Were Mk V's used in WWII? If so in what role(s). Thank you
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Printable View
Were Mk V's used in WWII? If so in what role(s). Thank you
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
probably because we were desperate at the time, and (without wishing to unbearably smartarsed) they were probably used as rifles.
I guess I could have worded that differently eh? How about in a combat role or second line etc. I kind of deserved that didn't I?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Thinking out aloud Gary, if they were used in a serious front line role anywhere, I can't help thinking that there would have been an additional small-arms notice to the effect that '....... quartermasters and Armourers should be aware that quantities of rifles designated No1 Mk5 have been issued to augment existing stocks....... etc etc.....' You know the sort of things. Additionally, Armourers would have a parts list of different parts too. Otherwise they'd be out on a limb. I have never seen a note to that effect or even a parts list.
There was a note to this effect about non standard No4 rifles, identifiable by the now obsolescent cut-off (this'll be the trials rifles) and similar rifles identified as the Mk6 rifle (this'll be No1 Mk6's). But no mention of Mk5's
These little flimsy paper notices for the information of Armourers came out periodically as a sort of early amendment to the big instructions to Armourers. But being flimsy paper, very few seem to have lasted. I have one dealing with the very early repairs to Sten guns
Thank you, that's what I was looking for. I was trying figure out what the disposition of 20,000 rifles was. What role/use they played after the trials.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I have a funny feeling that there was always a dire shortage of backsights for Mk5's but their days were numbered, even during the actual period. I remember Captain Viney, the range/shooting instructor at Carlisle in 1964 or so had one that was missing the back sight and he'd cobbled together a P-H type sight as a rearsight. That was the first time that I'd seen a PH vernier sight and he gave me one for my No7 rifle. Quite what prompted this show of generosity I'll never know as he was a bit of an ogre. Mind you, not as much as an ogre as Harry Weeks who was a REAL xxxxxxg ogre!
Once I was Commissioned, I always had a dream that one day, I'd walk into a room on some camp somewhere and he'd be sitting down at his desk, giving some young apprentices a bit of stick or clever arsed comments and I could say to him
'....stand up when I come in smart-arse........ You don't remember me do you......... Apprentice Laidler......, remember........, you told me my sketch of the 3.5 rocket launcher trigger mechanism looked like something I'd nicked off an old cooker! Not so smart now are you.....
But you can only dream on. But maybe you'd just spend an hour exchanging pleasantries. But he knew his stuff about Brens
It never works out like that Peter. I was relentlessly bullied by a much older (and so much bigger) boy at my junior school. I dreamt of the time when we would be the same size and I could take him on with a chance of paying him back. We both grew up as I had planned but I became a Systems Engineer and he a local hard man and villain. So I shelved my my plan indefinitely.Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Laidler
There was a bloke in my class at school that was annoying but seemingly harmless. Twenty-five years later, I'm watching the morning news on the telly while dressing for work and there's him on the news being led out in cuffs by the boys in blue. I think he's still in prison.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beerhunter
I had one of the early pre 1928 Parker hale No 5 sights (not 5 A). These sights were made without the adjustable zero plates that the later No 5 A sights have, and have a slightly different shape to them. I understand this pattern of sight was made between 1925 and late 1928, being replaced by the 5a in early 1929
I any case when I came across one of the sightless Mk V rifles, I put this sight on. It is an exact fit, like it was designed to fit the SMLE MK V rifle. The existing rear sight base acts like a sight protector for the No 5 sight. When the No 5 sight is completely in the down position, it is almost touching the sight base holes for the MK V sight, but is just clear on them. The windage arm adjustment wheel is just past the right hand side of the sight base. The parker hale No 5 sight works like a charm so when I actually got the correct sight for the rifle, I never installed it, it sits still in my spares bin.
In any case since then I have always assumed the No 5 Parker Hale sight was designed with the SMLE MK V in mind.
---------- Post added at 12:34 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:28 PM ----------
Oh yes, in regards to bullies.
There was a rather nasty but clever bully in my brother’s class, a few years ahead of me. I never dealt with him in school, but when employed as a petrol station attendant had a crossing with him. Nasty piece of work, you could just tell there was something not quite right about him and he was to be avoided.
About 5 to 10 years after when back on holiday I read that he is in jail, having killed a prostitute for stealing his wallet. Beat her up and threw her in a canal where she drowned. It was a life sentence. My brother was not surprised by that. There are some who just cannot live in civilization, those anti-social attributes come out early in life.
