Scoping a No. 4 Enfield?

[Blackwater]

I have a No. 4 Brit Enfield that I want to scope. I'm aware of some of the mounts that are available, but none quite suit me or, I think, this particular rifle. I want to make it into a facsimile of the old Brit Sporting Rifles of the early to middle days in Africa. I think I've found the stock I want, but I want the scope mount to look like it "fits" on this rifle. Any recommendations would be appreciated. The Enfields don't have the most flowing lines, so I'll be polishing and sanding/bead blasting different parts of it to give it a more pleasing visual texture. If anyone has an idea how to do this or what mount can be modified to give it a nicer profile, I'd really appreciate your relating it here. I suspect others would be interested also.

[Petrol & Powder]

Most of the mounts that I've seen on Enfields place the scope way too high above the receiver. Even when combined with a cheek rest they are rather tall. The mounts typically attach to the left side of the receiver or use some type of front band that encircles the barrel.
If you're sporterizing it anyway, the Lee-Enfield may be a candidate for an extended eye relief scope mounted forward of the action in Scout rifle fashion. That would allow you to retain the stripper clip feed and good access to the magazine from above.
In any event, I would stay away from large objective scopes, you want the scope to be as thin and short (vertically) as possible.

Just my $0.02 worth.

[Outpost75]

Here is how mine was done, mount machined from one piece, scope offset to permit charger reloading, unobstructed use of the battlesights. Uses Ruger rings. All it takes is MONEY and a clever gunsmith with a Bridgeport mill.
151342151343151344

I started with a No. 4 Mk2* Long Branch. My "Bush Rifle" was inspired by Major Blashford-Snell' s expedition rifle and has a heavy hammer-forged 22” barrel, P.14 front sight, is glass bedded in the DCRA style, with custom scope mount screwed, pinned and the pin heads TIG welded to the scope base.

I carried for years a copy of the British magazine Shooting Times and Country, which had a detailed article and pictures of Major Blashford-Snell’s “expedition rifle” which was converted from a No.4 Mk.I*T sniper. Blashford-Snell was a CBI vet who had been an adviser to Wingate's Chindits. Most of Blashford-Snell’s African postwar "expeditions" were conducted under auspices of the British Museum, though knowing what we do now about what was going on at the time, I expect Mi6 might have been the real client. His "bush rifle" put together by Holland & Holland, started from a No.4 Sniper, shortened to make a short, half-stocked, scoped, heavy barreled jungle carbine in 7.62mm NATO.

While my first thought was to convert to 7.62 NATO, I was convinced otherwise and stuck with the .303.
I spoke with UK NRA and DCRA gunsmiths at GREAT length. They said that there were always "issues" of one sort or another trying to make a reliable-feeding 7.62 rifle on the No.4. While the Long Branch and Savage receivers had better steel than UK production and were strong enough, feeding was never 100%. Also, when shot "alot" headspace loosened and it was necessary to refit the next larger bolt head "before the barrel was shot out." So, I was advised in strongest possible terms to forget about building a 7.62, but to keep the rifle in its original .303 caliber, because I would be much happier.

I was assured that it was completely OK to go ahead and use a match quality .308 groove diameter barrel, of 10-inch twist, to enable use of common US bullets and stabilize everything. You could shoot ordinary .303 ammo down the .30 caliber barrel without issue and everything would be just fine. I was skeptical at first of that claim, but was able to obtain radial copper pressure test barrels with both .303 British and US cal. .30 rifling dimensions, by Boots Obermeyer and tested them with Cdn and UK military, US and Cdn. commercial as well as handloads with Sierra and Hornady bullets of both diameters. Yes, pressure is higher, but it is not dangerous, the resulting sample averages being within design limits of a sound Long Branch, essentially +3500 psi or 48,000 max vs. 44,500 max. - much less than 7.62 NATO at 52,000 which gave problems with bolts compressing, receivers stretching and less than stellar magazine feeding.

The WW2 style battlesight is zeroed with the two apertures for 200 and 400 yards with 180-gr. Remington ammo. You can use iron sights or scope at will and stripper clip load from the top. The scope comes off or goes back on easily without loss of zero. The barrel is 7.62 NATO blank of 4-groove government form, the chamber cut with the SAAMI .303 British pressure-velocity test barrel reamer. This is a minimum chamber which does not blow the shoulder forward like the Military chambers do. Indeed, it shoots any factory .303 Brit ammo fine, or handloads with common .308 diameter bullets. Brass life is quite good. A solid 2-1/2 moa rifle with good lots of ball ammo, and about 1.5 moa with handloaded Sierras. Good enough.

Its short-stroke bolt and 10-shot magazine give it good rate of fire. I shot it at the Cherry Ridge, NJ Infantry Trophy Matches, starting with full magazine I could bang those off, reload with two strippers and usually get the second ten off in 50 secs. at 500 and 600 with enough hits on the "E" silhouette to get bonus points. I scored about the same with it as I did my issue-grade M1 Garand. It is true that one will get off a few more shots with the M1, but my hits per string were the same until I got back to 300 yards, where the Garand has the clear advantage in sitting rapid by not having to work the bolt.

100-yd. test Gibbs Rifle Co. (Martinsburg, WV) No. 4 Long Branch Carbine, "Historical Recreation"- CENTER BEDDED

Ammunition---Avg Five Consecutive 5-shot groups at 100 yds with issue iron sights, fired from sandbags

------------------------------------------ LARGEST-----------Smallest---------AVERAGE
Greek HXP ball, 1975-------------------4.1-------------------2.4----------------3.9

Remington 180-gr. SPCL---------------3.9-------------------2.3----------------2.9

WW2 GB43 Mk.VII (Cordite)-----------8.5-------------------3.0----------------6.7

This is the best which can be hoped for using an issue barrel and stock with original chamber, properly bedded, without glass. This Gibbs historical recreation is no longer available, but was a more accurate rifle than original No. 5 carbines, and equal to the best standard No.4 rifles because it is simply a cut-down standard No.4 Mk2* fitted into a new jungle carbine stock. The cut down No. 4 barrel is stiffer and more rigid than original carbine barrels. Fitting the No.5 carbine flash hider on the muzzle adds some dampening. Also, the No.4 receiver does not have the lightening cuts which WW2 carbines did. When assembling these rifle new barrels and wood were fitted, and they were assembled by former Parker-Hale gunsmiths who had been trained in UK. They were good rifles out of the box and the test sample did not suffer from the "wondering zero" common of No.5s.

================================================== ===============
100-yd. test of No.4 Long Branch "Bush Rifle" 7.62 barrel chambered .303 British - CENTER BEDDED

Ammunition -------Avg five consecutive 5-shot groups at 100 yds., Weaver K4 scope, from sandbags

------------------------------------------ LARGEST-----------Smallest---------AVERAGE
Greek HXP 75 Ball-----------------------4.2-------------------2.5----------------3.3

Remington 180-hr. SPCL----------------3.1-------------------1.5----------------2.3

WW2 GB43 Mk.VII (Cordite)------------7.0-------------------2.4----------------4.6

HL, LC87 M118 pulls, 42 RL-15---------2.6-------------------1.2----------------2.2

HL, Sierra 175MK, 40 IMR4064---------2.5-------------------1.1----------------1.7

This is the reasonable expectation of a hunting rifle, set up with .30 cal. barrel and .303 chamber.

