1968 MP5 with no serial number

Afternoon all,

Not a Fal I know, but didn't know were to post this one!

A few weeks back I bought a rare old spec deactivated early MP5 of 1968 manufacture... Itself an interesting piece.

However this example has no serial number, or German proof markings, not removed, just never there!

I have an idea it was provided to Enfield as a tool room sample prior to their license manufacture..

It has all the correct early production features and the HK markings along the top rib are also correct.

It was Birmingham Proofed in 1988 (this tallys with the closure of the Enfield site) and subsequently deactivated in 1990.

Looking at the bore closely (clear slotted barrel) there is little to no signs of use and the original blue finish is almost pristine.

Anyone seen any other examples un-serialed??

Ideas anyone?Attachment 64413Attachment 64412

I can't help you out, but it's a lovely looking piece

I had one come over to my place in Gagetown NB once many years ago, along with a 550 Sig. The Sig was purchased by the owner at the Swiss factory when he was posted to Germany and the MP5 had been a Turkish production gun. No marks...just like that one. Same gun and it had no issues, just no marks. Apparently they didn't want to pay royalties or it was the only way they could produce them offshore...something like that...I think it said HK MP5 like that one, that was all.

Thanks Jim, at last a lead! I shall start digging into Turkish production and see what I can turn up .. 1968 seems rather early for licensed production, I wonder when they started?

I can't believe they were allowed to export/import firearms without a serial number being present .... the 3/68 has been used for the serial number on the documentation on mine!

I suppose they could have produced a hand stamp set and commenced stamping...

Morning chaps, well after a lot of digging I have discounted Turkey as the country of origin, It seems Turkey started G3 production in the 1970's but didn't start MP5 manufacturing until the 1980's.. All Turkish production ( from what I can tell) was the later type with the various updates including the scope fitting indent in the spine. So the search continues!

Ever thought of writing direct to H&K? It seems to me that this is an example of where the wisdom of the crowd ain't going to further this

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter Laidler

Ever thought of writing direct to H&K? It seems to me that this is an example of where the wisdom of the crowd ain't going to further this

---

Evening peter, already have, I had a prompt reply that was rather non committal... But at least they responded.

I still awaid a response from the Royal Armouries collection..

It would appear that this piece per dates licence production, so its back to the tool room pattern theory .... More digging required!

Many thanks to Doug for moving this from the graveyard and onto the SMG forum.

This piece is still quite the mystery, I did have several conversations with various people within HK, both in Europe and the US.

The HK offical line is that they never "under any circumstances" allow a firearm to leave any of their factories (or license manufacture partners) without a serial number and being properly documented.

My pictures where initially met with scepticism by HK, once I provided detailed pictures, including the proof marks, they went silent on me...

Draw your own conclusions there!

The Leeds Armoury were extremely helpful and checked my MP5 against the examples in their wonderful collection.

They also drew a blank, but agreed that the most likely scenario was that it started life as a toolroom sample and sent to ROF Enfield prior to UK licenced assembly and disposed of to the trade after the sites closure.

Two further examples have also come to light, one in the US (I have a picture of) and another unconfirmed example in Germany.

John, wish I could chop the barrel on my "Retro" GSG to same spec.......... but love my freedom too much. Did all the extras come with it?

There was obvious a change in circumstances to there "official line" at some point.

I would imagine that even a tool room example would have a serial number, surely?....

For accountability purposes & tracking it's whereabouts in the factory?

After all, if it was a complete. It was after all, A Lethal Weapon!......

I feel it MIGHT have been produced like this. For 'special purposes' usage. By Undercover units that we are not
Privy, to such information?..........Just my Thoughts on this. :cheers:

Morning all, it's certainly a ***** fish, you may well be right Mike, some sort of covert use is certainly the white elephant in the room.

Obviously "if" something along these lines did occur, then the necessary info will remain in the shadows and quite rightly so too.

A few points are certainly odd, it's 1968 manufacture date, but proof date of 1988 and the lack of serial number would certainly (you might say strongly) suggest Govenmental use of some sort.

Stacked against covert use ... Would such a piece be released from service?? I would have thought that was highly unlikely and when these things aren't required any further, surely they would be destroyed??

