Paratroop British No.5 Mk2 takedown rifle

In the past I have posted pictures of various No.5 Mk1s set up with removable buttstock using different methods of attachment. I did write about them in a Man at Arms issue as well. They were being evaluated as a paratroopers rifle but the program was eventually cancelled over concerns that part of the rifle might be lost during a jump.

I was strolling along fat dumb and happy considering that I had a good handle on this sort of animal. Then Ian Skennerton emailed me that he had photos of a No.5 Mk2 with program markings for the stocking up program that also has the dovetail takedown feature. I has taken over a year to get my happy paws on it. I do not recommend trying to import a rifle during a COVID outbreak, emotional ups and downs and very expensive.

I believe the serial number indicates it came from the same batch as the other No.5 Mk2 (returned to standard forestock with fat diameter screw).
Attachment 125398Attachment 125399Attachment 125400

Long time since I was looking at any info about those. Interesting variation.

Didn't know such a thing existed. Congrats

What can one say ?

Speechless !

Pictured and discussed in Skennerton's Lee Enfield book.

We had a butt for one of these with the rounded alloy abutment feature at Warminster. But the fixture was wood - similar to the original butt. The back end was exactly as per Paul's photo. Alas, as all Armourers quickly found out, that butts that fold in some way or another NEVER improve with age. They ALWAYS work looser and looser. While the EMER's suggest all sorts of bubba remedies, such as '.....swage the axis pin...' or '.....dolly back to shape....' the fault just came back with a vengeance. The exception was the little Rolls Royce of small arms. The Sterling L2A3 or the Mk4. It would work loose and was easy to repair properly. But it never actually wore out as such!

Fascinating variations there, they have to be exceptionally rare.
Three unicorns together!

Paul,
Thanks for these pearls or gems of Lee Enfield info, which has caused our archivists at Duxford in the museum to leave no papers unturned since I sent it to them yesterday.
There is a comment and a wild card that infers:
"Not taken forward as parts may separate in the parachuting roll and render the weapon superfluous".
Thats what mysteries are for to be solved if we can.

Added: That can't be a Tom or a Non Commissioned Officer's comments as lads could'nt spell that word supercalifragalistic lol

It appears I had that gun in my hands on March 30th, 2013 at the Calgary Easter Gunshow.

At that time, it belonged to a fellow in Saskatchewan...
Attachment 125424
Attachment 125425

I believe I posted photos at the time, but they have probably been wiped out...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lee Enfield

I had that gun in my hands on March 30th, 2013 at the Calgary Easter Gunshow.

---

Any recollection of price?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by browningautorifle

Any recollection of price?

---

It wasn't for sale - it was a case of "show and tell"...

Attachment 125426
Attachment 125427

this little item was at the same show (sorry for the image clarity)
I don't want to hijack PB's thread, just interesting that these things are often previously known.

Look like one of the 'last ditch' Enfields

Born of the desperate times, following the evacuation of the BEF from Dunkirk, that saw the development of the STEN MkI and the BESAL Light Machine Gun, the Simplified Rifle, 1941 was an attempt to develop a cheap and efficient rifle design which could be rapidly manufactured to re-equip the British Army. With production of Lee-Enfield rifles still ramping up the Enfield Design Department developed a number of prototype simplified rifles which could be quickly manufactured.

Chambered in the British military’s .303 service cartridge the Simplified Rifles took the action of the Pattern 1914 and simplified it. Commercial engineering workshops and factories were to manufacture the rifle. The design simplified the furniture and minimised the amount of machining needed to make the receiver. As a result the rifles had simple stocks and slab-sided receivers. The flip-up sights were simpler marked for 300 and 600 yards. A minimal amount of wood was used to save resources and one prototype had a simple half-stock and metal skeleton butt. Another prototype, perhaps an earlier model, had a full-length, more traditional butt-stock as well as front-sight protector posts.

The rifles retained the Pattern 1914?s 5-round internal magazine and had a push-button safety just behind the trigger. A spike bayonet was also added with a carrying point just under the barrel. To use the bayonet it was removed, reversed and reattached to the carrying point. While the British rifles were simple they were not as simple as some of Germany’s late-war Volkssturm rifles.

