No5 Age question

[Roger Payne]

And it's wearing a cut down No4 Mk2 forend. When No4 forends are cut down to fit No5's most people leave the front 'stub' forward of the barrel band too 'chunky', at least, compared to a genuine (no cap) No5 equivalent. This one could do with a bit of a hair cut (like many of us currently) there, although it's perfectly functional.

[browningautorifle]

Even with all that, it looks pretty good. If it has a nice bore and shoots passably then...

[Nick S]

Even with all that, it looks pretty good. If it has a nice bore and shoots passably then...

Bore does look ok - if it's a shooter, then I'm more than happy!

[Roger Payne]

Absolutely, enjoy it.

[browningautorifle]

Bore does look ok

Outstanding...still you can get a bayonet...in this case a reproduction might actually be in order. Cheaper by considerable and matches a repro carbine. There IS a chance it was produced as Peter Laidler stated "Made from a #4 rifle because there were no replacement #5 carbines available. Don't know how we'd prove that though.

[Bindi2]

Outstanding...still you can get a bayonet...in this case a reproduction might actually be in order. Cheaper by considerable and matches a repro carbine. There IS a chance it was produced as Peter Laidler stated "Made from a #4 rifle because there were no replacement #5 carbines available. Don't know how we'd prove that though.

It is either on this forum or the old Jouster. He was talking about the issues with the No5 they had in Malaya and how they dealt with the spare shortage. As actual proof probably not but I would put one in my collection based on condition being a hard jungle life not a safe queen.

[browningautorifle]

Thus I suggested a repro bayonet for this one...would be cheaper as well.

I just wondered of there were any workshop markings that would substantiate base creation.

[Alan de Enfield]

It is either on this forum or the old Jouster. He was talking about the issues with the No5 they had in Malaya and how they dealt with the spare shortage. As actual proof probably not but I would put one in my collection based on condition being a hard jungle life not a safe queen.

It was actually on the old Jouster forum, he posted the relevant post on 26th July 2008.
The relevant paragraph :

I think I mentioned earlier that when we were doing the big Crown Agents FTR programme, it was priced (so I was told) that if 70 came in, 70 went out and if some were ZF’d (scrap) then they’d be replaced from our ANZUK (I think this was Aust, NZ and UK stockholdings) mobilization stores from the huge …., and I mean HUGE Ordnance stockpiles close by at Johore Bahru. So we would cannibalise No5’s and if necessary, send them out with No4 bodies.

As it was an official FTR programme it may be reasonable to suggest that any such rifles that went thru' the process would be marked FTR

[Bindi2]

Thus I suggested a repro bayonet for this one...would be cheaper as well.

I just wondered of there were any workshop markings that would substantiate base creation.

That is a very good question.
As PL said it was a case of X number in the door X number out the door.

---------- Post added at 02:51 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:49 PM ----------

A d E you are the man top find. There was also a bit about the forends not being available as well.

[GeeRam]

It is either on this forum or the old Jouster. He was talking about the issues with the No5 they had in Malaya and how they dealt with the spare shortage. As actual proof probably not but I would put one in my collection based on condition being a hard jungle life not a safe queen.

I would speculate that this was a post service civilian conversion given the OP mentioned it has South African ordnance broad arrow mark from when it was a No.4.