited in Birkenhead, Cheshire, after Alfred Bigland, MP, heard of a group of miners who, rejected from every recruiting office, had made their way to the town. One of the miners, rejected on account of his size, offered to fight any man there, and six men were eventually called upon to remove him. These were men used to physicality and hard work, and Bigland, incensed at what he saw as the needless rejection of healthy men, petitioned the War Office for permission to establish an undersized fighting unit.

When the permission was granted, news spread across the country and men previously denied the chance to fight made their way to Birkenhead, 3,000 in all being divided into two battalions in November 1914. The requirement for their chest size was one inch more than the army standard.


Nothing "insolent" about demanding the right to serve. Conscription did not come about till later, so all Riflemen were enlistees at the time the Bantam Battalions were formed.
Only after many such outfits suffered high casualties, and they found that few healthy men of this size were left to serve as replacements, did these Battalions convert to regular service units with no distinction in size of replacements.
The Bantams were not a last resort bottom of the barrel bunch of draftees, they were tough little guys who wanted to prove themselves as good a man as any.



What was a bantam, or a bantam unit?
The bantam is a fighting cock; small but hardy and aggressive.

The formation of the bantams

In 1914 the Member of Parliament for Birkenhead, Alfred Bigland, pressed the War Office for permission to form a battalion of men who were under regulation size but otherwise fit for service. A few days later, some 3,000 men had volunteered, many of whom had previously been rejected as being under height.

The original men were formed into the 1st and 2nd Birkenhead Battalions of the Cheshire Regiment (later redesignated the 15th and 16th Bns). Other regiments began to recruit similarly: the Lancashire Fusiliers, West Yorkshires, Royal Scots, and Highland Light Infantry most notably. Many of the recruits were miners. Eventually these units were formed into the 35th Division.

Another Division, the 40th, had a mixture of bantam and regulation units, although it is generally recognised as a bantam formation.

The bantams were very popular at home and were often featured in the press. However, by the end of 1916, it was found that the general fitness and condition of men volunteering as bantams was no longer up to the standard required. Brigades were informed that no more undersized men would be accepted, and the Divisions lost their bantam status as replacements diluted the number of small men in the mix.


http://www.1914-1918.net/whatbantam.htm


So a WW1 SMLE with Bantam butt stock original to the rifle would have a special significance.

[bydand]

to answer the question on stock length, look at the top of the buttstock just in front of the buttplate. You could find a
B (bantam one inch shorter)
S (one half inch shorter)
L (one half inch longer)
Normal length buttstocks will not be marked
Black eyes are the result of creeping up on the stock
The M1 Garand knuckle in the eye is also a result of getting too close to the reat sight. (have seen that) LOL

I suspect that enlisting shorter soldiers was the result of Haig thinking that he could run the german machine gunners out of ammunition by providing them with as many targets as possible. Obviously that didn't work.

Of course it wasn't only short men, but also children who served in the trenches. Supposedly you had to be 18 to go "over there" but there were 14 and15 yr olds in the lines and even one example of a thirteen year old!!!! "Walk around the block agin, Me boy, and then tell me you are old enough" said the recruiting sgt.

Oh by the way, height restrictions didn't apply to the tunnlers where being short was an asset. The same men who were miners or those digging sewers in civillian life.

[bydand]

303 guy I sometimes wonder WHY some clown decided to "sportyize" a carbine that was ALREADY light an handy to start with.
I once bought a N.Z. carbine that some idiot had butchered the same way (only 250 made). It took me years to get it restored by a guy in Canada.
I never will understand WHY they think chopping an original military rifle makes it more valuable.
In the 1950's and 60's there were loads of surplus rifles around. That is NOT true today.
Saying that, there is a vast difference between a "basement hacksaw special" and those done by professional gunsmithing firms in the U.K. or sporting rifles done by the same firms who made standard issue rifles for the Government, BSA being one example

By the way, there ain't no such animule as a cheap replacement stock for an original carbine. They have to be made on a duplicating machine and you need an original to copy. The No5Mk1 RIFLE is NOT a carbine regardless of what the surplus dealers may call it. There is also the special handguard plus the nosecap. Been there, done that.

[atr]

just saw one in a gunshop on the OR Coast
$295.00 all military....real dark wood.....average condition...