Regarding all the parts Geoff, yep, everything and quite a bit more came with it.

Someone swapped out the original TMH with the Turkish example, probably due to the slight damage on its leading edges, these have now been repaired and the original TMH has been re-fitted.

The deac cert listed the manufacturer date as the serial number, I am however very surprised the Birmingham Proof House proofed an SMG without a serial number though!

John, Mike, PM on the way and I doubt any Military use due to condition.

Some more pics guys.

My MP5 has been very carefully and sympathetically deactivated.

The black painted example is the other early MP5 that's come to light in the States, again without a serial number.

This has vexed the owner of this piece for years also... Note the straight magazines Geoff...

Looks very good, I like the collapsible stock with the small front end myself...doesn't matter though. Looks good.

A pre 1980s MP5 should have a straight mag as far as I know. Have a look at photos of the Iran Embasy photos and see what they had.

As daft as it sounds, are you convinced the 3/68 is a date and not a serial number? Im assuming other serial numbered guns have this same date format?

That's a good valid point BP. But would H&K have SAID that when shown the photos? Maybe confidentiality prevents them from further comment re numbers. On the military int side of things, our great long serving Int Officer 'aide/colleague/friend' told us many times that in the real world in which he, er........ inhabited, the no serial number thing was just for the TV. for many obvious reasons As for grinding them out, that was just for TV crime shows because......... anyway........

I've been looking at photos and doing some reading in various publications and the date is correct, it is just that.

The straight mag is the early mag and by the time of the embasy siege, the SAS were using the curved mag.

I've also read that Enfield guns were marked En where Hk placed their logo so this is a Hk gun for sure. I'm not sure what constitutes the master controlled component in Germany but if it is isn't the body, perhaps this is a spare part like the L85 and hence no number.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brit plumber

I've been looking at photos and doing some reading in various publications and the date is correct, it is just that.

The straight mag is the early mag and by the time of the embasy siege, the SAS were using the curved mag.

I've also read that Enfield guns were marked En where Hk placed their logo so this is a Hk gun for sure. I'm not sure what constitutes the master controlled component in Germanyicon but if it is isn't the body, perhaps this is a spare part like the L85 and hence no number.

---

Evening Chris,

I can confirm that the Receiver is the master component on the MP5. Unlike the L85, the TMH is little more than a plastic pistol grip containing the selective fire mech, it can be stripped and reassembled in a new TMH and all back together in a couple of minutes flat.
This is just one of those real oddities, by the rules of common sense it shouldn't exist, as I mentioned in an earlier post, I was surprised the Proof House were prepared to Proof an SMG without a serial number, I would love to see the original record for it!

If I had been the Proof Master that day I wouldn't have proofed it without a number being assigned and clearly stamped/electro pencilled, simply no accountability without it.

I think the curved magazines became the norm from the early 1970's....

Why in 1988 would a "Government" weapon be proofed by a civilian company ... We still had a proof facility at Enfield ( also later one at Nottingham)

What a factory employee says is company policy..... And what actually happens...2 totally different things

.. It could be a ( very good) Bitsa...Lunch box special, made by a competent gunsmith with contacts with many of the different factory's and put through civi proof prior to been serial numbered and put through the books.

Is there a serial number on the deact. cert. ( Twice through proof with no serial number)

Just thinking out loud.......

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skiprat

Why in 1988 would a "Government" weapon be proofed by a civilian company ... We still had a proof facility at Enfield ( also later one at Nottingham)

What a factory employee says is company policy..... And what actually happens...2 totally different things

.. It could be a ( very good) Bitsa...Lunch box special, made by a competent gunsmith with contacts with many of the different factory's and put through civi proof prior to been serial numbered and put through the books.

Is there a serial number on the deact. cert. ( Twice through proof with no serial number)

Just thinking out loud.......

---

Evening Andy,

Good points, well, in 1988 Enfield was being wrapped up and I wouldn't think Nottingham would be happy to, (or perhaps be equipped to) proof an MP5, they were after all a dedicated new built L85/86 assembly plant.

