no 5 fake or real???

[dpl_hcm]

WTS: 1945 Enfield No. 5 Jungle Carbine w/ Wilkinson Bayonet - CMP Forums


the 1st no 5 on the listing fake or real or whats everyones thoughts?serial is out of range for a no5

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.

[HOOKED ON HISTORY]

All the lightning cuts seem to be correct. If all is as it appears and the bayonet is correct the price seems in line with the ones I have seen/ paid for the combo package. The serial number issue I will leave to the experts here.

[Beerhunter]

It has been refinished after it left service. The evidence being that the new finish has entered the Birmingham Proof marks which can only have been applied after it left service and entered the civilian market. Which of course, brings the bright markings on the receiver into question. So maybe not a fake but "tarted up"?

IIRC, that serial number does not square with the date. I have an AA**** from 1947.

Having said all that my diagnosis is based on photos.

[Thunderbox]

It looks 100% genuine to me, and I do not think it is refinished in civilian hands. It appears identical to all of the "mint" BSA and Faz No5s that have turned up on the market.

The markings are highly unusual and, as far as I know, not so far reported in the collectors community. It does appear to be a faz FTR of a BSA rifle, where the markings and the number have been created for a specific batch of rifles. The "B)" is very unusual, and obviously had some significance for that particular FTR.

I see that the BSA markings are scrubbed from the butt socket. My guess/supposition is that this not an FTR of a "used" rifle, but where Fazakerley has actually completed assembly and finishing of a rifle or action body supplied by BSA. Perhaps this is a case of BSA passing over surplus assemblies to Fazakerley as part of the MoS contract arrangements.

[Beerhunter]

It looks like this is being discussed on two forums. As I said, I can't see any reason why the the Proof marks would have finish in them but it could be trick of the light.

[Thunderbox]

It looks like this is being discussed on two forums. As I said, I can't see any reason why the the Proof marks would have finish in them but it could be trick of the light.

Yes, I've taken to copying and pasting my forum replies to save time!

Take your point about the Proof marks, but I do find that sometimes the Proof stamp has also impacted the suncorite - making it look as though the mark has been painted over. If you follow the photos in the link, and keep clicking on them, you get to the enormous original close-ups. You can see that the paint inside the stamps looks thinner - consistent with being stamped or rolled - and does not show any filling that might be from fresh paint.

What I also find is that even when these rifles are absolutely mint and unused, quite often the suncorite is worn off the exposed barrel and the bolt knob - presumably from storage handling. I have seen these bits repainted - giving the "look" that the whole rifle has been repainted.