No5 MkII

I have come across a No5 MkII for sale ( not yet seen & no photographs available)

The serial number appears to fit within the 'standard' No5 Mk1 series.

I have found details in an article by Reynolds outlining the differences as follows :

The No5 Mk1 rifle had, however, one big fault : it was not easy to keep correctly sighted, and suffered from what was known as “wandering Zero”. This was a serious defect and many attempts were made to eradicate it. Trials were carried out with different forms of stocking up and a Mk2 pattern was eventually developed, with which further trials carried out in 1945 and 1946. In the new pattern the stock fore-end and hand-guard were extended to within about ½” of the rear of the flash eliminator, and the rear end of the fore-end was strengthened by a screw and nut. The band was positioned about three inches further forward to secure the lengthened fore-end and butt. The Mk2 never went into production, and it was eventually decided that the cause of the “wandering zero” was inherent in the design of the weapon and not the result of movement of unseasoned woodwork as had been suspected. The decision not to retain the No5 rifle in British service was made in July 1947 and it was declared obsolescent.

From : “The Lee Enfield Rifle” by Major EGB Reynolds.

My question is how likely is it that a No5 MkII has survived and what should I be looking for to determine its originality (rather than just being restocked in a cut-down No4 fore end)

Anyone have any pictures of a NO5 MkII ?

I like the 'unusual' but at heart I am not a big risk taker and like a bit of confidence that there is a fair chance of it being "OK"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan de Enfield

I have come across a No5 MkII for sale ( not yet seen & no photographs available)

The serial number appears to fit within the 'standard' No5 Mk1 series.

I have found details in an article by Reynolds outlining the differences as follows :

The No5 Mk1 rifle had, however, one big fault : it was not easy to keep correctly sighted, and suffered from what was known as “wandering Zero”. This was a serious defect and many attempts were made to eradicate it. Trials were carried out with different forms of stocking up and a Mk2 pattern was eventually developed, with which further trials carried out in 1945 and 1946. In the new pattern the stock fore-end and hand-guard were extended to within about ½” of the rear of the flash eliminator, and the rear end of the fore-end was strengthened by a screw and nut. The band was positioned about three inches further forward to secure the lengthened fore-end and butt. The Mk2 never went into production, and it was eventually decided that the cause of the “wandering zero” was inherent in the design of the weapon and not the result of movement of unseasoned woodwork as had been suspected. The decision not to retain the No5 rifle in British service was made in July 1947 and it was declared obsolescent.

From : “The Lee Enfield Rifle” by Major EGB Reynolds.

My question is how likely is it that a No5 MkII has survived and what should I be looking for to determine its originality (rather than just being restocked in a cut-down No4 fore end)

Anyone have any pictures of a NO5 MkII ?

I like the 'unusual' but at heart I am not a big risk taker and like a bit of confidence that there is a fair chance of it being "OK"

---

I had a privately owned No5Mk2 in my hands 3 years ago.

Iirc it was a standard no5 converted with a large trigger block similar to the one illustrated in Skennerton lee enfield story.

I'll try to track down the photos.

This model was included in my August 2015 article titled: The Uncommon British No.5 Mk1 Rifles: Airborne and Grenade Launching, in The Man at Arms magazine.

Alan de Enfield, just got home and dug the carbine out of the safe. Hope these pictures suffice.

For all others, open for discussion/critiques/theories.

Got this around 4-5 years ago. Nice shape, but it has been sanded. The matching serial number on the forend is just barely legible.

Shoots like any other JC. It hurts the ears and the shoulder.

Many, Many thanks guys - pics and markings make it much easier for me to compare what I will be seeing.

How many of these were produced ?
Were they produced by BSA or Fazakeley, or both ?

Will be viewing on Wednesday this week.

I would say, Enfield. IT has an Enfield Design Office number and Fazakerley was a factory. There was no design office there although there was a very small facility called the production design and trial section. But all(?) they did was trials etc etc in relation to what they were producing - as I understand it.

Well - its not going to be mine.

It was an auction and whilst I wasn't able to strip it down I gave it a good visual going over - It certainly was / is a No5 Mk1.

It looks exactly like a No5 Mk1, it is a Fazakerley manufactured 1947 rifle with a serial number that fits within the standard Mk1 serial number range.
The bolt and action serial numbers matched - nothing else matched.

From information provided to me on both this thread, and privately via email, this rifle was not a No5 Mk11 despite being etched with "No5 MK2 ROF (F) 1947"

From information provided to me I understand that BSA had the contract to develop 100 No5 Mk11's for evaluation. No mention of Faz being involved.

I was bidding up to GBP £300 ( about US$ 450) as that would be a fair price for a No5 Mk1 but I was not confident enough to go 'all-out' and buy it as a No5 Mk11 - Maybe I have missed a huge opportunity, maybe I have saved my money - who knows.

It wasn't a total loss as I picked up some original Kynoch 303 Mark 7 (cordite) ammunition, and a couple of boxes of Portugese 303 as well.

Thanks to all who provided the info - you know who you are.

I think that was the smart move Alan. I have owned around four Faz No5 Mk1's over the years, always buying then selling in search of the upgrade. On two occasions, I had issue with the "shakey" electro pencil etching on the receiver wall of that seems to a characteristic of Faz's. I had a 1944 that was FTR'd in '45. The gunshop owner was insistent the 5 was an 8, thus trying to register a "no8 mk1." A 20-minute argument ensued. I had to drive home, grab my Enfield book, return and show him it truly was a No5, not a No8. He relented, but grumbled "still looks like an 8 to me..."

On a second occasion, I was buying another Faz No5 with an E-prefix serial number. A different gunshop owner swore up and down the E was an 8. He was less of an a** and went with the E.

Although hard to fathom, perhaps the shakiness bled a "1" to a "2"? Or perhaps the item was being mis-represented. Either way, you played the smart move.

Attachment 70166Attachment 70167

This one also has a BB serial # prefix. Sadly not mine...

You done good. p.