[yovinny]

You want a battle rifle or a hunting rifle ?
For hunting rifle, cut off the charging bridge and rear sight, grind it all into flowing lines
Cut the barrel to get rid of the big brush catcher up front and re-crown.
Then you can use a plain old Williams side mount....Or for more class, find an old G&H flat plate mount.
The Williams will place the scope almost like the side mount in the pic above, but I believe a little lower and more to center....Too low to retain the top hand guard with a belled scope.
Use standard rings, not the off set ones. The off set ones are actually off set too much and place the scope to the right of center on a lee enfield.
If you still want open sights, you can still mount a Williams wgrs on the barrel and use a low front ramp.

Though,,, lee enfields arent $39. anymore and you'd probably be $$ ahead just selling it and buying a nice 700.

Just my .02
Cheers, YV

[Petrol & Powder]

I think you retained all of the best qualities of the Lee-Enfield while improved upon what could be improved.

That's a nice rig and an excellent write up. Thank You for sharing that Outpost

[Outpost75]

I think you retained all of the best qualities of the Lee-Enfield while improved upon what could be improved.

That's a nice rig and an excellent write up. Thank You for sharing that Outpost

Could not afford doing it today, but when I worked in the industry and had a Universal Receiver, a budget for test and experimental work, and was trying to develop load data to assemble .303 SLAP ammo and to see if it would function a BREN and defeat the belly armor of an Mi24, the rest was easy....

[Petrol & Powder]

I know what a BREN gun is and the Soviet Hind, What is SLAP?

Self Loading Armor Piercing ?

[Artful]

SLAP as in Saboted Light Armor Penetrator
http://www.ammo-one.com/7.62x51SLAPprototype1984.jpg
http://i131.photobucket.com/albums/p289/jefferyc22/Ammo/090707_162346.jpg
http://i699.photobucket.com/albums/vv360/wolfganggross/cutaays%203/cutaways3010.jpg (http://s699.photobucket.com/user/wolfganggross/media/cutaays%203/cutaways3010.jpg.html)

[Outpost75]

Yup, when the 7.62mm SLAP program was discontinued, in favor of the Cal. .50, a project was undertaken to load-assemble-pack most of the remaining components into .303 British cases to get to the Afghans who were then fighting the Soviets. BRL developed the load data, 11th MI Co. performed the functional trials on the test ammo and the stuff was loaded into leftover WW2-era primed .303 cases with sterile headstamp, which remained in inventory. The powder was WC680 and the rounds worked fine.

The reason the cartridges were not safety certified and the 7.62 program was discontinued was that when the M60 and M134 barrels got hot, there was a problem of the penetrator setting back in the sabot, because it didn't have a steel "pusher plate" as did the Cal. .50, and the penetrator would get started cockeyed in the bore and exit through the side of the barrel!

The Lee Enfields and BRENS had a lower enough rate of fire that the risk of set-back wasn't as much a concern as blowing up the guns, so velocity and pressure were limited on the .303 rounds, compared to the 7.62, but penetration was still much better than .303 AP ammo.

[Petrol & Powder]

Got it, thanks.

[Blackwater]

Thanks for all the info. This one already has a new barrel on it in a .35/.303 improved caliber, and it's heavier than my Whelen's Shilen #4 contour, so I'd rate it at about a #5 contour, or thereabouts. I'll be stocking it soon, I hope, and the scope thing is really bugging me. I want it low and central over bore. Don't need strippers for the uses I have in mind, but my aging eyes just plain NEED optics if I'm to do any really good shooting with it, I'm afraid. I've thought about cutting the big rear sight off, as suggested, cleaning up the lines, and making a side mount to fit. I really like the pinned and welded thing. Should be a really good way to go and have it really sturdy, immobile and yet detachable. I should be able to gain access to a mill to do this.

I'd really like to retain the std. military rear sight with flip up ladder, and just make a new front sight for it, but the lower mounted scope would be more desirable, so it's kind'a looking like it's decision time. I'd hoped there was some "magic" way to get both, but knew that was unlikely. Figured if anyone would know that "magic" way it'd be you guys. There's an awful lot of talent and experience and ingenuity here, and I'm actually kind'a used to having to make decisions between one thing and another, so now I'm leaning toward cutting the rear sight off and going with the lower mounted scope. Can always put a Williams on as a stand in, as suggested, or maybe even keep a Wms./Lyman peep handy.

I really like this rifle, and have long liked the strange looking Enfield actions. One very accomplished shooter friend of mine in VA who just gave me a new puppy turned to his excellent shooter wife, and said, "Look at this. Ever seen an automatic bolt action?" He lifted the bolt, and it "automatically shot backwards to the fully open position. She wasn't familiar with the Enfields, but he knew them well, and appreciated what those old Brits did with them, particularly in WWII.

The caliber ought to be a real whomper in the swamps, and if we ever get inundated with lions or tigers or bears, I think it'd prove up to some eradication. We just don't have many here, so I guess it's already doing a good job of keeping them at bay?

As stated above, it'd probably be cheaper to just go get a rifle off the shelf, but it'd never be what this one is wanting to be, or have its class and character, and that's important to me these days. The more rifles get cheapened and then hawked with all manner of marketing claims, the less I like them, and the more I tend to want to turn to guns made in an era I can identify better with. I think this one's gonna' have some real class, AND utility. I really like it. Making these type decisions as above is usually the hardest part, and thanks for the suggestions and comments and expanding info. Keep it coming if you have more. I really appreciate it.

[Outpost75]

The .35/.303 would be a really great hunting round. I think you are on the right track.
I look forward to reading your updates on the project.

[Frank46]

There was an article regarding scoping the #4 rifle. Now before you laugh just take a minute and listen. get a piece of 1/4" 2"x2" angle iron. just clamp it on the left side of the receiver. Scribe a center line as close to the center of the action. Then using a weaver base for a marlin 336 locate drill and tap the three or four holes. Round off all sharp edges on the top of the angle iron and on the left side drill a hole for the ejector screw. Once you've done that then drill and tap for 4 mounting screws. Disassemble, file and polish and either have your smith blue it or just cold blue. For a little class get the same angle iron in bronze. My description probably leaves a lot to be desired but you get the idea. Frank

[screwcutter]

I posted a pic of this mount in one of your other Enfield posts.
Here are some pics in progress,151494151495 I cut off the charging bridge, leaving part of the left side to act as a recoil spot. Drilled 2 mount holes and mounted angle to receiver, the mounted in Forster jig to make pilot holes for making dual dovetail mount holes. Made a dovetail hole cutter from a 5/8th drill bit and made the dovetail hole cut on the bottom of the angle, then filed the hole so the dovetail tab would fit. Then installed dual dovetail ring with an extension ring in front. Here is left side pic and a whole rifle.151492151493
Here is a link to the mount Frank described, http://www.303british.com/id32.html
mr

[Blackwater]

Thanks again, guys. Good info, and helps me believe I'm kind'a at least on the right track. I've about made up my mind to cut off that rear sight so I can mount the scope lower. This will be purely a sporting arm for hunting, and I'm a stock crawler, and low mounted scopes aid my shooting quite a bit, so it looks like the better decision is to let that good and very tough old military sight go in favor of greater utility and efficiency with a good scope. Heaven knows, I NEED some optics these days, and it's not promising to get any better, either. The son and grandboys who'll wind up with it one day also like scopes, too, which is one of the reasons I wanted to keep the irons if I could. They can't learn to use irons if they don't have a rifle to learn on.

