Help! Dodgy No. 5 ????

[Patrick Chadwick]

Gentlemen, I need some help.

I see what appears at first glance to be a genuine No. 5, complete with bayonet lug and fore-end cap. At second glance, I see what looks like an "Ishy" screw in the fore-end, about 1" in front of the handguard retaining ring (is that where one would expect to find it?).

Another small snag: although the receiver is definitely a No 4/5 type, it is marked RFI 1964. Oops!

So I deduce that UNLESS the Indians had some No 5s in service AND felt like giving them a complete overhaul in 1964, remarking the system in the process, it MUST be a fake. Correct? But, by heavens, it looks convincing.

How on earth could a receiver that (as far as I know) was never made by RFI, come to be marked with RFI and 1964? Why would a faker remark a No 4/5 system in such a way that one MUST be suspicious. Why not just leave it alone?

Does anyone have an explanation for this curiosity?

I always take the line "buy the rifle, not the story" - and it looks like a fair rifle! And I would like a No.5. But not a fake. Help!

Patrick


Just checked again - the receiver is No. 5 type - it has the relief cuts just in front of the backsight. It fact, it's a dead ringer for this one:

https://www.milsurps.com/showthread.php?t=14419

If it's a fake, by heavens it's a good one!

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.

[Brian Dick]

I've seen several RFI FTR rifles, (SMLE, No.4 and No.5), that were completely linished of the original manufacturers markings on the bodies and had RFI and late dates like you describe stamped on in their place. I wouldn't think it's a fake but a legit RFI FTR as done in 1964. If it was a Fazakerley rifle to start, it's not so difficult as the engraving was pretty shallow as new.

[jona]

What Brian said. Used to own one.

[vintage hunter]

My No.4T is marked F.R 1962 R.F.I. Most all British marking were romoved.