Thanks lads. I had to chuckle! I hope you did too....... Mind you, it NEARLY happened once. I was a Sergeant (A TA reservist.....) and me and my pal had driven down for miles and miles from the Scottish training areas in a clapped out old Bedford RL and decided to stop at an Engineers Depot in Ripon, late in the evening. The cook sloshed us up something just edible to eat and the Mess found us a room and bed to kip on with sheets and blankets instead of sleeping bags and tents or the back of the truck. We had just the barest of civillain clothes between us and after a shower, went down to the bar for a drink. Only to be told that we had to wear ties and a bloody jacket! We should have known really..... But if we went out into the back room and drank our couple of beers and crisps it'd all be sort of OK unless the Orderly Sergeant saw us - which he did!
Next morning we paid our bill and there was a note from the RSM, telling us to report to him at 0915. Well......, we wanted to be gone by about 0800 and our combats (combat clothing and boots) were filthy. Anyway, we didn't clean up as he was bound to understand the two hard and overworked reservist Sergeants on the Military Training Team. But no....., he didn't understand and went on to tell us about not bringing a civillian tie or jacket with us as well as the usual gibberish they spout!
I was due to be commissioned in the next few weeks and really felt like saying something like '.............' You know what I mean! But I felt a nudge in the side from Sgt 'Lash' Langford as if telling me to '......you've only got a few weeks of this shxx left and you're out of his hair' So it went in one ear and out of the other. Filled up the Bedford with petrol and off we went. Least said, soonest mended!
I wouldn't have minded, but he followed the telling off with a note to my unit at Banbury........... My boss, another paratrooper, Capt Jock Fox called me in, ripped it up in front of me and without another word said '....off you go'
Just clarifying...... The PH 5 sight came out in 1923/24 and was rapidly superseded by the 5a in 1925.Quote:
Originally Posted by Frederick303
(sight collectors tend to rip your arms off when you get it wrong.)
I was under the impression that most of the Mk5s ended up in India.
Interestingly, post the second great unpleasantness, Indian troops went in as garrison troops to what was then French Indo-China.
Here they kept order alongside recycled Japanese troops who were employed as "policemen". That went down well with the locals, especially given the activities in the previous few years.
Somehow or other some of these Indian Mk5s found their way into the hands of the local anticolonialists.
There are photos of said locals armed with Mk5s in a couple of the Viet war museums. One depicts a black-clad chap pointing the rifle at the sky is what is probably a posed "PR" shot.
I found it again posted here: Viet Cong soldier with No 1 Mk V Trials Rifle
Sadly, whilst the Viets tended to throw nothing away, (just in case), a huge flood of the Red River about twelve so years ago filled quite a few stores depots with a vast amount of mud. The goodies, mostly weapons and other tech gear of US and French origin festered in a mud blanket for months and most eventually went to scrap. I saw some photos (no copies) and it was a nasty thing to see, not unlike the piles of abandoned and sometimes burned mountains of goodies in Cambodia.
I'll see if I can find any more links or images.
Finally, sort of in the same vein, there's this: Các loại súng bộ binh tốt nhất !
My friend bought eight rifles, all upgraded to Mark 111 in India during the WW1 period. These rifles were Mark 1** IP and on the other side were marked R^F and a date such as 1916 or 1917 (I did find a 1914). He bought another four more and there was a Mark V also from India but as issue, it was well used which is something you do not find with a Mark V
Attachment 33018
Attachment 33019
Mine has damage to the wood and the rear sight been dinged. But I don't know anything else about where its been etc.
Is anyone compiling a list of surviving Mk.Vs? If so they can add mine to the list.
A3588 made in 1924.
I bought it from a well-known dealer in Aldershot 20-odd years ago and he had several to choose from at the time.
Have heard India, South Africa and most recent, sold to the Irish army, in the late 20,s I think.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bruce_in_Oz
Don't forget that there were TWO variations of the Mk5. The 'new-build- at 23 shillings and the Mk3 revamped at £18 shillings.
It'd be a good idea to log the serial numbers of the survivors Ross, but to achieve what? A better idea would be for someone to collate and print/publish the whole unabridged history of them.
Any ideas what variant yours is Garry? Looks like a revamped Mk3
Sorry, I guess I really don't know. I thought it was the second variation. It was manufactured in 1924. How do I tell?
Attachment 33029
Does this help? I can try to take more phots tonight if it helps.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Its a standard No1 MkV, have a look in the knowledge libary you can see the two examples, see link below,
Milsurps - 1924 ShtLE No.1 MkV Rifle
muffet.2008
Regarding the Model 5/5a sight
Rather then rely on memory to answer I went back and checked my reference notes. I think you are wrong on this. Of course you may well be right, but I doubt what you wrote is correct for the following reasons:
1) The copy I have of the 1924 A.G. Parker catalog (the firm that will become Parker Hale) that does not show the fixed arm Model 5 sight. It has the 9F sight as the most modern sight in the catalog.