A lunch box special is an interesting idea, that's one scenario I hadn't considered, possible of coarse, but I would think unlikely. We all know the Germans are absolute sticklers for record keeping (after all, its got them into serous trouble in the past !) I just don't see them letting an unmarked Receiver out of the factory, especially at quite an early stage in the MP5 production.

Stolen from the factory in a Jonny Cash style "one piece at a time" type scenario, possible I would imagine, but then submitted for proof ... I just don't see it happening.

The serial number on the deactivation certificate is 3/68, I guess that's what they used for proof record too.

I wonder if it was used for Company testing of some type.

Government proofing of small arms ceased when Royal Ord took over the RSAF Enfield. Thereafter proofing became in-house but on a commercial basis. So all L85/SA80's were commercially proofed although a few early ones and prototypes will/may be cross flag proofed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mrclark303

I wonder if it was used for Company testing of some type.

---

I was thinking more a display weapon, the type that goes on a display when at fairs etc punting their wares...... but as you say they were sticklers for records and stamping/marking stuff even the last knockings of WW2 they were stamping regardless.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter Laidler

Thereafter proofing became in-house but on a commercial basis

---

So would I be right in assuming the London Proof House set up shop in a corner of the Enfield factory to carry out proofing Peter?

---------- Post added at 11:35 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:34 AM ----------

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bigduke6

I was thinking more a display weapon, the type that goes on a display when at fairs etc punting their wares...... but as you say they were sticklers for records and stamping/marking stuff even the last knockings of WW2 they were stamping regardless.

---

It could well be Geoff, its such an interesting piece...

Thread 24, In effect, yes.

I seem to recall the bundesnachrichtendienst (BND) made of had made some unmarked scope mounts for old WWII K43 rifles in the post Korea period. I seem to recall it was in one of Peter Senrich books.

Given what is written on Gen Gehlen and The fellow who followed him, I would not put it past being BND contracted. Given what was going on in the 1968 time period, they might have contracted so pieces which were sold off in the late 1980s, after the hands on sabotage parts of the BND stood down.

That sounds very interesting indeed, many thanks for the info Frederick, I will look into that, looks like a new line of enquiry has opened up...

Interestingly, of the two other known examples, one is in Germany (still trying to contact the owner), the other example was among a batch of surp MP5's imported by a US dealer. I wonder if that batch originated in Germany??

Here's another possibility, Iranian cloak and dagger antics. Apparently the Iranians produced a range of HK Firearms under license (MP5 and G3) and I have heard of a batch of Iranian manufactured G3's .... All with the same serial number!

No good legitimate reason for that one!

It's not beyond the realms of possibility Iran produced iffy deniable HK marked MP5's for export to friendly "organisations" and countries under UN embargo.

Going against this theory, the early build (no spine indent) design of mine and I doubt such an example would have made its way to the UK.

More thinking out loud.....
How about a slave gun for proofing other components.... So the body would stay in the factory with no intention of been sold.. untill the factory closed.....
Do British issue HandKs have UK proof marks?
I believe the (weapon) receiver in Germany is not as accountable as it is in the UK

From what I've seen of MP5s, the Hk version is marked Hk but the license built guns have another marking in the same place i.e. P.O.F, En etc.

So if this one is marked Hk, surely it is a Hk built gun. A bit like Henry Ford marking all his Jeeps with the ford F script so that he didn't have to fix broken Willys parts under warranty!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skiprat

More thinking out loud.....
How about a slave gun for proofing other components.... So the body would stay in the factory with no intention of been sold.. untill the factory closed.....
Do Britishicon issue HandKs have UK proof marks?
I believe the (weapon) receiver in Germanyicon is not as accountable as it is in the UK

---

That's a possibility Andy, another good suggestion, could well be. Conditions a bit good for that though and the barrel and receiver both have the same early factory finish on. It would seem odd too if that were the case that it would not be clearly marked "Factory Use Only" or a variation of that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brit plumber

From what I've seen of MP5s, the Hk version is marked Hk but the license built guns have another marking in the same place i.e. P.O.F, En etc.

So if this one is marked Hk, surely it is a Hk built gun. A bit like Henry Ford marking all his Jeeps with the ford F script so that he didn't have to fix broken Willys parts under warranty!

