Enfield No V ( Not for the faint Hearted)

[Jim K]

Nitpicking again, but it is a Rifle No. 1, Mk V. There is no Number "V", but a Rifle No. 5 is the "Jungle Carbine."

Jim

[bigduke6]

I Spoke with with Geoff from EDF today (Thanks to RJW NZ) i did speak to Jim from EDF last week regarding where i could find a rear sight for my re barrel on My Portuguese Mauser (please see thread in mauser section or thread on milsurps restoration)
Geoff gave me lot of information which i appreciated,
I discussed the options for the stock, he told me that the first few they did were No 1 Mk111 stocks (which i do have a nice example) only probs was the cut out for the rear sight protector, in which they used near matching pieces of walnut to fill in the cut outs but said due to the value of the mkV and the cut out repair still visible they decided to get the new stocks made. i will try to fill my existing stock, the rear sight i will try to reproduce myself this will take time, (if i win the lotto i will give EFD a ring), i need some pics to work to, there are a few in the Milsurp libary but any others please contact me, the extra barrel band i can do, which leaves the handgaurds for £65 which i think is a fair price.
I stripped it down last night and before i remove the barrel (this is not standard No1 Mk111 ?) , will log the stamps and numbers etc and post a thread on each part of the project will post in the restoration section in milsurp. if there is anywhere in the world i stood a chance of finding a few bits, it would be the war and peace show next month, but i will be in the USA during this time, for anyone who has never been to the show, GO you will need two days to walk around all the trade stands even then you will of missed some. Thanks to all who have helped so far and also sorry for my mistake of calling it a No5 instead of Mk5 have a lot going on at present Studying for exams, plus My Springfield arrived today,very happy a nice example.

[louthepou]

Keep us posted Bigduke, and thanks for thinking about posting about the steps and progress in the Restoration section

Lou

[harry mac]

Hmm, Peter, would this possibly mean that a rear-sightless MkV would be a correct restoration?

Sightless would not be correct for an as issued rifle. I believe Peter's refering to any rifles which were still at the factory. Rifles leaving the factory for issue would have been complete. I immagine that any useable parts that were on hand by the time war broke out were utilised in MkIII* production where possible.
Apparently the rifles rebuilt by EFD were all just bare recievers when Jim and Geoff aquired them. I'm sure Jim will jump in and correct if I'm off track.
Do any forum users know if the MkV saw any use at all during WWII, whether by the home guard or other rear line units?

[JB White]

According to Edwards and his photographic evidence, some MkV's were used for prototype conversions to No5's during WW2. Apparently India received many MkV's once the UK was finished with their evaluatuions of them.

[Alfred]

I stripped it down last night and before i remove the barrel (this is not standard No1 Mk111 ?)

I'd been wondering about the barrel profiles of various Mks of these transitional rifles and trials rifles.

I'd been told that there was no difference in the MkIII barrels and those for rifles like yours and no difference between the No.4 barrels and the No.1 Mk VI barrels.

A friend has a British No.4 that has a barrel that is far slimmer than any other No.4 barrel I've seen.
It doesn't appear to be a Mk VI action but I'd wondered if the barrel might have come from a trials rifle.

[bigduke6]

Pics of barrel, i have only compared it with my SMLE No1 Mk111 and old No 4 barrels, its the step down i,ve never seen ? Also the last pics show a P on the action and P on the top of the stock. Will replace the barrel as its been cut down may replace with a heavy barrel (anyone got one)

[Alfred]

So there is a considerable difference between the barrels of the Mark V and those of the Mk III.
I'd figured there should be, especially since there would be no base afixed to the barrel and no need for a cross pin or screw hole.

Regardless of whether the rifle was restorable or not its a very interesting piece.

I hope you can find all the parts you need.

[5thBatt]

All i can add is
1 The barrel is not original
2 Not a SMLE barrel
3 Not a No4 barrel

There appears to be a lot of material removed from the top of the receiver ring.

[bigduke6]

So there is a considerable difference between the barrels of the Mark V and those of the Mk III.
I'd figured there should be, especially since there would be no base afixed to the barrel and no need for a cross pin or screw hole.

Regardless of whether the rifle was restorable or not its a very interesting piece.

I hope you can find all the parts you need.

Forgot to upload these pics as you can see there are holes, plus an outline for a sightbase also have pic of reciever and barrel, you can see something has been there, as there are 2 holes one on the barrel and the other at rear of reciver which may not be that visiblein the pic, i would say have been filled in, probably with a stud and then filed flush , also at the very end a faint arrow so barrel was a military barrel, there is also an E with a circle around? Main concern is getting the barrel off as i think this will be a complete Bas***d to move but before i do i want to make sure i am not going to destroy a one off prototype, as i intend to use a parting off tool to take some meat off the barrel as close to the receiver as possible just to relieve some pressure on the threads and make life easy to remove the barrel.