Opinions on this No. 5 Mk. 1

Hello,

I have an opportunity to buy a No. 5 Mk. 1, and although I only have two photos (I asked for more), I have some information. It has matching numbers, import marked on the barrel, FMP (Federal Malay Police?) marked on the wrist, and dated 4/46, ROF arsenal. Couple questions: Does the FMP mark diminish the value? Are there any specific photos I should ask for besides the serial numbers to prove that they match? This one has a price of $335 to me, does that sound like a good price? Thanks,
Jim

Federation of Malaya Police. Shows its history in my opinion as we've been discussing in another thread very recently. Same as workshop marks on the butt

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by clarkmilitaria

Hello,

I have an opportunity to buy a No. 5 Mk. 1, and although I only have two photos (I asked for more), I have some information. It has matching numbers, import marked on the barrel, FMP (Federal Malay Police?) marked on the wrist, and dated 4/46, ROF arsenal. Couple questions: Does the FMP mark diminish the value? Are there any specific photos I should ask for besides the serial numbers to prove that they match? This one has a price of $335 to me, does that sound like a good price? Thanks,
Jim

---

The FMP mark does not diminish its value, and in some cases may add value to a collector as it has some provenance.

The bolt and receiver serial numbers are the most important numbers to match, but serial numbers are often found on the magazine and forestock. If there are serial numbers there, it is best if they all match, I'd ask for photos of all markings.

Generally, $335 in the USA could be a good price for the rifle if it is matching and is in good condition.

Nice looking rifle seems comparable to the one I just picked up for a similar price. I can see the number 5 mark 1 in the reciever picture. Som better shots of the litening cuts on the reciever might bee good and perhaps a picture of the litened bolt handle and 800 meter sight. Though no expert I agree on the value of the provenance. I really like this unsuual weapon and feel lucly to have obtained mine.

I bought my No.5 last month - all matching (bolt, receiver, forestock) except for magazine anc with pre-68 import mark - cost was $385. Mine has a very clean bore and barrel - assuming similar condition you have a great price.

If I bought this I might try to resell it for a profit, but if they can still be had for $385, then, after adding shipping and FFL fees, it might not be worth it to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by clarkmilitaria

If I bought this I might try to resell it for a profit, but if they can still be had for $385, then, after adding shipping and FFL fees, it might not be worth it to me.

---

I looked at some of the gun auction sites after my purchase and $385 does not seem to high but if you are going to flip it you may be correct about the final price. It would squeeze the margin a bit.
I think if you buy it you might not be inclined to sell it. Great little gun.

I'll most likely be going to the OGCA show tomorrow, so that will be a good opportunity to look around and hopefully find some comparable prices. Some I have found on the internet seem to be extremely overpriced, but based on my research, the average selling prices appear to be $400-$500. Thanks for the input everyone.

Edit: just got this information from the seller:

1) Excellent, bright bore.
2) All the numbers match-bolt, receiver & wood.
3) You can see in the photo on my website and the photos I sent that the wood has dings
4) The mag is unnumbered
5) Sight is graduated to 800 yards.
6) The rifle is all matching
6) There is some pitting under the handguard.

I do trust him, I have bought from him before and have been satisfied, so I would not really need photos of the serial numbers.

I'd jump on it. It's rare to find one under $400 on Gunbroker - and even more rare to find one that is matching for that price.

At the OGCA show yesterday, I saw several no. 5's comparable to mine, ranging from $350 to $470. I talked to the seller of one, who said that the FMP mark actually would decrease value, because a collector is looking for original British markings only.

He must be a brilliant man to be able to speak for the whole collector community like that.

Yes, I thought that too JR............ The FMP markings WERE British markings as the Federation of Malaya was under the protectorate of the crown at the time. Oh well, British, English......, who cares!

I guess that the FMP mark is a matter of personal preference.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter Laidler

Oh well, British, English......, who cares!

---

Sorry for the mix up.

I am not an advanced collecter by any means but I would not concider the markings as a negitive as they provide an additional story line to the history of the rifle.

But surely, if the markings prove/provide another story line to the rifle history, that'd make it BETTER, surely. Or am I missing something.

If I had a rifle with a provinance or markings that it fought at Monte Cassino then wouldn't that make it something special?

The whole "originality" thing is a serious can of worms.

Very few service weapons go through life unaltered or unused.

I am just a bit young to have earned a crust on SMLEs, but I did my share of parts swapping on L1A1s. A lot of the work was often based on formal instructions (EMERs, EMEIs), to delete an "obsolete" component and replace it with the new model.

Extractors, body locking levers and catches lightly spring to mind. Then there were the bits that were modified over the years. As the old version wore out or broke, the new pattern was substituted in. Handguards and carry handles, for example.

Then there were the stuff-ups: a batch of rifles ended up with dodgy return spring assemblies in them. The correct arrangement is that, as the springs are nested, one inside the other, they need to have opposite twists; otherwise they bind when compressed. "Somehow" a batch of spring sets with the same direction of twist got, not just into "the system", but into a number of randomly distributed rifles. These would cheerfully bind and cause malfunction. Thus a culling programme was instituted. Did putting in a "correct", and in fact, EARLIER, pattern of spring assembly detract from "originality"?

Was the rifle any less "authentic" after various authorized modification? Not to my mind. It was precisely as specified by the technical documentation of that time. It would be "nice" to have a mint, unaltered example of an early production ANYTHING. However, such a specimen has one story, albeit brief. Something completely rebuilt but exactly as specified for the date it LEFT service and liberally sprinkled with all those mysterious stamps, is quite another thing.

Think about all the vintage Lee Metfords and Enfields that were re-hashed into beasties like the SMLE Mk1 (converted) and Mk2 (converted), then used and abused on numerous battlefields or Naval capers. And after all that, being turned into .22RF trainers or drill rifles.

That is the REAL reason so few really early "original" Lees survive. They got "re-frocked" and went off to yet another depot, ship or war, or all three.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter Laidler

But surely, if the markings prove/provide another story line to the rifle history, that'd make it BETTER, surely. Or am I missing something.

If I had a rifle with a provinance or markings that it fought at Monte Cassino then wouldn't that make it something special?

---

You Brits always having to show us up with your command of the language. Well said!