Historical Firearms - Simplified Rifles Born of the desperate times,...

It is the 'parachute troops' part of this that puzzles me a tad. Rifles are container loaded and if a No4 rifle would fit neatly into a container, then, er........., so would a No5 rifle! So the need for a SHORT No5 rifle is a bit self defeating. Then there is the notion that after landing you've got to assemble the rifle while sat around the container. Notice that I have not even mentioned that the rifle and butt came as two separate pieces. Guess what WOULD happen. Unless the butt part was linked to the rifle - linked together - it WOULD get separated just as sure as god made little green apples

Peter,
Totally agree, clearly a fad for someone who thought it a good idea at the time, and one can only summise at this stage until any papers are found to the contrary for that comment I put in earlier to be relative to this particular venture in modification:

"Not taken forward as parts may separate in the parachuting roll and render the weapon superfluous".

Of course the man portable container attached to your bergen came after the war, so any full sized manufactured rifle, would as you state be in a metal container on the DZ so would negate any modification in the first place!!

Morning Gil and Peter, wasn't the initial point of developing a shorter, lighter No4 (No5), to enable a Paratrooper to jump with it strapped to him?

It begs the question that if equipment containers were utilised early on, why was considerable effort wasted on No5 development?

I know it was also envisaged as superseding the No4 as the main service rifle, but all that effort into basically the same rifle a bit shorted and a bit lighter seems like an odd decision to make, with scarce resources on a War footing...

You would think that effort would have been better put into developing the Fn designed self loader, developed at Enfield during the war.

It would have given the British Army an Fn49, years before that rifle was actually launched...

John,
The only weapon EVER invisaged to be strapped to PARA's was the Sten. It was trialled and positioned just under the chest straps above the locking lug. After many broken ribs and other injuries that too was scrapped. Even then, there was a very strong chance of losing the butt.

So like Peter, I reserve my comments on why they would have bothered attempting it when containers were introduced to do just that. Conversely, we have no documented evidence from any major battles including the drop on Ginkel Heath for the Battle for Arnhem of ANY containers going missing leaving men without weapons.

So in short if it don't need fixing and it works OK don't try to change it, I suppose was the sensible phylosophy.

Cheers Gil....

So, I believe the original thinking for the No5, was for Airborne use, it's just curious to go through all the lightning/shortening troubles and trauma, just to chuck it in a parachute drop container that they might as well have put a No4 in anyway...

Or have I got it wrong, wouldn't be the first time mate....

Perhaps the johnny who thought up the two piece sten for paratroops had a go at the No.5? He was given this program so he would not muck up a more important one? Leek this to Germans to use their time and resources?

Basic military fact.

Equipment that is designed to be used fitted together will always be shipped separately [in many different ways].

These are pictures I found in the archive dated 1942, and the second one is dated 1945 No2's with sniper lads carrying stens, and it can clearly be seen how their No4T rifles were covered in bags too, with early bag containers at their feet which like today would have been lowered on exit.

Side note Gil, the stens are broken down with the butt off and shoved into the chest straps of the parachute harness. I know how tight those are supposed to be but they have the butt removed and not even in a weapons container. I personally think having anything hard between me and the harness would hurt on opening shock.

The rifle cases, assuming that is what they are, look like hand stitched packing felt...Look at the crude stitching up the length of the case or ???
Did they cut the stitching or did it just rip out like a feed sack or ???
Interesting and first time I have noticed that method of packing what we are assuming to be a rifle.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Warren

The rifle cases

---

If you look closely at the bottom on the one para's foot, you see a snap. I'll bet they slid the weapon in from the end and had a snap fastener.

Guys,
Thats why like Peter, I was surprised to hear of the work on the NO5 which led to this thorough search of our detailed archive.
There is absolutely no mention of a Paratrooper No5 conversion anywhere, but I know, rather than keep showing off the bronze statue it was also important to show bad practices used to during the war in the carriage of other weapons like the Sten. The 1942 image is a training stick.
Jim it would have certainly broken many bones carried under the harness like that, but heyho, you only do it once :madsmile:

Warren, sorry forgot your question. All our weapons bags are made with the same tough but soft felt when carrying weapons of this ilk. They were retained and reused everytime not disgarded.

