No5 rifle information

[Peter Laidler]

I found this info a year or so ago in some dusty files here at Warminster.

The No5 rifle drawings were approved for commencement (whatever that means in straight talking speak........) in August 1943 and the rifle, provisionally called the No5 Mk1 approved and sealed on 1st May 1944

The first rifle was produced at BSA on 2nd November 1944 and the first 12 rifles completed that day. They were sent to the Small Arms School for trials and evaluation.

So if you have a BSA November '44 rifle, it's pretty early. Any takers?

As for the No8 rifles...........
The order for samples based on the newly approved No5 rifle went to BSA in July 1944 and the first pilot model was received in September 1944. Another 100 were ordered on the strength of that on 23rs September '44 and the first 25 were delivered to the Small Arms School on 27th August 1945 with the remainder following on.

There, another bit of long lost and little known useless information

Information

Warning: This is a relatively older thread This discussion is older than 360 days. Some information contained in it may no longer be current.

[5thBatt]

Cant do an early BSA, but i have a 4/44 Fazakerley that pre-dates the 1st May 1944 approval date

[finloq]

That wood looks great!

[Alan de Enfield]

Peter - do you remember posting this on the old Jouster ?

"...... I have to confess that until I was in New Zealand in 1967, I didn’t know that in early 1949 the No5 was on the cusp of being introduced as the standard service rifle to replace the No4. I read this while reading an old, little document in the workshop bosses office, ASM Leo Francis. The document was about the sale of and introduction into New Zealand of the .22” No8 rifle. The document was aimed at Australia too but I never saw a No8 when I was there, except for an odd-ball owned by ASM Clive Connors at Bandiana. He was another RAEME Armourer …., who’d probably ‘liberated’ it when he was somewhere. I did get him some spares sent over in the freight from Malaya, consisting of 1 complete and another all-but complete rifle but I digress again. The document in Leo’s office at Ngaruawahia went on to say that the No8 was introduced into British Army service and will eventually supplant the No2 rifle and various others throughout. ‘Throughout’ probably meant the other odds and sods such as the No7’s and No9’s plus the little ex US lend lease Mossbergs that you could still see occasionally. It was correct because the No8 did replace them eventually although the RAF Cadets at Abingdon did still have a couple of No7’s in 1982. But the No8 was the norm.

Oh, yes. The document said that the No8 rifle had been developed in look, style, feel and weight as a direct result of the forthcoming decision to adopt the No5 rifle as the standard arm throughout the Army. I asked Jock Annandale about it in conversation and he’d obviously heard and read this and commented to me that while it was a laudable idea, the No5 had many problems and while it might be OK in the jungle and as a short range close quarter weapon, it was definitely NOT a rifle for long ranges we’d expect in Europe. This was because once it got hot, its zero went. It was as simple as that. And as you all know, once you start to follow your zero over the target, it’s time to stop for the day. That’s because YOU are following the zero and generally, your eyes are going and you’re tired. But when it’s the RIFLE that’s causing it……………. And the No5 RIFLE did. He also told me, in words that Warrant Officers are apt to use when a silly suggestion is made, that the notion that the whole of the Commonwealth was going to change, when they were knee deep in perfectly good, almost new No4’s was pure , er ….., horse, er ……, manure! ....."

[Peter Laidler]

Hey 5th Batt, that is absolutely staggering info........... In fact I am going to down load your thinggy and attach it and the photos to the actual paperwork. While the approval date is sound, the proof of a Fazakerley 4/44 rifle makes a mockery of the paperwork we have here that states that it was a BSA 11/44 rifle. The trouble is that just WHO do we question regarding this obvious clash? I wonder if it actually relates to BSA's production of the rifle or the rifle in general. But it indicates to me that it is about the 'new' rifle in general.

As a matter of interest, does anyone have a pre 11/44 BSA No5

[Alan de Enfield]

There is another Forum where members post their No5 serial numbers and dates, the following are all 11/44 or earlier.

A bit more 'mockery' for the paperwork.

80XX - ?/44
81XX - 5/44
A125 - 7/44
A1089 - 7/44
A2056 - 8/44
A23XX - 5/44
A2852 - 6/44
A2267 - 8/44
A37XX - 8/44
A51XX - 8/44
A6530 - 8/44
A68XX - 8/44
A7363 - 9/44
A832X - 9/44
A8705 - 9/44
A7247 - 8/44
B2122 - 9/44
B4666 - ?/44 ( Date = 9/44 based on S/N comparison ) *
B6420 - ?/44 ( Date = 9/44 based on S/N comparison )
B746 - 9/44
B8102 - 10/44
B91XX - 10/44
C33XX - 9/44 ( Anomaly )
C4018 - 11/44
C6024 - ?/? ( Date = 11/44 based on S/N comparisons ) *
C61XX - 11/44
C6480 - 11/44
C6635 - 11/44
C86XX - 11/44
D21XX - 11/44
D3629 - 11/44

[Melanie_Daniels]

There is another Forum where members post their No5 serial numbers and dates, the following are all 11/44 or earlier.

A bit more 'mockery' for the paperwork.

80XX - ?/44
81XX - 5/44
A125 - 7/44
A1089 - 7/44
A2056 - 8/44
A23XX - 5/44
A2852 - 6/44
A2267 - 8/44
A37XX - 8/44
A51XX - 8/44
A6530 - 8/44
A68XX - 8/44
A7363 - 9/44
A832X - 9/44
A8705 - 9/44
A7247 - 8/44
B2122 - 9/44
B4666 - ?/44 ( Date = 9/44 based on S/N comparison ) *
B6420 - ?/44 ( Date = 9/44 based on S/N comparison )
B746 - 9/44
B8102 - 10/44
B91XX - 10/44
C33XX - 9/44 ( Anomaly )
C4018 - 11/44
C6024 - ?/? ( Date = 11/44 based on S/N comparisons ) *
C61XX - 11/44
C6480 - 11/44
C6635 - 11/44
C86XX - 11/44
D21XX - 11/44
D3629 - 11/44

This serial numbers are ROF not BSA.

[Amatikulu]

Fazakerley observed numbers http://home.earthlink.net/~smithkaia...ists/id21.html

BSA observed years http://home.earthlink.net/~smithkaia...ists/id20.html

[Peter Laidler]

Thanks for the Al. It'd be interesting to see/know if these are BSA or ROF6 No5's. But regardless of that, the paperwork, dated Jan or Feb 45 is wrong. Let's hope that the No8 stuff is OK!

[Peter Laidler]

I think Amatikulu has solved the 'problem'. The paperwork states ...........now I've lost the notes that I scribbled........... Ayway, it was written ambiguously could be read ambigously to the effect that the first of the new No5 rifles from BSA etc etc as being there were others (from Faz of course) was produced on--- and ----With the photo evidence, the note clearly relates to BSA production. Phew...... Anyway, I have inserted a note in the page to the effect that for future readers, this is the case.

Thanks chaps!