2) The first ad I have seen for the No 5 sight (not 5A) is from 1926 and it refers to the sight having been introduced the year before. Now this ad was (I think) in the 1926 NRA results booklet which is actually published in early 1927. So as far as the date goes it is possible that the Model 5 sight was introduced as late as the very beginning of 1926, most certainly it was not introduced before 1925. I cannot be more detailed about this as I do not have a copy of that booklet, only reference notes from 2006.
3) My copy of the 1928 A.G. Parker catalog has the Model 6 and Model 5 sights in it, but no mention at all of the Model 5A or 6A. Further it has the 9G sight advertised, with a patent data of 1925. That would tend to indicate the model 5 sight, which was the replacement for the No 9 sight, was introduced after the last No 9 sight, or no earlier than 1925.
4) A copy I have seen of the April 1928 A.G. Parker catalog, updated in January of 1929 has no listing for the Model 5A sight. It does have the Model 5 and Model 6
5) The major change in the model 5 A sight was the addition of the movable sight index scales. This change to the sight did not occur until after the A.J. Parker Twin Zero sight #1 was introduced, which is the first sight to have the dual adjustable scales. The date of the T.Z. # 1 introduction was in 1928. In fact that he addition of the movable sight index plates was made to keep the model 5 sight competitive with the Twin Zero model. The Model 5 plus, which allowed the sight to be folded was a similar effort to compete with the foldable T.Z. #1.
6) The 1928 NRA results booklet, published in the spring of 1929 has an ad from A.G Parker for what products it will have at its Bisley pavilion in 1929. The 5 A is listed a as a new improved sight. This is the first reference I can find to the Model 5 A sight. In the 1930 A.G. P through the 1950s Parker Hale catalog the Model 5 A appears in every catalog, the model 5 sight having disappeared.
So if you still maintain that the Model 5 was introduced in 1923/24 and the 5A in 1925, please present the data to show that. If you are going to reference Edna’s 1984 book a “Century of Sights” please be aware this is a mistake in her book. If you doubt she was in error, go and check the section where she references the introduction of the T.Z. # 1sight, indicating it was the first sight to feature the movable sight index and that it was introduced in 1928. In essence she just omitted reference to the intermediary model 5.
Regards
Frederick303
I think that Garrys is the upgraded Mk3 because you can (?) see the fine line where the new backsight bracket has been brazed to the body. The proof of the pudding is to look at the barel and the old holes for the backsight bed are still visible. I could be wrong of course as I haven't made a great study of these things
I'll take the handguards off and try to post piccies.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Attachment 33030Attachment 33031
It's the second type. No holes from a Back sight.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
In other interesting news, post WW1, plans were afoot to do something Mk5 related at Lithgow.
There is a drawing of the different receiver forging required to make a Mk5 in the Lithgow archives. I am looking for the number now.
Drawing number C-1118 is the drawing for the different charger guide required. Drawing dated September 1923.
This was probably the starting point for the later No6 series and is the reason that the "ladder" rear sight is a bit different from the British No5 model.
Attachment 33036(Bugger)Quote:
Originally Posted by Frederick303
This page from a 1929 A.G Parker catalogue shows an early 5A based on the earlier AGP5 sight, note the information on the left of the picture. (did I see 1925 written there?)
Attachment 33037 This page is from a later PH Catalogue showing the upgraded PH5A sight, note the dates of prize wins.
Attachment 33038 Just a representation of the 5 family 5,5a,5b,5c,5d,5eAttachment 33039 and a No.5Attachment 33040 early 5A
The best place to find information on anything British is http://www.rifleman.org.uk
So one must assume that if the 5A was introduced in 1925 as the first pic. shows, then the No.5 must have been in the years prior,not produced in a great quantity, as they are regarded as scarce amongst the sight collector fraternity, to wit 1923-24.
Muffet.2008
Thank you for your post. I see why you have the impression you have. However may I gently suggest you have ignored the primary sources I have presented? Not trying to start a p-ssing contest, I also collect sights and very much enjoy comparing notes with fellow Enfield target rifle fans. Here is your argument and supporting evidence as I understand it.
1) You refer to a post-January 1929 catalog which refers to the 5a sight and mentions the introduction date of 1925.
2) A later post WWII catalog refers back to Bisley wins with the 5A sight and includes dates back to 1925.
3) Since you assume that the 5a sight was first made in 1925, then it is logical that the model 5 must have been produced prior, say 1923 to 1924.
4) A bunch of pictures that show you are a serious collector of sights, hence you know what you are talking about.
