educate me on the no 5

There's lots of this stuff going on right now because of the UN (can't ship overseas) requiring licensing to export small arms and parts like N05 parts, Metford parts, Silkworm Missiles (same set of laws, believe it or not :banghead: ) etc. - try a supplier in the UK - they seem to be less concerned about the UN than anyone other than the Czechs (Czechs are pretty unlikely to have your No5 part). If you'd like, I can check with my local guy - I'd bet he's got one (or 30) hidden away somewhere, but he's not likely to have the pins- unless you're very lucky. Drop me a PM.

Probally could be a new thread, but oh well. Thought it would be niffty to put up some side by side comparison photos. The victims are a 1944 Lithgow no1 mk3, 1944 BV no4 mk1, and 1945 Fazakerly no5 mk1. Enjoy.

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...101_2243-1.jpg

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...101_2244-1.jpg

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...101_2245-1.jpg

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...101_2246-1.jpg

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...101_2249-1.jpg

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...101_2250-1.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter Laidler

So something without the ENGLAND is a pre 1968 import - correct?

Does this mark and the later dealer marking affect values in any way?

---

The "England" stamp is innocuous enough to be largely overlooked. The later "importers stamp" is typically larger and is seen as a negative to many collectors, myself included.

Those lightening cuts on the reinforce!.
As a novice, I have been fretting my socks off over chamber pressure and the delicate nature of these Lee Enfields and then I see this No5 barrel with its spooned out helpings of metal removed from the point at which the chamber is most likely to fail.
I recently examined a No4 barrel tested to destruction and it failed at or close to the front of where those cuts begin, somewhere around the shoulder of the cartridge.
Does the No5 produce significantly less chamber pressure than the No4 due to the shorter barrel perhaps, or were the barrels produced to a different specification?.

I'd like to know more about the method used test the No4 barrel to destruction JSS. We tried to 'blow' one for a project but while we severely damaged several new ones, we couldn't get one to replicate a breech explosion that would blow the sealed breech. We formed the opinion that you wouldn't be able to get enough 'dynamite' in the case to blow it

I have seen thousands of No4's and 5's but never seen a breech explosion of the type you describe. On that basis, I'd stop fretting right now!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter Laidler

I'd like to know more about the method used test the No4 barrel to destruction JSS. We tried to 'blow' one for a project but while we severely damaged several new ones, we couldn't get one to replicate a breech explosion that would blow the sealed breech. We formed the opinion that you wouldn't be able to get enough 'dynamite' in the case to blow it

I have seen thousands of No4's and 5's but never seen a breech explosion of the type you describe. On that basis, I'd stop fretting right now!

---

Peter i would think a case full of a pistol powder would do the trick easyly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mattgunguy

Probally could be a new thread, but oh well

---

Yep, you're right, this is called HI JACKING. Not so important if it's a boring irrelavent thread, we probably all have been guilty of it at some stage, but still quite offputting to someone closely following a thread.

Ment it as a comarison of the no 5 to the earlier rifles. I have been educating myself since my original posting. Was hoping that the pictures could be of help to someone. As for my stupid words " Probally could be a new thread, but oh well", that was just dumb. my apologies to those who might find it offensive.