This one should be interesting

[me2]

Auction # 219593266 13 days to go. Wonder if it might turn out to be another one of the high-dollar sales. It does look nice. Almost too nice, but I remember Hunter's lodge back in the 1960's selling #5's as brand new so I guess it's possible.

Enfield No5 Jungle Carbine, no reserve, (13) : Curios and Relics at GunBroker.com

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.

[jrhead75]

The wood doesn't look right to me (especially the markings). Replacement or heavily refinished and remarked by the look of things. Doesn't match the condition of the metal.

[Beerhunter]

That is an extremely good looking rifle. Now call me a romantic, but that looks a LOT better than a recent $1750 No.5 sale. What's particularly nice is that unlike the latter rifle, this one doesn't have the finish applied OVER the London Proof Marks. In other words, it looks "right" to me.

[Gingercat]

I had a look at the other Enfields from the same seller and all seem to have had the same wood refinishing, particularly on the butt stocks. Perhaps the original owner liked to 'tidy them up' when he first bought them... shame, I like to see the age patina myself.

[me2]

The wood doesn't look right to me (especially the markings). Replacement or heavily refinished and remarked by the look of things. Doesn't match the condition of the metal.

I noticed the stock markings too and they are not what I'm used to seeing, but also having seen a good deal of unusual styles in Enfield stampings especially the metal stamps could such a wood stamp style exist? I know on the two all matching #5's I have the forestock stamps are not like those seen on this auction rifle. If someone out there has one similar let us know. Also the wood has a "dry" appearance to me.

[RobD]

I'm with beerhunter on this one. A very nice carbine. Pics 11 and 12 look like it is "un-used".

[barbarossa]

Gave this rifle a serious look too. Basically it's a gun with decent metal and the wood has been lightly refinished. Stock patina just ain't right. This is especially obvious on the pix of the foreend cap as you can see the original radius has been sanded out of round. And the stocks markings have all been deepened and highlighted with a sharp pencil. Possibly some touch up painting around the flashhider and bayonet lug. Yep, it's been fiddled with a bit.

[jrhead75]

I'm with beerhunter on this one. A very nice carbine. Pics 11 and 12 look like it is "un-used".

The wood very possibly was unused until recently...the butt plate, back sight, and flash hider/foresight all certainly look used, or at least 60 + years old to me. The wood doesn't match that...it seems nearly perfectly clean in the nooks and crannies, unlike the metal. The inspectors' stamps just don't look right either.

[fergs]

scuse my ignorance on this one, yes it does look like a nice piece of timber and the steel work looks almost like it was pulled out of the box yesterday. The markings on it of no5 mk1 ROF (F), obviously a no5 mk1 but the ROF? please explain... as i have one in no where as good a nick but from the same year so i can get my facts straight.
Regards
Fergs

[Brian Dick]

ROF(F)=Royal Ordnance Factory(Fazakerley)