No. 5 Mk I question

A friend has a No. 5 Mk I "Jungle Carbine" with a 4 over-stamped with a 5. Anyone have any information on this?

That's more of an engraving. Does it have the classic #5 lightening cuts and characteristics? Or is it a cobble job in disguise?

Interesting, the rest of the EP work looks legit. Lightning cuts?

Come on Vincent, answers to the relevant questions needed

Yes, it has the lightning cuts.

Sorry for not getting back sooner. I've been away from the computer. Had to say goodbye to an old friend.

Sorry to hear about your friend.

Maybe it's time for a full expose`on this #5...then maybe we can help.

looks like a field conversion performed by RAEME Royal Ausrtalian Electrical & mechanical Engineers. I served with RAEME for 6 years as an armourer.

Acoording to Stratton, Vol. 2, P. 166, no No. 4 Mk1s had been observed that were dated 1945. And 9-45 would have been long past wartime requirements. Strattons's conclusion was "in all likelihood, Fazakerley did not make No. 4 rifles during 1945". This info may now have been superceded by later discoveries.

I do not think this is a fake. A faker would surely have removed the 4, not overstamped it. The single-letter number seems plausible for a 1945 Fazalerley No.5. Field conversion is possible, but that would imply that there were No.4 Mk1s from Fazakerley completed and issued as late as September 1945, and the Fazakerley No.4s had two-letter serial numbers.

My guess: a leftover No.4 MK1 receiver from Fazakerley, used up in the course of early No.5 production. Regardless of collector's often exaggerated ideas of "correctness", factories do do such things, in order not to waste perfectly good components.
:wave:
Patrick

Could it just have been a drunk/tired/angry about football Scouser making a mistake?

Where were you Twistie. I was a RAEME Armourer with 4,8 and 1 RAR and Bandiana for 3 years or so.

Anyway....... Nope......, you haven't convinced me. I've dealt with simply hundreds and hundreds of them and never seen anything like this. We did re-body No5 rifles with No4 bodies at 40 Base workshop on the Crown Agents programme but didn't lighten the bodies.

Without any doubt, unless we see other photos to the contrary, that body is a No4 body that someones made into a No5. I could be wrong........

Here's my first observation. Why, during the production line manufacture of the No5, would the pantograph scratchy-pen operator switch the number '5' for number '4'........ then go back and correct it? Where are the other mistakenly etch engraved rifles.

This'll be the same as the Savage No4's without the US PROPERTY myth. All No5's were made from No4 body castings

A few more photos.

We need to see the carbine naked...

I agree with Jim

I will see if he will let me borrow it.

When you say "naked", does that mean the buttstock has to come off also or just the forestock?

The fore-end only for me so we can see surface of the butt socket

Will these work?

Have you ever heard of the phrase '....eating humble pie'? Because it looks like eating humble pie time. It looks to me that without any doubt, that quite incredibly, this is a wrongly marked No5 rifle. I was beginning to think that with the R serial number being a No5 number of the era, that it might well be right............

Anyway, does anyone else have an R prefix serial number that it wrongly engraved. We have an R No5 at work but it's not a close number. What say you BAR? Strange but true or another opinion?

So...did they just etch the mark in? Were the #4s and#5s made on the same line by the same people? Someone lost their focus and marked it incorrectly so then had to re-mark it? Friday or Monday gun? It sure looks like a #5 to me...

Does this work like coins? Does the value go up because of the unusual marking?

Any idea what a fair price would be for it?

I haven't got a clue about values but I suppose it would be in the same value category as an erroniously Mk1* marked Maltby Mk1.

No4 production had ceased when this No5 was made and the pantograph template for the scratchy pen (as we called them) would have been set up for No5's so whether someone the semi skilled operator accidentally slid in the No4 template for a few dozen or so before the error was noticed by the inspector........... who knows, but there it is. Who'd have believed it!

We have a R prefix No5 that is standard but it's 200 or so away from this one. Anyone got a closer numbered one?

One of these days my .308 No. 5 with a No. 4 frame and a hung trigger´ll come on the market and there´ll be COMPLETE confusion.

Thank you, Captain Laidler.

Friday afternoon or Monday morning!

You're talking Fazakerley here Brian......... It could be ANY time! This thread just illustrates one of the Fazakerley faults. The shallow scratchy pen numbering system that caused no end of 'lost' numbers, guesswork and subsequent renumbering.

I think the guy doing the numbering for the "R" pre-fixed No5's must have had several off days. Mine is clearly marked for 9/44, serial number R1106. I've examined this rifle in minute detail and it's definately a pukka No5 Mk1.
http://i269.photobucket.com/albums/j...y/SS100197.jpg
Don't worry about the "wobbly" nature of the writing, that's just me being a bit rubbish tracing it over with the Dremmel.

"...No4 production had ceased when this No5 was made and the ...." peter forgive my question if this is obvious or i missed it in the prior posts , but are you indicating no4 production had ceased in sept 45 for that year ? but that no5 production continued ?