I have to say Gil, its interesting the US Airborne troops of the same period appeared to go another way with the M1A1 Carbine scabbard being strapped to the side. Apparently it was heavily padded, but still an issue if you landed on it I should think!

The advantage obviously being that once you had struggled out of your chute, you had your weapon immediately to hand, assembled and ready to go, pop the two fasteners, pull out the M1A1, swing round the stock, and your'e in business....

Unlike the Garand armed guys who had to find the weapons container, get a rifle and put it together, must have been absolutely horrendous and nerve wracking if the DZ was hot....

I suppose the Americans had the delayed advantage of learning from both the Germans and British while assembling and equipping their Airborne forces.

Certainly the US Airborne uniform appears to be the best designed of the bunch re WW2.

John,
Good point as well. When a container hit the ground and you were most probably underfire, you had to defrock your chute and run to where you believed it was, sort through other weapons to find yours. Highly frustrating and must have cost a lot of lives and most probably the reason why the sytems were reviewed towards the end of that war.
Snipers being snipers wouldn't trust other grunts not to snatch their rifles, so they jumped with them.
I did on ONE occasion landwith my container still strapped to me, as I was busy kicking out of mega twists after some prat collided with me in a night drop, and I can tell you even though I was prepared for a side left landing it still hurt a lot to have your weapon, albeit covered in felt, hit your body. The L1A1 barrel is tough and unforgiving!!

So what it must have been like for those in the 82nd and 101st must have been rib tickling:madsmile:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mrclark303

Unlike the Garand armed guys who had to find the weapons container

---

No, they also jumped with their rifle at their leg in a "Griswold" bag. US troops at least... Those are the reusable canvas and felt containers. The M1 was originally broken down to stock, upper receiver and trigger mech groups for packing. You did have to assemble your rifle though...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Warren

The rifle cases, assuming that is what they are, look like hand stitched packing felt...Look at the crude stitching up the length of the case or ???
Did they cut the stitching or did it just rip out like a feed sack or ???
Interesting and first time I have noticed that method of packing what we are assuming to be a rifle.

---

Had one of those cases previously: there was a piece of white nylon strapping similar to a heavy mine tape and a slit in the felt about where the receiver would be when the rifle was in the case. My assumption was the strap was let in through the slit and put around the rifle action (perhaps through the trigger guard). Seem to recall the rifle was to be lowered before hitting the ground, probably to avoid it entangling or striking the soldier as he landed. End closure as a simple web strap with a snap IIRC. Will see if I have photos of it still.

...And here's a photo I found. Looking at the photo I was mistaken above: the strap must have gone around the wrist of the butt. A No.4(T) would not have fit with the scope mounted.

As for the removable butts on the No.5s, perhaps they were intended for other purposes - weren't the cut down No.1 Mk.V rifles with special stock bolts in TBS described as being done for South Africa police use?

My thread on similar mystery valises. Definitely for the No 4, not the No 5 though.:D
https://www.milsurps.com/showthread.php?t=75767

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Surpmil

weren't the cut down No.1 Mk.V rifles with special stock bolts in TBS described as being done for South Africa police use?

---

Now that would be interesting to know, tell more please.

Attachment 125560

My No. 1 MkV concealable as pictured in Skennerton's books. The former owner purchased it from a Military School museum in Gettysburg Pa. that closed. It was set up by Greeners for the South African police. I was told that there was one in Greener's factory collection.

The barrel extends from the end of the forestock as it was necessary to extend the barrel to avoid it being classified as a short barreled rifle. The lump protruding from the butt trap is a folding wrench used to remove the buttstock bolt allowing the rifle to be dismounted into two pieces.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Surpmil

Had one of those cases previously: there was a piece of white nylon strapping similar to a heavy mine tape and a slit in the felt about where the receiver would be when the rifle was in the case. My assumption was the strap was let in through the slit and put around the rifle action (perhaps through the trigger guard). Seem to recall the rifle was to be lowered before hitting the ground, probably to avoid it entangling or striking the soldier as he landed. End closure as a simple web strap with a snap IIRC. Will see if I have photos of it still.