[303Guy]

At least mine was nicely done with checkering and all. It looks OK but because of what it is I would like it to look original. The butt-stock is going to have a bit of artistic licence in that the one I use on it is sporterized - not the original one, just one that came with a rifle I bought. The fore-end should not be swapped arround due to bedding differences though. Perhaps one day I will make a copy. I've made one fore-end but not a copy.

[Multigunner]

303 guy I sometimes wonder WHY some clown decided to "sportyize" a carbine that was ALREADY light an handy to start with.
I once bought a N.Z. carbine that some idiot had butchered the same way (only 250 made). It took me years to get it restored by a guy in Canada.
I never will understand WHY they think chopping an original military rifle makes it more valuable.

Not all such stock alterations were by choice. At one t8me in some regions of the old Empire civilians were not allowed to own a former military rifle that could still accomodate a bayonet. A sort of prototype AWB.
There are a number of Lee Enfield and Lee Metford target rifles still to be found that are in stock military configuration other than the upper band and several inches of fore end being removed.
I've also seen images of a Native constabulary carbine given similar treatment. Not all carbines could accomodate a bayonet when first issued, so no need to alter those.

Badly split or broken fore ends were fairly common on milsurp Enfields sold here. Badly warped replacement stocks were also common, some so ridicuosly warped as to be unsalavagable except as a cut down sporter fore end.
Cracks and splits can be fixed but bad wood is a lost cause.



In the 1950's and 60's there were loads of surplus rifles around. That is NOT true today.
Saying that, there is a vast difference between a "basement hacksaw special" and those done by professional gunsmithing firms in the U.K. or sporting rifles done by the same firms who made standard issue rifles for the Government, BSA being one example

Thats a fact I've tried to impress on some with varying degrees of sucess.
I once ran across a thread on another board where a dozen or so collectors who should have known better were urging a newbie owner to "restore" "his bubba'ed" SMLE. Luckily someone who knew better stopped by and ID'ed the rifle as a fairly rare commercial sporter, worth many times as much as a bog standard SMLE.



By the way, there ain't no such animule as a cheap replacement stock for an original carbine. They have to be made on a duplicating machine and you need an original to copy. The No5Mk1 RIFLE is NOT a carbine regardless of what the surplus dealers may call it. There is also the special handguard plus the nosecap. Been there, done that.

I've seen others post of restoring Carbines using fore ends and bands salvaged from defunct wallhangers. Wood like that is not easy to find at the best of times.
A Carbine demilled to suit UK collector laws would be better used as a source of parts for restorations.
I remember one gentleman posted of using a good condition stripped action body and bolt found at a gunsmiths shop to restore a demilled wallhanger carbine.
Differing methods have been used to demill rifles over the decades. Some left most parts intact, while others leave a pitiful mess with little if anything salvagable. Wood is usually untouched unless drilled to expose a drilled through chamber or barrel.

There are stock makers who can turn out a duplicate of any stock or fore end, so long as they have something to go by. They use a pantograph type milling machine. The cutter heads are guided by a stylus run over the surfaces of a stock used as a master.
Shattered stocks can be glued and pinned together well enough to use as a master.

[303Guy]

I'm not sure which carbines had the swept forwards bolt handle, but I've seen several models with this feature.

http://i257.photobucket.com/albums/hh220/robertrogers_2008/Lee%20Enfield%20Cav%20Carbine%20Mk%201%20star/Picturesgunshow-59.jpg

This is what my Dads sporter looks like this but the action was made as a sporter and does not have the military stampings. It came with a 5 shot mag which was narrower so the bottom metal was opened a bit to accomodate the 10 shot mag.

[Rio Grande]

I saw a very nice #4 at a show here in Texas a couple of weekends back, matching and very good bore, all original, no Bubba....they were asking $270, but I'm sure $250 would have bought it. Private seller.

[midnight]

I'd say prices here in Wisconsin have doubled in the last 10-15 yrs. $125 & $200 used to be the going price for #4s and Jungle Carbines but they now bring $250 & $350. They are still a heck of a buy and they don't make them anymore.

Bob

[303Guy]

I've just put a scope on my mint two-groove No4. What a smooth action! Worth way more than the going prices. (I now have three No4's but I want one of them in full battle dress).