And Outpost, I'll post when I can, but this is going to be a slow motion project. I just got enough steel, etc. to make 10 knives for Christmas, and that's going to set me back a bit on the project. A gunsmith buddy said he wanted to GIVE me a blank of English walnut! WOW! Now THAT is a FRIEND! But I'll pay for it. Can't accept that much from him! Pride an' all, ya' know?

I love being distraught by all the decisions involved in making up a good rifle. Seems I'm never happy unless I'm miserable and stumped in a project like this. Ain't it funny how that works?

[KLR]

I'm going to re-scope my Enfield this winter as well. I want to make the mount lower and lighter. Also going to fit a higher buttstock that will give me a better cheek weld. May grind off the charger bridge and rear sight ears too.

Screwcutter and any others that have an extremely low mount- Do you have any problems with ejection?

Here's my version:

http://i424.photobucket.com/albums/pp330/305178/EnfieldMount2_zps1d2168a5.jpg (http://s424.photobucket.com/user/305178/media/EnfieldMount2_zps1d2168a5.jpg.html)

http://i424.photobucket.com/albums/pp330/305178/EnfieldMount_zpsa8afcb9d.jpg (http://s424.photobucket.com/user/305178/media/EnfieldMount_zpsa8afcb9d.jpg.html)

[nekshot]

I have a pic on the forum called lee mannlicher or something like that, it shows what I did using a weaver rest for a smle and retaining all the guns parts except for removing the rear sight of my mk 4. I think it looks great but my computer does not allow me to download pics.

[screwcutter]

KLR,
I had to work to make sure I had ejection clearance, it was worth it. I have a S&K no gun smith mount I use to test my as issued stuff. This is my prototype just to see if it would work, like Blackwater I can't work with a high mounted scope. I left the rear sight mount on just in case.151550

[Der Gebirgsjager]

Outpost75, just curious, why didn't you use a premium .303 barrel for the project; or .303 ammo necked down to accept .308 bullets for the .308 barrel? Nice looking rig.

[Mhars]

Special Interest Arms has the lowest siting scope rail for Enfields that I know of. Along with some very interesting Enfield conversions.

[Outpost75]

Outpost75, just curious, why didn't you use a premium .303 barrel for the project; or .303 ammo necked down to accept .308 bullets for the .308 barrel? Nice looking rig.

I had several suitable 7.62 barrels available and ready to go. Ordering a purpose-built .303 barrel would have cost more and entailed more delay than I wanted to wait. I was mostly interested in handloading, and for other than academic curiosity had no plans to rely on arsenal or factory-loaded commercial .303 ammo, although I later came into some and it works fine in the rifle.

The Sierra .311" 174-grain MK does shoot a bit better than the .308" 175-grain MK, because the .311 bullet fits the .303 throat better. Two grain reduction in powder charge with RL15 and the .311 bullet to get the same 2440+/-30 velocity

[Der Gebirgsjager]

Thanks for the reply.

I've never scoped a Lee Enfield, but have scoped Krags which present somewhat the same problem of usually using a side mount.

The first problem seems to be getting the scope over the bore if possible. Some find the scope off to the left side distracting and inconvenient--I do not, any more than I find the magazine hanging down on an 1891 Mauser to be more of a problem than the flush magazine of the 1898 Mauser. Really a matter of balancing personal taste vs. utility.

But if the scope over the bore, having it mounted as low as possible, plus retaining use of the original sights for use if the scope breaks is the goal, then the only way I can think of to approach the problem is with a hinged mount that can be swung away over to the left when needed. I do not know of any that are ready made, but have seen them upon rare occasions on other rifles. It would have to be a one off custom job, but I see so much talent on this thread that I'm sure it could be done. It would just require a stiff enough design that when the scope was swung back to center it would still be zeroed and a positive lock. I sort of remember a German sniper scope mount with that feature.

On the last Krag I scoped I used a long discontinued set of Williams rings to bring the scope over the bore and still permit use of the receiver sight, but they're getting harder to find and might be higher than Mr. Blackwater desires. His quest for a British-type safari rifle would seem to demand a classic style stock with perhaps a simple cheek piece, but without a little higher comb as in the example below. Otherwise, I'd suggest the most practical solution to be trying to find one of these old mounts and adapting it to the Lee Enfield. Ejection has not proven a problem on the Krag shown, and probably wouldn't be on a Lee Enfield either (but I don't know for certain). The one problem that I did run into in scoping this rifle was that I found the distance between the windage/elevation adjustment housing and the front bell to be a problem and couldn't find a conventional scope to fit the spacing. Finally I solved the problem with this fixed power 2.5 Bushnell Banner, which works very well but might look a bit odd to some. I have three rifles with scout-type mounts, and they work o.k. once you get used to them, but prevent use of the original sights and alter the balance of the rifle from handy to clunky.


151578151579151580

[KLR]

KLR,
I had to work to make sure I had ejection clearance, it was worth it. I have a S&K no gun smith mount I use to test my as issued stuff. This is my prototype just to see if it would work, like Blackwater I can't work with a high mounted scope. I left the rear sight mount on just in case.

Thanks, for the pic, Screwcutter, do you have any idea how much your mount system weighs? I want to come up with as low and light mount as possible.

[Blackwater]

Screwcutter, is that illustration the S&K or your mount? I kind'a like the looks of it.

And Nekshot, I'm about to search for your post. Very interesting stuff here, especially since not many tend to work on Enfields any more, and those that do don't talk about them as much as they probably might.

These are the projects where the experience and judgment and ingenuity of others REALLY comes into play and is appreciated. Thanks, guys!

[Blackwater]

Well, I've searched using the search feature, and went back through the last 15 pages here, and I found a pic of your Mannlicher, Nek, and it's very nice. THAT rifle has character and class, which sets it apart from most of the off the shelf stuff sold today. Ya' done good! Couldn't make out much about the mount, though, but thanks for the effort and ref.

I'm kind'a anal retentive about these things, and I don't really know what it is that I really want, but I'm sure I'll recognize it if I could just see it. I guess that's just the price I pay for being so particular about these things. I want it to LOOK good and work good too. That's not really all that easy with a No. 4, but you guys have given me some ideas, and I really appreciate that. It's going to be as interesting for me to see what I come up with as it is for other lovers of the old Enfields. I sure wish I could just mash the fast forward button and get there, but then I'd miss all the stuff that makes it all interesting, wouldn't I?

Again, thanks for all the help, and anyone with any suggestions is very much welcome to chime in on any aspect of this rifle. I'm never so humbled as when I see some of your work. Great stuff!

[BigEyeBob]

I have a No. 4 Brit Enfield that I want to scope. I'm aware of some of the mounts that are available, but none quite suit me or, I think, this particular rifle. I want to make it into a facsimile of the old Brit Sporting Rifles of the early to middle days in Africa. I think I've found the stock I want, but I want the scope mount to look like it "fits" on this rifle. Any recommendations would be appreciated. The Enfields don't have the most flowing lines, so I'll be polishing and sanding/bead blasting different parts of it to give it a more pleasing visual texture. If anyone has an idea how to do this or what mount can be modified to give it a nicer profile, I'd really appreciate your relating it here. I suspect others would be interested also.


