1968 MP5 with no serial number

[mrclark303]

More thinking out loud.....
How about a slave gun for proofing other components.... So the body would stay in the factory with no intention of been sold.. untill the factory closed.....
Do Britishicon issue HandKs have UK proof marks?
I believe the (weapon) receiver in Germanyicon is not as accountable as it is in the UK

That's a possibility Andy, another good suggestion, could well be. Conditions a bit good for that though and the barrel and receiver both have the same early factory finish on. It would seem odd too if that were the case that it would not be clearly marked "Factory Use Only" or a variation of that.

From what I've seen of MP5s, the Hk version is marked Hk but the license built guns have another marking in the same place i.e. P.O.F, En etc.

So if this one is marked Hk, surely it is a Hk built gun. A bit like Henry Ford marking all his Jeeps with the ford F script so that he didn't have to fix broken Willys parts under warranty!

The thing is Chris, I believe (tell me if I'm wrong) that all the Enfield marked examples were only assembled and marked En at ROF Enfield from components supplied by HK as opposed to being manufactured there. I think this was done to circumvent the Arms export restrictions that Hk were working under back in the late 1960's and early 1970's.

That's why my initial thoughts on this piece were (probably still are) as a Hk supplied early manufacture MP5, as a parts kit, or as a complete firearm, to help with setting up production at ROF Enfield. 1968 is about the right time frame.

Perhaps it was supposed to be assembled and numbered at Enfield and for some reason this was never done ...

I have a variation on this theory, Perhaps it was supplied to, but never assembled at Enfield and was only completed by the RFD who bought it from the Enfield site as it was drawing down toward closure.

We would need input from a former Enfield employee who worked on the MP5 project to shed light on this. I do know an awful lot of Firearm parts went into the trade when this formally great British institution closed.

I have contacted the Enfield Apprentices Association before, in an effort to gather information on MP5 production, but never received any response unfortunately.

[Brit plumber]

Can you say who deactivated it?

I'd imagine if the gun was a slave unit, it would have Slave marked on it as per Tom Ready's Bren Mk3 (which is numbered)

[mrclark303]

Can you say who deactivated it?

I'd imagine if the gun was a slave unit, it would have Slave marked on it as per Tom Ready's Bren Mk3 (which is numbered)

I will dig out the cert at lunch time to see who submitted it to the Proof House. Agreed if it was a slave unit, it would have something written on, "Factory use only", "slave unit" etc

[Lee Enfield]

I've been watching this thread for a while, and wondering why no one has mentioned that the HK logo looks a bit hinky compared to the other markings.

[Peter Laidler]

Re Clarkie thread, last line 31, its all to do with the commercial equivalent of official secrets. It's the old Commercial in Confidence clause.

It's correct that most (?) of RSAF material that was trials or slave type kit was usually clearly marked as such, such as FOYER DISPLAY. But where it was accessible to all and sundry it was usually made inert some way or another. We had quite a few ex RSAF ismall arms related and display tems at Warminster that came with odd trials handbooks etc etc.

[mrclark303]

Right found it. Submitted by "Messers Modern & Antique Firearms LTD", Birmingham Proof House, 29,9,1989

[mrclark303]

I've been watching this thread for a while, and wondering why no one has mentioned that the HK logo looks a bit hinky compared to the other markings.

Its probably my photograph, it is comparable to many other early examples I have seen.

Re Clarkie thread, last line 31, its all to do with the commercial equivalent of official secrets. It's the old Commercial in Confidence clause.

It's correct that most (?) of RSAF material that was trials or slave type kit was usually clearly marked as such, such as FOYER DISPLAY. But where it was accessible to all and sundry it was usually made inert some way or another. We had quite a few ex RSAF ismall arms related and display tems at Warminster that came with odd trials handbooks etc etc.

Thanks for the info Peter, I quite understand confidentiality, I certainly wouldn't want anyone to get into bother. Talking about Foyer Display marked ex Enfield gear, a friend of mine has a "Foyer Display" marked L86A1, it's quite interesting, no trigger mech, solid barrel and no bolt head. Just a bolt carrier that moves under the tension of the recoil springs.

[tankhunter]

Its probably my photograph, it is comparable to many other early examples I have seen.


Thanks for the info Peter, I quite understand confidentiality, I certainly wouldn't want anyone to get into bother. Talking about Foyer Display marked ex Enfield gear, a friend of mine has a "Foyer Display" marked L86A1, it's quite interesting, no trigger mech, solid barrel and no bolt head. Just a bolt carrier that moves under the tension of the recoil springs.

John, I have seen & worked on these 'Types' of item from RSAF Enfield. They were marked 'Inert Weapon'. These were originally the ones they took to shows/ displays/ Military units. As sales examples' of what was going to be offered. The ones I had worked on had also had Deact certs issued later when they were released to the civilian Market. They had a block spot welded in the trigger mech housings, & as you said correctly. No bolt heads in the carriers.
There was controversy at the time at the London proof house. As to weather they were, or were not an actual weapon. Similar situation to the Russian Made in the factory from the word go. Inert 'Display' models of the Kalashnikov.

The end result was, they Had to be 'deactivated' & certificate's issued eventually. As some of the component's fell under restricted parts Etc in civil Law.

[mrclark303]

Morning Mike, thanks for the info. This one came straight out of the factory when a certain member of staff moved up to Nottingham.

The company regarding them as non firearms at the time ... I did notice on my inspection of this example though (as you say) a number of parts suitable for re-use, untouched bolt carrier for one, making them a bit iffy from a legal point of view.

Interesting piece of Enfield history though. If it was mine I would carry out some careful addtional work to ensure none of the parts were reusable in a live Firearm, just to be on the safe side.

[Brit plumber]

Yes I've seen these too, D and B had aN inert L86 for sale that had the US8x A prefix. It was being sold as a real L86 which is true in a way I suppose.