...And here's a photo I found. Looking at the photo I was mistaken above: the strap must have gone around the wrist of the butt. A No.4(T) would not have fit with the scope mounted.

---

Yes, a scoped 4T won't fit in the felt rifle drop valise.
I used to have a moth eaten one decades ago, and sold it along with all my militaria collection a long time ago. Its very rare to find one in the UK that isn't mothed, because of the felt construction. If you do find one, they are now very expensive, at least £500+ for a good one!!

I have a vague recollection that Steve Kiddle of Pegasus Militaria made a small batch of excellent repro's some years back.....but my memory may be playing tricks on me. He does still make a superb repro of the WW2 drop bags though.

Attachment 125566Attachment 125567Attachment 125568Attachment 125569

Pictures of my valise for what it is worth. p.

For all the world, it looks like it's cut out of a grey (wool)blanket...

A very dense felt about 3/4" thick as I recall. The same sort of stuff "Russian" felt books are made from. A couple of those cases split open would have made a very good sleeping mat if kept dry!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by breakeyp

My No. 1 MkV concealable as pictured in Skennerton's books.

---

I would love to know more about this. The South African Police requirement for something like this would have been bizarre as it was very much still a 'paramilitary' police service at that time, with its own artillery still.
In South Africa we still don't have a restriction on barrel length for rifles, so the to

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by breakeyp

extend the barrel to avoid it being classified as a short barreled rifle

---

doesn't fit in. IIRC there wasn't even a requirement for licensing firearms at that time.
In my opinion this wasn't official South African Police, but something else.

Daan,
Until the SAP was formed as a national police Force in 1913, there were loads of smaller, probably more efficient colonial police forces, as they knew their trouble makes up close and personal.
Police Forces like the Cape Mounted Riflemen, Cape Mounted Police, the Transvaal Police, the Natal Police, the Orange River Colony Police and a few more?

Its the same as here in the UK, once Forces merge, which they are doing at the moment. but keeping their County name, they lose touch with their respective County tax payers, and the poor response is also reflective in showing it doesn't work. It won't be long before there is a National Police Force or most certainly, Eastern Police, Western Police and North and South too.
Real shame they didn't keep those old names in SA so much history gone.

True.

I offer the following reasons. Economy of scale. A long process to demilitarise the police. Uniform approach to law enforcement. Uniform accountability. Etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daan Kemp

I would love to know more about this. The South African Police requirement for something like this would have been bizarre as it was very much still a 'paramilitary' police service at that time, with its own artillery still.
In South Africa we still don't have a restriction on barrel length for rifles, so the to doesn't fit in. IIRC there wasn't even a requirement for licensing firearms at that time.
In my opinion this wasn't official South African Police, but something else.

---

The barrel length question relates to US laws and has nothing to do with SA. Taken down the gun will fit nicely in luggage allowing a rifle to be taken into a hotel unseen.

Attachment 125652

Continuing my examination of my new acquisition, I note that the dovetail design is different between the two rifles. The thicker metal joint on the Mk2 shows it to have a more protected and solid takedown catch. The Mk2 is on the right.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by breakeyp

I do not recommend trying to import a rifle during a COVID outbreak, emotional ups and downs and very expensive.

---

PB,
Surely that adventure would take a few years off ones life span.

Is there a chance your new acquisition will make it to your display at this weekends (4-23/24) Michigan Antique Arms Collectors show in Novi ?
A while back I seen your Cut Away Shotguns Display, when your table was against the wall. Very informative and nicely done. We enjoyed / Appreciated it very much.
I'm hoping some plans change so I can make this weekends show.
I'll say hello if I make it.
I'm about 40 minutes West of the Suburban Collection Showplace.
That's one gun display my Wife enjoys. Hard to get her away from Jim and Roberta's Trench Art.

Cheers,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by painter777

PB,

Is there a chance your new acquisition will make it to your display at this weekends (4-23/24) Michigan Antique Arms Collectors show in Novi ?

---

Sorry, display will be Lee's single shot rifle, Winchester Lee, Remington Lees and a sectioned Australian cutaway MkIII serial no. 1. Several years ago I had the takedowns out for the show.