There was a company here in Australia called Field Industries , they manufactured a very nice side mount for the 303 ,made from aluminium .
They also made scopes under the field name .
Unfortunately the Company is no longer in business , but the mounts are still around , they appear on Oz Gun sales quite often .
Just recently I purchased a Field side mount and adapter plate complete with screws for $100 AUD to fit a MKIII Enfield .

Also check with Andrew Sansome at Premium Optics here in Australia (http://www.premiumopticsaustralia.com.au/category/mounts/) he often has hard to get mounts for sale .
I just bought an Ausinel side mount and a bridge mount from the same maker from him , these mounts use the Hillver type rings.
The side mount is going to be fitted onto my BSA Custom Lee Metford actioned 303 along with a period German scope.

The No4T was the scoped version ( sniper version) of the 303 , if you are lucky enough to find a mount from that version you will not have to remove your flip up rear sight as it was a side mounted affair and I believe in alignment of the bore .The original MK32 scopes appear here from time to time but in working condition demand big dollar prices .
There is a Chinese company called Red Star or Red Sun producing mounts and copies of the Mk32 scopes which are almost as perfect as you will get bar the originals .A friend of mine here in Australia has been testing the Chinese copy for some time and tells me that they are an exact copy and work and function just like the original .

Kev.

[Blackwater]

Thanks, Bob. I knew you Aussies have a lot of experience with these guns, and hoped to get some input from you. Unfortunately, I'm just ethnocentric enough to not want to put a Chinese mount on this particular gun. I'm trying (we'll see how it turns out) to re-create something like those early African white hunters might have used. A Chinese mount just wouldn't sit right with me on that, but thanks for the refs, and I'll look into them, but right now, I'm pretty well settled in on making my own. I want it to be all steel, if possible. I just got some knife steel, and 5160 is good stuff, takes a blue well, and is tough, being the same stuff Chevy truck leaf springs are made of IIRC. I just want it to be solid, so it'll take a knock now and then, and may wind up bolting and then welding a side mount together using some of that. It's really not very expensive, and ought to make a fine mount that'll last and be solid and take a serious knock if it's designed and executed well.

Anybody got advice on this steel as a mount? I like the price, the way it'll blue, strength and toughness. Seems to me like a good choice.

I worked in the lab of a local cast iron foundry for over a year back in my college days, and got to talk with the metalurgist about this sort of thing, and he was very helpful, especially after finding I knew at least a little about metalurgy from my reading of guns & knives, etc. I realize I know just enough to get myself in trouble if I'm not careful, which is always the way with anything as technical as this. I know others have used even milder steels to good effect, and this may well be overkill, but I'm not averse to that when it comes to scope mounts at all. I want a mount that'll stand more than any scope will, and with a side mount, that seems to me to be a possibility, at least. I've never done anything quite like this before, which is the reason for my inquiry here. Any insights and comments are welcome and appreciated on any of this. The more I know going in, the better things usually work coming out. I learned that LONG ago,but don't ask how. It'd probably be embarassing to me!

[kc2gvs]

Anyone try the reproduction no4(t) scopes and mounts offered arround? Something around 600 bucks is stiff, but if it is a 1:1 recreation, i think it'd be worth it.

[BigEyeBob]

Thanks, Bob. I knew you Aussies have a lot of experience with these guns, and hoped to get some input from you. Unfortunately, I'm just ethnocentric enough to not want to put a Chinese mount on this particular gun. I'm trying (we'll see how it turns out) to re-create something like those early African white hunters might have used. A Chinese mount just wouldn't sit right with me on that, but thanks for the refs, and I'll look into them, but right now, I'm pretty well settled in on making my own. I want it to be all steel, if possible. I just got some knife steel, and 5160 is good stuff, takes a blue well, and is tough, being the same stuff Chevy truck leaf springs are made of IIRC. I just want it to be solid, so it'll take a knock now and then, and may wind up bolting and then welding a side mount together using some of that. It's really not very expensive, and ought to make a fine mount that'll last and be solid and take a serious knock if it's designed and executed well.

Anybody got advice on this steel as a mount? I like the price, the way it'll blue, strength and toughness. Seems to me like a good choice.

I worked in the lab of a local cast iron foundry for over a year back in my college days, and got to talk with the metalurgist about this sort of thing, and he was very helpful, especially after finding I knew at least a little about metalurgy from my reading of guns & knives, etc. I realize I know just enough to get myself in trouble if I'm not careful, which is always the way with anything as technical as this. I know others have used even milder steels to good effect, and this may well be overkill, but I'm not averse to that when it comes to scope mounts at all. I want a mount that'll stand more than any scope will, and with a side mount, that seems to me to be a possibility, at least. I've never done anything quite like this before, which is the reason for my inquiry here. Any insights and comments are welcome and appreciated on any of this. The more I know going in, the better things usually work coming out. I learned that LONG ago,but don't ask how. It'd probably be embarassing to me!

From what I've been told by a friend who has tested the mount and scopes made by the Chinese company Red Star Mountain they are of high quality and worth the money unless you have the $2000.00 +AUD to pick up an original MK32 scope in working condition , mount would be extra $ .
On one of the Aussie online gun sales sites , has this complete N0 4T package for sale just to demonstrate what you could expect to pay for such a rifle .
https://www.usedguns.com.au/Product.aspx?p=65114
BTW I have no connection what so ever to the website or the seller of the rifle ,just to clear the air .

[Blue2]

I have on hand a new production version of the old Parker Hale type side mount in both a round profile for the #1MkIII and a flat side version for the #4 and#5 rifles. it is a solid piece of aluminum instead of the two piece style of the Parker Hale and is milled in a Picatinny style on the rail. This mount requires that three holes be driled on the left side of the receiver but positions the scope directly over the bore. Sells for $75.00 Canadian.

[Blackwater]

Thanks, Blue, but I think I've gone and talked myself into making a mount. I have come up with some ideas that I just want to try, at least, to see how they'll work out. I guess I have a way of getting myself in deeper sometimes than I ever intended to go, but it's the challenge that makes it attractive. Also, it might teach the grandboys something about how to solve problems and improvise and overcome. The young need that today. But thanks very sincerely, and if I was smart, I'd probably make a deal with you on it. This whole project will test my abilities and judgment, so another lil' thing like a scope mount shouldn't be all that bad ...... yet.

[leebuilder]

Hello all. So many choises for the no4 and no1 enfields. The S&K mount is the best i have seen that is no drill and tap. The weaver brand drill and tap mount requires 22 style rings, not the best but popular, i dont like to install them because most require shims of some sort, a member here mentioned bedding compound, which works quite well. I have made a few from scratch out of angle aluminum and steel, bed rail works best, just mount a weaver style or 1913 picintly rail on the angle. Hieght is always an issue, i like them low. I have installed the repo no4T mounts too, by far the coolest and best, numrich sold them, quite pricey. They come with screws that are authentic but hard to get taps for. The rear thumb screw is also a BA thread, i made one with a standard thread 1/4 inch if i remember.
any questions please ask.
be safe

[screwcutter]

Blackwater.
Here is a link for the S&K 303 No4: http://www.scopemounts.com/index.html?main.html
The pic is of the one I made. I had a chance to get a No4T with bases, no rings or scope, but the repo prices scared me.

[Blackwater]

Thanks, Screwcutter. Already checked them out at Brownells. I think they were about $65 IIRC? S&K mounts are nice, IMO, or at least the ones I've seen (not that many, though) have been. I'd have a lot of faith in them. I'm conceiving of this rifle as an "Ol' Rough an' Ready" type rifle with some class, and I really want it to have a low mounted scope, mostly because I really don't deal well or swiftly with irons any more. That pretty well limits me to a scope, unless I want to go with a red dot only on the front receiver ring, which I've considered, and which would be appropriate for probably 80% of my shooting these days.