No disagreement on any of these factual postings, just your interpretation of the evidence. What if the post-1928 catalog references above refer to the model 5 inclusively, both the model 5 and the 5a? Think about it. None of what you have presented really disagrees with my assertion regarding the introduction dates. You have posted a copy of the 1929 catalog, which matches my assertion that the 5A was first available in 1929 and a development of the earlier Model 5 sight. The fact that Parker Hale includes the 5 sight in with the 5A wins in their 1930 and later catalog is why you are mistaking this as a sign that the 5a existed in 1925. All the documentation I have referenced shows it did not. To be specific about what the written primary sources indicate:
1) The 5a sight is not shown in the 1926, 1928 or January 1929 updated 1928 A.G. Parker catalogs. In each the Model 5 only is shown.
2) The first reference I have found is in the NRA 1928 handbook, published after December 31 1928 and before June of 1929. In that handbook reference is made to A.G. Parker having the “new” improved, 5A sights for sale at the Bisley pavilion.
3) The reason for the change was the introduction of the T.Z #1 sight, which by Edna Parkers own hand is recorded as being introduced in 1928. This was the first British sight that featured movable zero scales. The 5A was a development by Parker Hale to keep up with the T.Z development. The 1929 introduction date of the Model 5a matches this assertion by Edna Parker.
4) There is no evidence of the Model 5 sight existing prior to 1925, unless you can show me an ad from prior to 1925. I have not seen one to date; further the model 5 sigh does not show up in the 1924 A.G. Parker Catalog.
Now in response I say, if you still disagree with my interpretation: How do you explain the very clearly dated written sources that I have referenced? If you simply change your assumption regarding the A.G. Parker/Parker-Hale reference of the victories with the model 5A as being inclusive of the earlier model 5, you will see then no conflict exists.
I know this is not a standard interpretation, but the evidence I have seen indicates it is the correct one.
Regards
Frederick303
Add another survivor to the list, #5639, made in 1922. Bought it about 20 years ago from Sarco in Sterling, NJ - where it was up on a shelf in amongst a mess of Mk IIIs & Mk III*s! It has a slight ding in the left vertical of the backsight but otherwise is in fine shape and shoots well.
That must have been one of the weaknesses. My sight is dinged on the same place.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I would say this was common fault as the sight ladder isnt very squaddie proof, and far too flimsy in my mind, OK for a Sunday shoot, but dont think it would of survived the on set of War.Quote:
Originally Posted by gsimmons
Think the reason for a lot of sights missing from the rifles was due to the sight being destroyd while trying to remove the securing pins on the locating pins to straighten the ladder, as its got a a slot on these for a blade screwdriver and I would guess people mistake this as a means to remove it rather than to help everything line up , I managed to straighten mine in situ, bit heath robbo but it worked.
I,ve never had much luck at knocking pins out, and would say I,ve caused more damage to myself or the equipment in the last twenty years and the smaller the pin the more I cringe, Lot to be said about watchmakers.
The pins in question, just visable.
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...DSCF4498-1.jpg
Thank you(I'm a watchmaker). Some non watchmaker type has tried to get the pins out and turned the "screws" on mine too! So the pins are jammed in so tight I haven't been able to get them out. Of course I haven't really tried that hard either.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Wish I knew that before I sold my Omega Speedmaster professional on ebay, cant complain as I made a good profit but the small hour pointer had stopped working, plus was looking a bit sorry for itself, sold as a working watch or spares etc, loved the watch and used it every day, had a quote to fix and service etc, but it was more than what I paid for it.Quote:
Originally Posted by gsimmons
When the lotto numbers come up, I.ll be looking for a pre moon example.
I had a pre-moon a long time ago as well. They are the nicest of the speedmasters I think. They were one of the things the astronauts treasured the most from the Apollo missions.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I have post moon model serial number 633. I used to repair the 30T2 type movement Army/RAF Omegas. I knew it was going to be a good week if I had a load to overhaul. Just to unscrew the back and feast my eyes on the wonders of the workmanship would make my week complete
I do loads of these. They're one of Omega's best mov'ts.Attachment 33220
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
633! I'd like to see that! Yes the 30T2 is a great mov't.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Any good at changing the glass on the CWC general service watch (1985) ?Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Laidler
Wow Peter is there anything in MOD inventory you didn't fix?Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Laidler
Having said that we may have drifted off topic just a tinny bit.
Any of the bigger Timpsons should be able to replace the glass on your G-10 CWC watch Big boy, if they have the spider cramp. It's a standard size. My forte was just the basic infantry instruments and small arms No4T. Alas, there are no instrument trained Armourers left now
[QUOTE= Only to be told that we had to wear ties and a bloody jacket! We should have known really..... But if we went out into the back room and drank our couple of beers and crisps it'd all be sort of OK unless the Orderly Sergeant saw us - which he did!
/QUOTE]
Reminded me of the "Erol Flynn" character in the McAuslin Novels by George McDonald Fraser. The waiter told Erol he couldn't come in unless he had on a tie. Erol used his pistol lanyard as a tie, and dared the waiter to say anything.