---

The thing is Chris, I believe (tell me if I'm wrong) that all the Enfield marked examples were only assembled and marked En at ROF Enfield from components supplied by HK as opposed to being manufactured there. I think this was done to circumvent the Arms export restrictions that Hk were working under back in the late 1960's and early 1970's.

That's why my initial thoughts on this piece were (probably still are) as a Hk supplied early manufacture MP5, as a parts kit, or as a complete firearm, to help with setting up production at ROF Enfield. 1968 is about the right time frame.

Perhaps it was supposed to be assembled and numbered at Enfield and for some reason this was never done ...

I have a variation on this theory, Perhaps it was supplied to, but never assembled at Enfield and was only completed by the RFD who bought it from the Enfield site as it was drawing down toward closure.

We would need input from a former Enfield employee who worked on the MP5 project to shed light on this. I do know an awful lot of Firearm parts went into the trade when this formally great British institution closed.

I have contacted the Enfield Apprentices Association before, in an effort to gather information on MP5 production, but never received any response unfortunately.

Can you say who deactivated it?

I'd imagine if the gun was a slave unit, it would have Slave marked on it as per Tom Ready's Bren Mk3 (which is numbered)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brit plumber

Can you say who deactivated it?

I'd imagine if the gun was a slave unit, it would have Slave marked on it as per Tom Ready's Bren Mk3 (which is numbered)

---

I will dig out the cert at lunch time to see who submitted it to the Proof House. Agreed if it was a slave unit, it would have something written on, "Factory use only", "slave unit" etc

I've been watching this thread for a while, and wondering why no one has mentioned that the HK logo looks a bit hinky compared to the other markings.

Re Clarkie thread, last line 31, its all to do with the commercial equivalent of official secrets. It's the old Commercial in Confidence clause.

It's correct that most (?) of RSAF material that was trials or slave type kit was usually clearly marked as such, such as FOYER DISPLAY. But where it was accessible to all and sundry it was usually made inert some way or another. We had quite a few ex RSAF ismall arms related and display tems at Warminster that came with odd trials handbooks etc etc.

Right found it. Submitted by "Messers Modern & Antique Firearms LTD", Birmingham Proof House, 29,9,1989

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lee Enfield

I've been watching this thread for a while, and wondering why no one has mentioned that the HK logo looks a bit hinky compared to the other markings.

---

Its probably my photograph, it is comparable to many other early examples I have seen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter Laidler

Re Clarkie thread, last line 31, its all to do with the commercial equivalent of official secrets. It's the old Commercial in Confidence clause.

It's correct that most (?) of RSAF material that was trials or slave type kit was usually clearly marked as such, such as FOYER DISPLAY. But where it was accessible to all and sundry it was usually made inert some way or another. We had quite a few ex RSAF ismall arms related and display tems at Warminster that came with odd trials handbooks etc etc.

---

Thanks for the info Peter, I quite understand confidentiality, I certainly wouldn't want anyone to get into bother. Talking about Foyer Display marked ex Enfield gear, a friend of mine has a "Foyer Display" marked L86A1, it's quite interesting, no trigger mech, solid barrel and no bolt head. Just a bolt carrier that moves under the tension of the recoil springs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mrclark303

Its probably my photograph, it is comparable to many other early examples I have seen.


Thanks for the info Peter, I quite understand confidentiality, I certainly wouldn't want anyone to get into bother. Talking about Foyer Display marked ex Enfield gear, a friend of mine has a "Foyer Display" marked L86A1, it's quite interesting, no trigger mech, solid barrel and no bolt head. Just a bolt carrier that moves under the tension of the recoil springs.

---

John, I have seen & worked on these 'Types' of item from RSAF Enfield. They were marked 'Inert Weapon'. These were originally the ones they took to shows/ displays/ Military units. As sales examples' of what was going to be offered. The ones I had worked on had also had Deact certs issued later when they were released to the civilian Market. They had a block spot welded in the trigger mech housings, & as you said correctly. No bolt heads in the carriers.
There was controversy at the time at the London proof house. As to weather they were, or were not an actual weapon. Similar situation to the Russian Made in the factory from the word go. Inert 'Display' models of the Kalashnikov.