Of course, whether I quite achieve what I have in mind is always a question until it's done, and then it's always going to have some things in it that I inadvertently (and sometimes intentionally) chose less than judiciously. That's why I'm being so ticky about this scope mounting, and also because I'm not as adaptable as I once was, too.

Getting older leaves us with few assets, but experience is one that really helps, and mine is that I always do significantly better and am quicker to boot with a low mounted scope or red dot. And since I want this gun to be an emulation or at least a tip of the hat to the old African PH's of the early 20th century, the red dot just seems out of place. Goals do get in the way sometimes, but I don't need another "deer rifle" in any way, and this project is mainly a test of what skills I have left these days, and something I've long wanted to do. It's also a challenge for me, and I like challenges. Having never done much with the No. 4's, I knew I could get sage help here, and I thank you all for it. If I can get this thing to come out fairly like I want it to, it'll be a real pleasure to take it out for a little run afield, either on hair or hide, or the target range. I guess when ya' git old, it matters as much WHAT you're shooting as it does what your results are that day? Since I'm not as good as used to be, I want to make sure I still LOOK good doing whatever I can still do these days, and a good lookin' rifle is the best way I know of to do that. It's also neat to shoot a rifle nobody around here gives much credence to, and those old No. 4's are pretty darn classy in their own way, and surely have an awful lot of history in them.

Thanks again for all the help. The ideas on making a mount have intrigued me enough that I want to see what I can come up with myself.

[Frank46]

Screwcutter, thanks for showing the angle iron mount and the other members for showing theirs. Sometimes when suggesting the angle iron mount I get some disparaging remarks so it's good to see I'm not alone in doing so. I saw one made out of bronze angle iron as well. I have a cut down #5 receiver that was given to me many years ago. Badly pitted so removed the charger bridge and lowered the left sidewall. The angle iron mount would be perfect for scoping that critter. Thanks again. Frank

[Geezer in NH]

I have a No. 4 Brit Enfield that I want to scope. I'm aware of some of the mounts that are available, but none quite suit me or, I think, this particular rifle. I want to make it into a facsimile of the old Brit Sporting Rifles of the early to middle days in Africa. .A # 4 won't do it. You will need a different era rifle to make it right.

[HollowPoint]

I made my own picatinny-style scope mount about a year and a half ago. It was made to secure at the rear using the same cross-pin that's used to secure the factory rear sight. At the center of this DIY scope mount is another securing point at the location of the top-loading track on the receiver, and the front of my scope mount is securely held in place with two sided tape.

Actually the two-sided tape really isn't needed. The center and rear securing points are more than enough to hold my center mounted scope mounts in place. Since the recoil of the gun is up and back and the front-underside of my scope mount hugs the top of the receiver, there isn't any kind of accuracy robbing movement when fired. The two-sided tape acts mainly as a vibration dampener of sorts.

I was just out at the shooting range this morning sighting in a new 3x9 scope for this same Enfield No.4 MkI. I've posted pics of it before. It's re-barreled and re-chambered to 30/303. It's the one I shortened the barrel down to 17.5" on and threaded to accept a 30 caliber suppressor. With the suppressor and scope in place shooting 115 grain cast bullets on top of 16 grains of 2400, it will hold an inch at a hundred yards if I can hold steady enough. This was a pleasant surprise to me because I've never been able to get good accuracy shooting the lighter weight cast bullets. It's usually the heavies that give me the best accuracy.

The trigger kind of sucks but eventually I think I can fix that too. I'll take a couple more pics and post them so you can see what I'm referring to. There are several options one can use to scope an enfield rifle with. Mine just happens to be home made.

HollowPoint

[Blackwater]

You're right, Geezer, and it's a bit anachronistic because of the #4 action, but for the rifle I'm making up, the #4 is the better deal, and I'm looking mainly to the style moreso than to exact historical accuracy. The #4 is stronger than the #1's, and this gun is mainly just a tip of the hat as to style than any real imitation of a historical piece. I'd bet a few #4's were made up similar to the earlier #1's that would be historcally more accurate. We hunters tend to be a very traditional lot, and many of our guns harken back to previous days, even though they're not actual repros of earlier guns. This lets us kind'a get "the best of both worlds," in a way. I just like the style and looks and feel of some of those earlier guns.

I cannot for the life of me warm up to all the new guns coming out with their highly touted "synthetic" (often plastic) stocks, and actions designed for ease and economy of manufacture rather than smoothness and certainty of operation. This gun's magazine had to be altered for the .35/.303 imp. chambering already so it'd feed, and all I want is a rifle in a similar style to some of those old guns, that all had iron sights. Since I've already determined that I just can't use the irons like the old rifles, going to the #4 action doesn't seem too out of place. Again, what I was going for is the general style. Mine will also have a straighter stock than the older guns, because of my old eyes really needing a good scope to make use of the accuracy it has. Thus, I've made several compromises to get what I want and can best use, but it'll still be a tip of the hat to the guys who made up those older guns. And then too, I'm cranky about style, and a big part of it is just trying to see if I can pull it off like I want to. That's always a big part of the challenge.

A friend of mine has a nearly finished more or less German styled stock for the #1, and it would make a VERY sweet little rifle. If he ever gets it finished and gets duplicates made, I'll be getting one and beginning a search for a #1 to complete it. He makes some of the best feeling and handling stocks I've ever encountered, and I've handled a decent number from various makers through the years. That little stock of his is one you pick up, throw to your shoulder and think, "Wow! I could SHOOT this thing!" I won't know how close I'll come to that kind of stock myself, but I fully intend to give it my best effort, and at worst, I feel confident it'll at least be easily usable. I'm never quite satisfied with anything I've ever done, and always look for the things I could have done better or differently. But, I guess that's half the "fun" of doing this stuff, when it's not for a living?

[Clark]

15 years ago I made a homemade mount from L bracket.
I bought an FAC mount. They are out of biz.
I bought an S&K mount and rings. They are still around.

I was inspired by an L bracket mount I saw on a 303 site 15 years ago.

ah.. google can find the old pic
http://www.303british.com/id32.html

[Blackwater]

Very interesting, Clark, and thanks a bunch for the pics. I guess I really sholdn't have inquired here, because you guys always impress me with your ingenuity, inventiveness and creativity. That seems to get me in deeper than I'd originally intended often, but hey, it keeps me occupied and out'a troble. I could do a lot worse!

[Clark]

This is an easy project.
Drill and tap holes in the receiver.
Drill clearance holes in the L bracket.
Screw a 10/22 scope mount [cheap and common] on top of the L bracket.
Put some epoxy between the side of the receiver and the L bracket, and some between the top of the L bracket and the 10/22 Weaver rail.
When the epoxy is hard, take out the screws and put them in with loc-tite and lots of torque.

Or pay more money to S&K for their drop in mount and rings.

http://www.brownells.com/optics-mounting/rings-mounts-bases/rifle-bases/insta-mount-scope-mounts-prod12461.aspx
http://www.brownells.com/optics-mounting/rings-mounts-amp-bases/scope-rings/kontoured-verticle-split-rings-prod41787.aspx

oi, that is more than I paid for any of the rifles.

