Printable View
so this is a lee enfield jungle no5 mk1
the flash hider is modified, do you think it's possible to replace it with a normal flash hider
https://youtu.be/JZHm16ZUGd0
please look at the rear site, does that look like a no 5 or no 4...
what's your opinion on this rifle as to it's authenticity
The rear sight is a late wartime #4 sight and can be changed with a #5 sight easily. They're marked to 800 yds so easily recognizable. The FH might be hard to change as some don't come off easily and the holes for the transverse pins might not match up. Also, the transverse pins are a taper so be careful... If your FH comes from Numrich it may not fit anyway, maybe too big. If you strip the front wood off the #5 it will be easier to see if it's original.
My opinion is I'd steer clear of it. Flash suppressor might be original but it's been cut down and ground off. Bolt handle should have a hole in it and that one looks like it was flattened off. Rear sight isn't correct. Stock looks way too clean. An original will have cuts in the metal to shave a bit of weight off. Have to take the hand guard off to see that as mentioned above.
These suddenly ceased being rare when a bunch of them were found in various locals in the past few years. I'd find one that I was sure of and didn't need a ton of modifications to make it correct.
Even here in Canada you can find a much better example. Even if it's free there's too much wrong.
I agree with Aragorn. The bolt handle knob doesn't appear correct and the wood looks a little too perfect. I guess it depends on the price they are asking.
It's $450 CDN, here's the pics... I wouldn't do it. It ain't right.
the seller is located in cowichan bay, bc, and he wants $470 including shipping, to the lower mainland, rather than as a collector item, but as a shooter, would it be a reasonable deal..
They were selling for that in original condition here in the states prior to the pandemic, like I said, someone came across a bunch of them and the price actually went down on these for a while. Not sure on price now but I sure wouldn't spend that much on a non-collector piece. I'd pay the extra needed to get one that's right. I can see the bolt handle clearly now. That is not a No5 bolt. Expect the markings were forged as well. Maybe not as the flash suppressor could be original, just cut.
see this post on SRF I redid photos at end:
VISUAL REFERENCE GUIDE - Rifle No5 Mk1 Fazakerley - Surplus Rifle Forum - www.surplusrifleforum.org
Libertreecollectors just got in one original flash cone, not a reproduction. Bolt is not correct. At $100 it might be worth it. Too messed with. Bolt $150, cone $58, headspace gauge $45 and if the replacement bolt does not headspace more cash into a hole... Then stock problems. I would find a better specimen. That is a dog. There are lots of JCs at gun shows complete at about $600 in WI, opps you are in Canada. Look at the reference and pay attention to cut outs and see if it's real. I need better pics. If you have access to the rifle you can check the fine points. Lots of fakes made from No.4 rifles in the US.
From what I see of the last picture, the receiver appears to be a JC not a No.4. Please see this reference for some more photos:ugh::
Is that Real or Fake? -The Firearm Blog
Also the end of the lower front of the stock is not rounded as a wood stock should be. I am not sure if the metal front portion was removed or the stock cut. I never removed the metal front protector cap on the lower stock, so I am not sure. It is cut or missing the metal or both. It has been modified for hunting.
This video shows one with the metal stock cap> No5 MkI Enfield - YouTube
Thanks guys for sobering me up, excellent assessments and expert opinions, this is what I came for.
thanks again
Not even as a shooter. This one would be all in at $150 for me and that's what the major parts are worth. The forestock is a #4 wood, I'd bet on it. Yes, I saw he was in Cowichan or Cow bay... I wouldn't bother with this mess at all. Too much to choose from.
As a shooter it looks OK. As a No5 rifle, doubtful.
"A lot of these guns are faked..." I've never even seen photos of a "fake" one, because of course the unique parts are too rare and too expensive to reproduce. "Approximate simulations" maybe, but nothing that would fool a person who was even moderately informed.
Anyone else seen any?
Our friend has lots of interesting information in his videos, but there are many, many small(?) errors of fact I notice. For example, describing the lightening cuts that were reputedly the source of the "wandering zero" as being "under the stock", when they are not, etc. etc.
This really makes me wonder about how accurate the information is in other videos!
For example, he made a video about the Martello Tower on the Plains of Abraham at Quebec, asserting that it was a French fortification which Sir Charles Ross used as a backstop for testing rifles out of some sort of ethnic animus, blah, blah, blah. The whole thing was a complete travesty and probably some nonsense made up by someone he encountered there. I get the feeling the "get this week's video out" imperative has taken over. (you can see a note has since been added to the video description - I guess someone pointed out who built Martello Towers!)
https://youtu.be/ZUgyS46bk_E
I think they meant faked, not a real reproduction that could fool. Like you write...Quote:
Originally Posted by Surpmil
Am I the only one noticing that it's marked as a Faz on the left flat of the receiver but as a BSA on the left wrist? Check the pics #6 & #7. Bolt is solid but could have been replaced. If it's a real No5 there's just too much wrong with it to be worth the hassle.
i noticed it too. and as i was reading this thread i noticed no one else brought it up. for a secounfd i thought maybe i was wrong in my line of thinking until i saw your post. lol thanks bud. but yes i have a legit BSA no5. so i immediatly noticed the m/47 bit. and then i thought wait a sec... its also marked faz...Quote:
Originally Posted by oldfoneguy
The "F.T.R" marking tells us it went through a Factory Thorough Repair at Fazackerly and that explains the markings on the receiver wall.Quote:
Originally Posted by rpchachee
ah yes i didnt catch that until you pointed it out.
Looks like No.4 wood...Check for the lightening cuts...