Printable View
Just picked up a No5 with the serial number PF 02680 (not sure if the leading character is a 0 or O.) It also has the SA broad arrow in U stamp.
Any idea of its age?
ETA - Matching numbers on the metalwork, no number on the woodwork, mis-matched magazine.
Not a real No.5 by the sounds of it, converted No.4 would be my guess.
I see you in London, and I am aware of a countrysports RFD based south of High Wycombe that had a No.4 converted to No.5 for sale early this year, and I'm pretty sure that was a PF prefix?
Only 2 makers made the No.5, ROF Fazakerly and BSA Shirley, with the vast majority being made at Faz.
BSA made ones are easy to identify, as they have the M47C code stamped into the left side of the receiver wrist in front of the buttstock.
A Faz built one with be marked similar to this one in attached photo, with the No.5 Mk1 ROF (F) marking and the month built and serial number on the bottom line, in this case a Feb 1946 built.
The PF serial numbers are used by Fazakerley in the early 50's, on their No4 rifles, if it is a 'Faz' rifle then I think you may have picked up a 'fantasy piece' as the production of No5s' ceased (1947) long before the PF prefix serial number were introduced.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nick S
Please post some pictures, the barrel (showing the 'fluting' just in front of the Knox form), and both sides of the action between the breech and the rear sights.
If it is a No5 then there should be weight reducing 'cut-outs' in the action when compared to a No4.
If it does turn out to be a 'modified' No4 and you were sold it as a No5 then you should be entitled you a refund if you bought it from an RFD. If you bought it privately then unfortunately it is a case of Caveat emptor.
The Fazakerley No5 serial numbers never made it past "AC" prefix.
Post some pics - you never know it may be the 'long lost, last No5 ever built.
Never say never with Lee Enfield's
The Arrow in the U marking is a South African military ownership marking.
Yes - I think you're right and it's a converted No4 (The person that this came from has had it for a number of years, so not that one though.) It's quite nicely done - it has the correct bolt, woodwork and rear sight - but no lightening cuts on the barrel knox.
---------- Post added at 03:47 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:45 PM ----------
I paid the grand price of £0 - so I'm quite happy with the deal! (Swapped it with a friend for a CCTV camera I had.)Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan de Enfield
How about some pics of this one for info sake, and because we'd love to see it anyway.
Clearly not the same one then, although quite a co-incidence.....although to be fair to the RFD, I just remembered that the RFD I indicated didn't actually have it for sale, they had it in as a RFD transfer for a customer that had purchased it elsewhere.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nick S
---------- Post added at 04:01 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:56 PM ----------
If it has a correct No.5 bolt handle it should have the serial number of the original No.5 it came from on the back of the bolt handle?Quote:
Originally Posted by Nick S
As PL said they converted No4s into No5s in Malaya because they didn't have any No5 rifles left to go back out as replacements.
This is the only one so far...
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...5jpgraw1-1.jpg
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nick S
That is enough to show it is a No4 body.
The lightning cuts for a No5 body don't appear to be there.
And it's wearing a cut down No4 Mk2 forend. When No4 forends are cut down to fit No5's most people leave the front 'stub' forward of the barrel band too 'chunky', at least, compared to a genuine (no cap) No5 equivalent. This one could do with a bit of a hair cut (like many of us currently) there, although it's perfectly functional.
Even with all that, it looks pretty good. If it has a nice bore and shoots passably then...
Bore does look ok - if it's a shooter, then I'm more than happy!Quote:
Originally Posted by browningautorifle
Absolutely, enjoy it.
Outstanding...still you can get a bayonet...in this case a reproduction might actually be in order. Cheaper by considerable and matches a repro carbine. There IS a chance it was produced as Peter Laidler stated "Made from a #4 rifle because there were no replacement #5 carbines available. Don't know how we'd prove that though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nick S
It is either on this forum or the old Jouster. He was talking about the issues with the No5 they had in Malaya and how they dealt with the spare shortage. As actual proof probably not but I would put one in my collection based on condition being a hard jungle life not a safe queen.Quote:
Originally Posted by browningautorifle
Thus I suggested a repro bayonet for this one...would be cheaper as well.