The Enfield peep sight will just about shoot the lights out, even with my old eyes. That is a great open sight.

[longbow]

There we go Clark! I was just going to suggest the same thing as I was reading but you beat me to it.

I am currently using the S&K no gunsmithing scope mount on my No. 5 but I had to add a strap on cheek rest because the scope sit too high for me. I could have gotten slightly lower rings but wasn't sure on clearance. Still I think i would have needed an add on cheek rest, maybe a bit lower but still needed.

If I were to make a mount I think the angle mount has a certain agricultural charm to it. I like it.

Longbow

[Fishman]

I have on hand a new production version of the old Parker Hale type side mount in both a round profile for the #1MkIII and a flat side version for the #4 and#5 rifles. it is a solid piece of aluminum instead of the two piece style of the Parker Hale and is milled in a Picatinny style on the rail. This mount requires that three holes be driled on the left side of the receiver but positions the scope directly over the bore. Sells for $75.00 Canadian.

I have a Parker Hale sporterized #1mk3 with three holes tapped on the left side and it would be great if I could find a mount for it. If you don't mind, where did you locate this mount, and does it in fact have the same spacing as the original? Thanks.

[Geezer in NH]

Could not afford doing it today, but when I worked in the industry and had a Universal Receiver, a budget for test and experimental work, and was trying to develop load data to assemble .303 SLAP ammo and to see if it would function a BREN and defeat the belly armor of an Mi24, the rest was easy....Thread drift??????? :hijack:

[Outpost75]

Thread drift??????? :hijack:

I plead guilty.

[camotes2]

153454 Good evening, I had also wanted a scope on my No4. Mk.1 , but I went with the scout idea, in .35 x .303 Imp. The bi-pod was just an idea that was abandoned soon after? It has a low profile rail, if the scope should fail I can see the iron sights over the top, and re-installing the scope holds a good zero. The scope is mounted far enough forward to give a nice slim profile just in front of the mag for easy carrying. The front sight is the original with a set of ears on the sides for protection. Regards; camotes2

[Blackwater]

Thanks, comotes, especially for the pic. How's that .35/.303 performing on game for you? I thought about the Scout scope setup, like you have, but I'm too old and set in my ways to adapt to new stuff like I once could. About the only asset I have these days is my prior learning and experience, which have resulted in pretty firmly established habits and reflexes. Thus, I regret to say that I think I'll stick with the low, centered scope setup, or as close as I can get to that. I surely can't say I wouldn't like to at least TRY to adapt to something new, though. I may well take that old #4 action have and make up one similar to yours on that one. It's an intriguing setup, and I like the concept, but would probably use the "old man's friend," the red dot scope instead of a regular scout scope. It'd be really great for night hunting coyotes, for one thing. Those red dots aren't called "the old man's friend" for nothing! And I doubt I'd have much use for anything for over about 200 yds, which a std. .303 would do well for.

Again, thanks, and you've got me thinking about what to do with that old spare action. I really kind'a need a good, short, light, quick kind of rifle that would work good for night hunting coyotes. I think you've just solved the spare action "problem" for me! Thanks!

[Blue2]

Here are a few items that I had made up to sell a few years ago. If anyone is interested. New versions of the original Parker Hale with a one piece constuction and employing a picatinny rail. Also a cock-on-opening conversion originally meant for target rifles at Bisley Competition but can also be adapted to the #1MKIII models. Much quicker lock-time ( new firing pin and spring and new cocking piece) The scope mounts are $85.00 as well as the cock-on-opening kits.
http://www.hunt101.com/data/500/medium/DSCF13011.jpg
http://www.hunt101.com/data/500/medium/DSCF13023.jpg
http://www.hunt101.com/data/500/medium/DSCF1303.jpg

[Blackwater]

Blue, are the mounts aluminum or steel? And I'm assuming the receiver side has to be drilled and tapped, right?

[Blue2]

Aluminum and require three 6X40 tapped holes the same as the Parker Hale unless you chose to go 6X48 or upgrade to 8X40. They work very well and are probably the best bet especially if the charging guide has been removed.

[RustyReel]

If you are going to drill and tap the side of the receiver, then there ain't nuttin wrong with the good ole' Williams side mount made just for that rifle. If your existing No 4 is currently drilled and tapped on the side, it was probably done to fit that mount. Yep, I am missing a screw on mine but two seem to hold just fine. Can usually find these on Ebay fairly easily...

153961

[krallstar]

I use this one. http://www.brownells.com/optics-mounting/scope-bases/rifle-bases/enfield-no-4-no-5-prod1502.aspx Nice thing is remove the two thumb screws and you have the use of the original rear sight.

[Blackwater]

Thanks for all the input, guys. I need to decide on and afix the mount before I do the stock, so that I can get the drop at comb and heel right. That's a biggie for me on this gun.

Blue, I was wanting to make one, so that I can get it as low as possible and still be able to load rounds into the mag easily, but I'm not averse to lightening it a bit. How do you locate the screw holes in yours? Do you just use the mount as a jig, or what?

[Blue2]

A #IV rifle action is easy to make a home-made mount for because it has a flat side. I made a mount for a target rifle once using a piece of angle iron and then fastening a flat bottom mount base meant for a Marlin lever-action 336. It worked fine.

A number 1MkIII is much harder because you are dealing with a curved side to drill and tap. I have a milling machine so after I position the mount base where I want it I take a center cutting small
end mill and make a flat spot. I then use a center drill to start the hole and then finish with the correct drill and tap required for the mount screw. ( Good tools make you look smart)

If you don't have the milling machine I would take a piece of "two sided" carpet joining tape. Its sticky on two sides. I would then press a piece of the tape to the mount base and then position the mount against the action. This will hold it in position so that you can center- punch your hole positions and then proceed with the drilling and taping. This is not a job that is apt to turn out well if done by
hand. I would not want to do it unless I had a least access to a drill press in order to get the holes in straight in relation to the mount. You are only going to get one chance to get it right.
The Parker Hale type bases tend to place the scope as low as possible and tend to naturally find the right spot when you lay them against the receiver. If I was doing the job by hand I would do as above for the first mount screw and then using that screw I would fasten it to the receiver leaving the carpet tape in place. The center hole would be the best to drill first. I would then set on a scope and check it with a bore sighter . You can tweek it for up and down by shifting the base a bit. If I was now satisfied I would drill and tap the final two holes.

[Blackwater]

Thanks, Blue. That's pretty much how I'm thinking about proceeding. I have a good drill press, but have to take a trip to a buddy's to gain access to a mill. It's all doable, though. I still haven't gotten the courage to do anything yet. Your comment and others about only having one try has me doing a lot of thinking it through before I proceed. Still vascillating over whether to mill off the clip guide or not. I probably will. Scoped, there'd really be no purpose in retaining it that I can see.

Thanks to all for the info. I probably should just buy one of Blue's aluminum mounts ready made, but I guess I'm just a glutton for punishment. Also, I've never made a mount before, and I like to test my mettle doing new to me things. I guess that's been part of the alure of this kind of project from the start, isn't it? They don't call us gun "nuts" for nothing, it seems.

[Hardcast416taylor]

I use this one. http://www.brownells.com/optics-mounting/scope-bases/rifle-bases/enfield-no-4-no-5-prod1502.aspx Nice thing is remove the two thumb screws and you have the use of the original rear sight.


