Printable View
Hmmmm.......
Nice example of a standard Ishy'd No5, that seems to have been turned into an "experimental 7.62mm trials No5 XIIE1"....... proofed only recently in UK....
A few of the other rifles in that batch look a bit ........ odd.....
Love the No4 Mk1/2 (T) bitsa with the un-numbered action and modern ringed stamps on the butt....
@Badger
Yes, that is the book
side 57
XIIE1 Rifle photo
side 58.
„Eine nicht genaue bekannte, aber sehr wahrscheinlich geringe Anzahl von Gewehren wurde in Enfield Ende der 50er Jahre auf das NATO Kaliber 308 umgebaut. Die 308 Variante des Gewehre ist sehr selten. Ebenso existieren Varianten des No5 die mit Sterling Konversationsatz auf das NATO Kaliber umgebaut worden sind.“
A not exact known, but a very low number of rifles No.5 was converted on the NATO calibre .308 in Enfield end of the 50´s. The .308 version the rifle No.5 is very rare. Also exist version´s of the No5 with Sterling Conv. converted to NATO calibre.
sorry for my bad english
Swen
The need for a 7.62mm NATO Jungle Carbine seems out of character. The No.5 rifle was no longer a service requirement after accuracy problems could not be rectified, some time before the introduction of the NATO round. Early Sterling conversions for the No.5 to the NATO round are not likely to have been allocated such a number. An 'X' prefix follow-on seems out of character too... X8E1 and X8E2 were test models of the Belgian FN FAL, I'm not aware of a 7.62mm X9, X10 or X11. Where were the conversions made, is there any indication on the markings?
I think we would need to see some image details of the 7.62mm No.5 X11E1, expecially close-ups of the markings, in order to venture any further opinions.
Merry Christmas to all,
Ian
I agree entirely with Ian on that. X11 is totally out of sequence as these relate to the Bren series.
In any case, an African or Pacific rim nation wishing to have, say, 1000 No5's converted would simply be given 1,000 No4's. Much the same as nations that requested Lanchester spares from Sterling were usually invited to send their needy Lanchesters to Sterling where they'd be destroyed and the wanting nation would be supplied with the same number of Sterlings fort nominal cost on an exchange basis. Knowing that they'd have to come back to Sterling for spares in the future (especially lucrative spare magazines) Portugal and Chile spring to mind as nations that did this.
We were FTR'ing zillions of No4's and 5's at our Base Workshops in the mid to late 60's and I never heard a murmur of a 7.62mm No4 although we knew that the 7.62mm No4 was on offer
This rifle was on eGun a couple of days ago. It was offered for a ´"buy now" price of something like 1250 euros, and has now gone*. I looked at it and was going to make an inquiry here. I did get a look at the markings on the buttstock socket**. It was indeed marked XIIe1.
Either there really is an Enfield variant of which Ian Skennerton and Peter Laidler have never heard (I classify that as "extremely unlikely") or there is a lonesome No. 5 with "creative" markings being passed around in Germany. As I have often remarked with regard to collector values - stamps are cheap!
*Must have been withdrawn, not sold. Articles that I have marked for observation are still visible for about 3 months after they have been sold.
**Maybe it was on the receiver L.H. I'm not sure.
Just a thought, but thinking seriously, if the example really is an ex Indian Ishapore variant of a No5, does anyone in their right mind think that the RSAF at Enfield would have gone out and obtained one of those when we were knee deep in them? Or ask the same thing about the L8's. Who's ever seen an L8 based on an old ex Indian Ishapore No4. No I haven't either!
You don't have to be Perry Mason to smell a rat here. That's why I kept the thread going at the beginning...................
Horrible thought!Quote:
Originally Posted by Patrick Chadwick
Promo: you are in the same time zone as me. Slowly it dawns on me that your original query may have referred to the same eGun auction.
Did you buy this extremely questionable object? If so, the arguments presented in this thread are surely sufficient to return it to the seller and request your money back.
Patrick
If anyone wants a nice 7.62mm No5 rifle, then there are many ways to go about it. As I said some time ago, I machined an L4A4 Bren barrel down to No5 spec, for my friend who still shoots it. It'd be simple to do the same with any barrel on that basis. But while it's a good shootable No5 with cheap 7.62mm ammo, it's not a fake of anything
Patrick,
I had the chance to take this rifle into my own hands. The X11A1 markings are milled. As I'm more with the M1903's and American Enfields, I wasn't sure about it. But I opened this topic before the rifle appeared on EGun.
And yes, I'm in the same time zone - but just a bit to the right on the map, along with those skiing guys ;)
Just to add to what Paul said about Rolff's book...
One of the book's best features, I've found, is the collection of contemporary photographs, many from the Imperial War Museum, depicting servicemen of various eras, equipped with some rather interesting weapons. Found there are grandfathers in the Royal West Surrey Regiment armed with Martini Enfield Carbines sporting Pattern 1888 bayonets, Sherwood Foresters with Arisakas, and, what is probably the best reproduction, in a beautifully clear, two-page format, of the often-printed photo of the New Zealand sniper in the rubble of Monte Cassino, sighting through the scope of a No. 4 (T) ex-Trials rifle.
These photos alone are worth the price of admission.
Merry Christmas everyone!
Terry