The end result was, they Had to be 'deactivated' & certificate's issued eventually. As some of the component's fell under restricted parts Etc in civil Law.

Morning Mike, thanks for the info. This one came straight out of the factory when a certain member of staff moved up to Nottingham.

The company regarding them as non firearms at the time ... I did notice on my inspection of this example though (as you say) a number of parts suitable for re-use, untouched bolt carrier for one, making them a bit iffy from a legal point of view.

Interesting piece of Enfield history though. If it was mine I would carry out some careful addtional work to ensure none of the parts were reusable in a live Firearm, just to be on the safe side.

Yes I've seen these too, D and B had aN inert L86 for sale that had the US8x A prefix. It was being sold as a real L86 which is true in a way I suppose.

I wouldn't do ANYTHING else to your deactivated former weapon Clarkie. It has been to the PH, got the cert and correctly marked. You would be unwise to tamper with it in any way. Just my opinion.............

BP, your thread 40. The difference between the D&B inert and the real McCoy was that the D&B L86 was more reliable!

Agree with that philosophy Peter from a lawful Police standpoint.
The Deactivation certificate will reflect the weapon in question at the time it entered the Proof House and recorded accordingly as to what they had in front of them, presented for deactivation.

The ex Enfield "Foyer Display" marked L86 isn't mine guys, it belongs to a friend.

As you know, Enfield built these up from parts, as display non firearms, no one really bothered about them back in the 1980's.

The trouble is the potential live components that could be directly reused

I have only had a quick look at this particular example, I am sure Mike can give us a proper run down, but from my quick inspection, the bolt carrier appeared live and reusable, the TMH looked like it would be usable with a little work and the receiver appeared to be unmolested.

I guess the main legal issues center around the restricted (proof marked) components, like the bolt carrier and reciver.

Not sure about the legal position of the TMH??

I'm not sure that the bolt carrier could be categorised as a proofed or load/pressure bearing part to be honest. It does exactly what it says in that it just carries the little breech bolt/block. The BB locks into the upper receiver lugs. The question is this. Would it fire and remain locked of the carrier wasn't present. The answer is yes. The TMH is not a proofed part, just like the L1A1 and bren butt slide. However, I would argue that an L1A1 WOULD NOT remain locked if the BBC wasn't present.

That raises an in interesting question Peter, I wonder what would happen if you dropped an L1A1 breech block into battery without the bolt carrier and fired the rifle?

Would the bolt remain held by the locking shoulder during firing or would it ride over the ledge and boom!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mrclark303

Would the bolt remain held by the locking shoulder during firing or would it ride over the ledge and boom

---

That was a question we often contemplated decades back but never had the parts to actually test.

It WILL unlock and the BB will go into orbit probably followed by large chunks of the brass case. This is due to the relative inclined angles of the BB and the locking shoulders. You must have inclined angles in a tilting lock locking situation like this albeit very slightly inclined. This is because - and I am going to keep it VERY simple now - the BB rotates (downwards) into the locked position

So does the Bolt Carrier actually take any pressure during the firing cycle, or does it simply ensure the Bolt is held in battery and all the forces are directed rearward at the locking shoulder?

Now you're asking......... Taking me back to my teaching Physics days..... Nope, it's a bit more than that...... But the rearward loading on the BB will mechanically force it rearwards of course but a part of that rearward force will attempt to lift the rear of the BB by virtue of the (relatively small) inclined angles of the locking bent of the BB against the same inclined angle of the l/shoulder. However, this mechanical inclination of the BB to lift - due to the two inclined angles mentioned - is thwarted by the more substantial area of metal to the rear of the locking bent in/at the inside rear top of the BBcarrier. In turn, the BBcarrier is held downwards against this upwardly directed loading by the sliding ribs

Are we all still here - or have we all gone into a deep slumber? Right, while the BBcarrier if out of the rifle, I want you to have a look inside at something more interesting. It's sounding more like a school physics lesson now......... Look at that LOCKING BENT ramp thing at the rear of the inside of the BBcarrier. Got it? Notice the approx 1/2" distance it extends to the rear from the ramp part. This is the locking shelf (or locking medium in technical terms) and is a VERY important feature of the mechanism. As the BBcarrier is pushed rearwards by the piston, this long 'shelf' ensures that while the piston and BBcarrier is pushed rearwards, the BB remains positively locked downwards ahead of the locking shoulder. for a further 1/2" or so This one part of the inbuilt mechanical safety.