After reading the reviews about this mount on the Brownell`s page about it. What scope rings did you find that fit the mount and worked well?Robert

[W.R.Buchanan]

OK guys,,, I have built several mounts for #4 Rifles for adapting American Receiver Sights, primarily Redfield's, to these guns.

These mounts all pick up the Ejector Screw Hole using a Longer Ejector Screw, and then use a 6-32 screw thru the Left Side Rear Sight Mounting Ear. They are very solid mountings for these sights and require no modification to the gun other than removing the existing rear sight. The one shown is for my #4 Mk1 with Redfield Olympic Target Sight. Ones for other field type sights like Redfield Series 70/80 and Lyman 66 LA's simply use a shorter plate with different holes drilled and tapped to mount the proposed sight.

I also have a mount designed with a Picatinny Rail on top that I was going to make for My #4 Mk1* in .35-303, to mount a small Red dot Sight. I haven't gotten around to making it yet. It is simply an extension of the mounts I have already made.

The S&K mount is one of the best ones for these rifles as it doesn't alter the gun in any way and is solid when mounted correctly. It's also not that expensive. The down side is that it is high and will require a taller comb on the buttstock which virtually all Scope mountings on Enfields require anyway.

Anything besides that you want to do with respect to a Scope Mount will have to be custom made for your application, and probably won't be that much of an improvement over the S&K Mount..

KLR's Mount shown above is one of the simplest ways to make a mount. It is made from Angle Iron and is bolted to the side of the receiver using two drilled and tapped holes. Then a piece of Pic Rail is bolted to the top to attach the scope rings to. Simple and Cheap and will work well,,, if done correctly. If the top face is not parallel to the bore you will have problems.

If you have to pay someone to make you a Custom Mount and mount it for you, then I would suggest just buying the S&K mount which will cost you less and probably work better, and you can mount it yourself. Thus saving a bunch of money.

As far as the height, any scope mounted on that rifle will be higher than the Iron Sights as there is simply no way to get one any amount lower. If you look at the scope mount on a L42 Sniper Rifle below you will see the lowest mounting possible. You will also a see a raised Check Piece screwed onto the top of the stock.

The .35-303 is a 200 yard gun so needing a high power scope is going in the wrong direction. If the gun is primarily for hunting then the distances you would shoot will probably be below 200 yards anyway.

All that said I would recommend you have a look at a Decent Receiver Sight or a Red Dot Sight. I know you were complaining about "Old Eyes" and I have heard that so many times it hurts me. If you aren't blind as a Bat, you can learn how to use an Aperture Sight effectively no matter what your prescription is. It is all about the technique.

With a Red Dot Sight, if you can see the target, you can certainly place the dot on it and fire. I have Red Dots mounted to all my Black Carbines and can hit an 8x10 steel target at 200 yards everytime off a rest,,, and believe me it ain't that hard to do. You put the dot on the target and pull the trigger.

I am 66, wear Glasses full time, and shoot with Glasses on. All my Target Rifles have Aperture Sights on them except my Mauser .22 which has Open Sights. I shot my highest Silhouette score with my Mauser .22 at 32/40 two years ago. Same glasses.

The First Pic is of my .35-303 with a Bushnell TRS 25 Red Dot Sight sitting where it would be mounted on my mount. Since it is a Zero Power Optic, eye relief is a non issue, and it can be mounted anywhere from a few inches to two feet away from your eye.

This could be the ideal solution to your problem.

Randy

[EDG]

if you have a milling machine the Russian mount for the 91 sniper rifle is one of the best designs to clone

You would have to adjust the dimensions to fit a #4 but it would be a great mount if you can do the machine work.

154570

154571

[alamogunr]

OK guys,,, I have built several mounts for #4 Rifles for adapting American Receiver Sights, primarily Redfield's, to these guns.

These mounts all pick up the Ejector Screw Hole using a Longer Ejector Screw, and then use a 6-32 screw thru the Left Side Rear Sight Mounting Ear. They are very solid mountings for these sights and require no modification to the gun other than removing the existing rear sight. The one shown is for my #4 Mk1 with Redfield Olympic Target Sight. Ones for other field type sights like Redfield Series 70/80 and Lyman 66 LA's simply use a shorter plate with different holes drilled and tapped to mount the proposed sight.

I also have a mount designed with a Picatinny Rail on top that I was going to make for My #4 Mk1* in .35-303, to mount a small Red dot Sight. I haven't gotten around to making it yet. It is simply an extension of the mounts I have already made.

The S&K mount is one of the best ones for these rifles as it doesn't alter the gun in any way and is solid when mounted correctly. It's also not that expensive. The down side is that it is high and will require a taller comb on the buttstock which virtually all Scope mountings on Enfields require anyway.

Anything besides that you want to do with respect to a Scope Mount will have to be custom made for your application, and probably won't be that much of an improvement over the S&K Mount..

KLR's Mount shown above is one of the simplest ways to make a mount. It is made from Angle Iron and is bolted to the side of the receiver using two drilled and tapped holes. Then a piece of Pic Rail is bolted to the top to attach the scope rings to. Simple and Cheap and will work well,,, if done correctly. If the top face is not parallel to the bore you will have problems.

If you have to pay someone to make you a Custom Mount and mount it for you, then I would suggest just buying the S&K mount which will cost you less and probably work better, and you can mount it yourself. Thus saving a bunch of money.

As far as the height, any scope mounted on that rifle will be higher than the Iron Sights as there is simply no way to get one any amount lower. If you look at the scope mount on a L42 Sniper Rifle below you will see the lowest mounting possible. You will also a see a raised Check Piece screwed onto the top of the stock.

The .35-303 is a 200 yard gun so needing a high power scope is going in the wrong direction. If the gun is primarily for hunting then the distances you would shoot will probably be below 200 yards anyway.

All that said I would recommend you have a look at a Decent Receiver Sight or a Red Dot Sight. I know you were complaining about "Old Eyes" and I have heard that so many times it hurts me. If you aren't blind as a Bat, you can learn how to use an Aperture Sight effectively no matter what your prescription is. It is all about the technique.

With a Red Dot Sight, if you can see the target, you can certainly place the dot on it and fire. I have Red Dots mounted to all my Black Carbines and can hit an 8x10 steel target at 200 yards everytime off a rest,,, and believe me it ain't that hard to do. You put the dot on the target and pull the trigger.

I am 66, wear Glasses full time, and shoot with Glasses on. All my Target Rifles have Aperture Sights on them except my Mauser .22 which has Open Sights. I shot my highest Silhouette score with my Mauser .22 at 32/40 two years ago. Same glasses.

The First Pic is of my .35-303 with a Bushnell TRS 25 Red Dot Sight sitting where it would be mounted on my mount. Since it is a Zero Power Optic, eye relief is a non issue, and it can be mounted anywhere from a few inches to two feet away from your eye.

This could be the ideal solution to your problem.

Randy

Randy: Pardon my ignorance but can you tell me what mount is used to mount the aperture sight and what is the exact sight? I hesitate to say what number picture because some of the pictures disappeared while I was looking at mounts on Brownell's site. Now there are only two pictures: The red dot and the aperture. I don't shoot competitively nor against myself(my way of saying I don't keep track of score). I just shoot for my own enjoyment. I'm 73 and put off too long getting deeper into shooting. I don't really want scopes on any of my milsurps. This would be for a #4 Mark ll.

EDIT: Now all the pictures are back. Computers are weird.