I just wondered of there were any workshop markings that would substantiate base creation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bindi2
It was actually on the old Jouster forum, he posted the relevant post on 26th July 2008.
The relevant paragraph :
I think I mentioned earlier that when we were doing the big Crown Agents FTR programme, it was priced (so I was told) that if 70 came in, 70 went out and if some were ZF’d (scrap) then they’d be replaced from our ANZUK (I think this was Aust, NZ and UK stockholdings) mobilization stores from the huge …., and I mean HUGE Ordnance stockpiles close by at Johore Bahru. So we would cannibalise No5’s and if necessary, send them out with No4 bodies.
As it was an official FTR programme it may be reasonable to suggest that any such rifles that went thru' the process would be marked FTR
That is a very good question.Quote:
Originally Posted by browningautorifle
As PL said it was a case of X number in the door X number out the door.
---------- Post added at 02:51 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:49 PM ----------
A d E you are the man top find. There was also a bit about the forends not being available as well.
I would speculate that this was a post service civilian conversion given the OP mentioned it has South African ordnance broad arrow mark from when it was a No.4.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bindi2
The serial number is strange for an SA action. Only seen six figure serial numbers.
That only proves that they had it from new or at some point in time before Malaya. Did SA have the same issue with the No5 and convert No4s to No5s. Need a SA armourer from that time period.Quote:
Originally Posted by GeeRam
I haven't ever seen or heard of any No5 in SA service; it's not impossible but highly unlikely. More photos showing numbers, etc, would help.
None of the armourers I knew in my time in the military knew about any either.
Only seen No5s in civilian hands in SA, very rarely too.
Exactly my point.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bindi2
SA had their own procurement system, and unlikely to have got interchanged with rest of British/Canadian/Aus kit, so wouldn't have ended up in Far East as they were not involved.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bindi2
That was in a different thread - I remember that but cannot locate the post at the moment.
From memory he did say that the channel left in the 'cut-down' No4 forend was filled and shaped, not just left open.
He also explained about fitting ('adjusting') a different Butt to suit :
Yes, the little No5 rifle. As I said, we still had some in Malaya in the mid 60’s plus I’d say, a thousand or so+ that came through our huge Base Workshops in Singapore where from Australia, New Zealand, Malaya, Hong Kong Vietnam and occasionally Fiji Armourers would regularly congregate for various reasons. And a week or so exploring the bustling sights and sounds of night-time Singapore was probably top of the list. But being a young, celibate, church-going, teetotal young lad, I stayed in and knitted scarves and darned socks for the needy. But I digress.
Some of you will by now have noticed that there are TWO shapes inside top surface, inside the No4 rifle butt socket. The OLD ex SMLE shape with a rounded step on the right and a tapered step on the left and the post 1942 (?, but that’s what we called them …..) shape of two rounded steps.
Officially, and according to our EMER’s, you CAN fit a double rounded stepped butt to a single round/taper step body after adjusting the wood accordingly. But you CANNOT fit a single rounded/taper step butt to a double rounded butt socket. This is because, try as you might, you’ll never truly get it tight ….., or if you do, it won’t last!
That’s the OFFICIAL party line. But if you think that any old, wise and weary old Armourer Sergeant would allow you to wait until a stock of double rounded butts arrived, from stores in England to Korea or Aden or Malaya or wherever you were, you’re WRONG. It was quite common practice to simply dovetail, glue, patch, peg and make off the butts to get to the type you need. Simple isn’t it.
---------- Post added at 10:00 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:55 AM ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daan Kemp
But, A number 4 in SA Service, sold out of service, arrived in the UK and Civilian converted to a No5 clone would 'stack up'.
Quite so.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan de Enfield