But there's more. You'll now see that the BB can't start to LIFT out of LOCK (called commencement to unlock - which isn't the same as 'unlocked' of course) until the BBcarrier has moved rearwards by approx 1/2". And by then, the rear of the striker is shielded. The same thing but sort-of in reverse happens when the BB and BBcarrier goes into lock down. But now, the rear of the striker is not accessible to the hammer until the BB is locked AND the BBcarrier is almost fully forwards.......... But there's more.......... If by your quick action of the trigger (or in the auto role) you do release the hammer before the BBcarrier is FULLY forwards, the hammer will cam forwards more slowly............... anyway, you'll get a misfire due to what is called 'diminished force of blow of the striker'

Wake up at the rear of the class...............

As ever Peter, a very concise and interesting lesson regarding the mechanical function and forces involved.

I've just gone through the function check with my cut away to follow your post, facinating stuff.

Many thanks John.

This last few threads has been very interesting because one small student project (in the days of L1A1';s and WO Dxxxxs and Col Txxxxx) on the design course was to illustrate to a convening Board of Enquiry how a fatal accident (not a REAL accident of course, just a mock-up to get the brain cells working.....) could not have occurred given the explanation. There were three groups. 1 group to give a written explanation. 1 group to give a blackboard/flip chart explanation while another gave an 'as-is' explanation using a sectioned breech block and carrier. It's simple to slot a BB but it's very difficult to cut or machine the carrier! Got to be annealed first and cut or ground carefully. Anyway............. I did something similar with an SA80 at Warminster and the 'working guts' of the demo rifle were in the lecture room when I left.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter Laidler

Are we all still here - or have we all gone into a deep slumber?

---

No, no...I got you. I can see all this because I saw enough of it when teaching mechanism. I should have twigged when looking at the BB and the small angle at the bottom rear. It's not a vertical surface and would have answered our original muse.

One of the UK dealers sold a beautifully sectioned L85A1 a little while ago, it was a real work of art.

I was very tempted to acquire it to go along with my full length cut away No4 and L1A1, the three would have made a stunning wall display together!

It was however a lot of money and sold faster than I could convince the "Minister of Finance" that it was a sound investment!

We're many L85's sectioned, I have to say it's the only example I have seen.

I'll post some pics of the sectioned bolt carrier and bolt from my cutaway L1A1, as you say Peter, it looks like a devil of a job to section, this example has been beautifully done.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mrclark303

As ever Peter, a very concise and interesting lesson regarding the mechanical function and forces involved.

I've just gone through the function check with my cut away to follow your post, facinating stuff.

Many thanks John.

---

John, When we did our Class 1 Armourer upgrading courses back in the heyday. Of this Rifle. you HAD to KNOW all of this in your head. & then write it (As Peter has done) as an essay! AND you had to know this about EVERY in Service smallarm as well!

Just a snippet to illustrate this. you did NOT just pull the trigger!!!...The CORRECT version was: 'Rearward pressure of the trigger finger bearing against the centre/ slightly lower part of the trigger. Caused the trigger to rotate, around the trigger axis pin. This then'...........You get the jist?.......VERY in depth when you lay it all out in writing!......

As with Peters threads Mike, your knowledge (and the generously given knowledge by other armourers and gunsmiths) is also indepth and impressive and always appreciated.

Like many on here, I am constantly improving my knowledge of small arms, type and variants and developing an increasing understanding of the mechanical engineering that underpins the whole thing.

As a laymen, it's always facinating to learn something new about our chosen hobby, so thanks for sharing guys.

I think that there were 18 (some say 20 and another told me 21.....) of the skeletonised L86's done at Enfield. None at Nottingham as a matter of interest. I was going to do one for myself but never got around to it. Some were given to high ranking members of the Ord Board and trials team. With regards to whether they were deactivated, the answer is no. They were never (?) firearms and were made as skeletonised rifles. That's not strictly correct either. Wont bore you with technicalities