[Blackwater]

Randy, you've given me much to think about, and my mind's still percolating. I really would like one nice iron sighted rifle, and you're right about the peep sight. It's that darn front sight that I have trouble seeing when the light fades. Jantz knifemaking supply has some phosphorescent handle material that's pretty cheap, and a set of scales would make a lot of front sight inserts. I'd love to put a Lyman or Wms. peep on it and a visible, glowing front sight. Merprolight used to make a tritium front sight that fit dovetails, but I haven't seen a listing for one in a long time now, and if I can't get tritium, maybe some of that phosphorescent stuff would let me see well enough to shoot until past legal hunting hours.

As with all guns we design and build for ourselves, the hardest part is always the decision making, and the sight issue is a real biggie. Until I decide that, I can't really order a proper blank to stock it with.

You guys come up with really great info that I've not thought of. Thanks. I appreciate all this. Now if I can only make up my mind with the finality to order the stock!

[W.R.Buchanan]

Blackwater/Alamo: I made those mounts you see in the pics.My gun has a Redfield Olympic rear sight However it was a design modification of a mount that Redfield made back in the day to mount their Series 70 Receiver Sights to a #4 Enfield. See Pics below. They can be adapted for either Redfield or Lyman style sights with a flat base, like for a levergun. IE; Lyman 66LA.

As far as the front sight is concerned some white paint on the back face is a good way to go. I also really like the XS White Line Front Sights as they are highly visible against most backgrounds. Matching the dovetail would be the rub there, but not impossible.

As far as seeing the thing, Your eye can only focus on one thing at a time. We were all trained to shoot with Open Sights where we were changing focus between the front, rear, and target constantly. nobody our age can do that.

I didn't find out about focusing solely on the Front Sight until about 12 years ago. That is the secret! With an Aperture Sight, you simply focus on the Front Sight and put the sight on the fuzzy target, there is no lining up needed.

With Aperture Sights the size of the hole controls the focus between your eye and that distance to the Front Sight. IE: Focal Length. Your glasses do the same thing. The trick is to use different apertures or a Merit Adjustable disc to establish what size you need.

If you are using a Red Dot Sight once again you only focus on the dot. Put the dot on the target and let fly. It is the fastest way to acquire a target simply because you only have to concentrate on one thing,,, the dot. I was blown away how fast I could get on target with my Carbines. I found myself having to tell myself to pull the trigger as I had already been on target for some time before I figured out I could just pull the trigger. It was Dot pause bang, but it turned into Dot, Bang, Dot, Bang, Dot, Bang! No thinking involved. Seeing the dot on target triggers the trigger. Not a separate thought to pull the trigger.

It's scary fast and you pick it up quick!

I can make these mounts if you would like one. I only need your sight in hand to make sure it works right on the gun.

Randy

[W.R.Buchanan]

Here's a pic of a gun with a S&K mount on it. This is Shamu's gun from www.Enfield-Rifles.com (http://www.Enfield-Rifles.com)

Randy

[Blackwater]

Thank you very much, Randy, especially for that pic of the S&K on the rifle. I'm wanting a lower mount, and think I could make one. Want to try, at least. However, your info on the mount for the peep sights I find very intriguing. I'd really like to have one rifle dedicated to irons, and this rifle would be a good candidate for that for several reasons. I'm now thinking of doing as you show with one of those, and just resigning myself to embarassment on occasion. I have a couple of Merit discs, and they truly do help me a bunch if the light's bright. In low light, I can unscrew it and use the "ghost ring" that lets plenty of light in. A glowing front would enable me to shoot at any legal shooting hours, I think.

Decisions, decisions, decisions. Never easy with guns like this, but always interesting to go through. Thanks for great insight and response to my inquiry. You really have me thinking now.

[Antietamgw]

Very nice work on the receiver sight mounts. That's a real good solution for a #1 I don't shoot because I can't see the sights. I've even got a few incomplete or altered sights in my parts box that ought to make a good start.

Here is a simple base I made for a #4 I bought that was already drilled and tapped for something. I wanted to know if the rifle would shoot before I went any further with it. I cannot see that little front sight well enough to know which of us was being tested. With the scope off I can use the aperature at the 300 yd or taller setting. That's important to me and I want to alter a front sight base to take a sourdough front that I can see. A little rough but didn't look too bad after it was blued. I leveled the bore and then the top of the base before it was drilled to match the existing holes in the receiver. The scope adjustments were centered and the group pictured was shot at about 40 yds. A couple quick adjustments and it was good to go. I'm happy with the way it worked out. It might not win any beauty contests but it's rugged and reliable.


http://i65.photobucket.com/albums/h232/Antietamgw/Enfield/No4%20Mk1/No4Mk1004.jpg
http://i65.photobucket.com/albums/h232/Antietamgw/Enfield/No4%20Mk1/No4Mk1005.jpg
http://i65.photobucket.com/albums/h232/Antietamgw/Enfield/No4%20Mk1/No4Mk1011.jpg
http://s65.photobucket.com/albums/h232/Antietamgw/Enfield/No4%20Mk1/

[W.R.Buchanan]

Blackwater: the mount shown above in post #64 is about as low as you're going to be able to go.

My proposed mount for my Red Dot Sight is about the same height. I have the horizontal plate on the mount at .025 above the charger bridge so it has some air space in between, and I screw a piece of aluminum Pic Rail on top of that. That mount still only uses the Ejector Screw and the 6-32 screw thru the rear sight ear to hold it in place. I don't think that would be stout enough to mount a larger scope onto. The TRS 25 I'd be using only weighs 3 oz so there isn't that much weight to deal with.

The beauty of using the small Red Dot or a Peep sight is you don't change the way the gun handles. Something else to consider.

Randy

[Blackwater]

That's what I've been thinking too, Randy. Thanks for the confirmation. I am wondering if I milled off the clip guide, which I'll likely never use, if I might get it just a little lower. I've long been sensitive to little things like this, and the handling qualities you mention is the reason. I'm a sticklet for good cheek contact simply because it helps me shoot better in any position, and a lower scope mount generally tends to help that. I'll be restocking, so need to get the scope mounted so I can get the comb height and thickness down pat, and am taking it slow because I've found this usually helps me avoid wishing I'd not assumed too much. I also want to see if I can fabricate it myself, too, just for the challenge. I've never done that before, and if I make it QD, it'd maybe allow me to use the irons in a pinch, too. I find myself in the unenviable position of now, when my eyes are going south, I really WANT to use irons! Ironic, isn't it? But getting older is full of ironies. It seems there's a lot they don't tell you about getting older! Thanks a bunch for your insights and advice.

[KLR]

Blackwater - If you remove the charger bridge you can go pretty low. Here is the second version of my scope mount that I've been working on lately. The rings are Millet and I'm going to attach them by welding from under the mount. The right edge of the mount comes to about the centerline of the bore so I think I'll have plenty of room for ejection, especially if I trim the mount between rings like I did on my first version. The scope shown is a 3x9x40.

http://i424.photobucket.com/albums/pp330/305178/IMG_20151205_104059_zpsshbahzvk.jpg (http://s424.photobucket.com/user/305178/media/IMG_20151205_104059_zpsshbahzvk.jpg.html)

http://i424.photobucket.com/albums/pp330/305178/IMG_20151205_104054_zpsqbwzezhh.jpg (http://s424.photobucket.com/user/305178/media/IMG_20151205_104054_zpsqbwzezhh.jpg.html)