-
FREE MEMBER
NO Posting or PM's Allowed
================================
Daan asks - Did you check to see if it is possibly No 5 rifle?
================================
Daan -
The gun has a curious combination of "right" and "wrong" features, so either it is a mix of No.5 and other model parts, or it is the work of an unusually conscientious faker.
I removed the handguard, and the barrel does not have lightening flutes at the breech, so that settles it as not a No.5; however there is the proper amount of space (7 3/4 inches) between the barrel-band and the receiver.
The sight is wrong, being stamped MKII and graduated to 1300 yards, but it has the right amount of daylight between it and the receiver. The lightening cuts at the rear of the receiver are there, but one of them is not milled perfectly straight and parallel to the wood.
The electro-pencilled inscription on the receiver appears right for a Fazakerley gun, but that's easy to fake. The receiver has a transverse cut (as for scope-mounting) over the rear of the chamber and a big paint sag near the charger bridge. The socket has only the ENGLAND export mark, a couple of small broad arrrows, and some small marks I don't recognize.
The trigger guard extension has the proper undulating shape. The bolt handle does not have the lightening hole in the knob. The front sight is marked M/47C on the left, and on the right, has a broad arrow, three tiny unreadable marks, and what may be a sideways C (or a headphones icon, but no headphone jack is evident). The bayonet lug has an angled notch on the right side.
Nothing on the ill-fitting magazine except partially obliterated numbers and file marks on the bottom. No withdrawn-from-service double arrows anywhere on the rifle. The wood is unmarked, as are the barrel-band and hardened rubber buttplate.
If I had to guess, I'd say it's a genuine No.5 that had been sporterized and then semi-restored, having an original receiver, trigger-guard, buttplate and perhaps wood, but a replacement barrel, bolt, and sight from a different model rifle.
Any other information or speculations would be welcomed.
-- David
-
10-27-2019 11:10 AM
# ADS
Friends and Sponsors
-
Legacy Member
If it were me I would get a nice sharp centre punch and put a decent centre dot on the screw head as close to the edge as possible. Then locate the punch at an angle and knock it round.
Sounds primitive but worked when the head sheared head of a Luger P08 grip screw from 1917.
Failing that I'd say it's new bolt head time, and to be honest with the amount of force and pressure it is under I would say replacement is the best solution.
Last edited by Scout Sniper; 10-27-2019 at 12:01 PM.
-
-
-
FREE MEMBER
NO Posting or PM's Allowed
==============================
Daan asks - Did you check to see if it is possibly No 5 rifle?
==============================
Daan -
I tried to send this reply and got a message that a moderator would have to check it before it could published. After days of waiting I sent it again this morning and got the same message.The problem may have been the number of photos I included; so here it is without pictures, in hopes that it will get through -
The gun has a curious combination of "right" and "wrong" features for a No.5, so either it is a mix of No.5 and other-model parts, or it is the work of an unusually thorough faker.
I removed the handguard, and the barrel does not have lightening flutes at the breech, so that settles it as not an intact No.5 rifle; however there is the proper amount of space (7 3/4 inches) between the barrel-band and the receiver.
The sight is wrong, being stamped MKII and graduated to 1300 yards, but it has the right amount of daylight between it and the receiver. The lightening cuts at the rear of the receiver are there, but one of them is not milled perfectly straight and parallel to the wood. The inscription on the receiver appears right for a Fazakerley gun. The receiver has a transverse cut (as if for scope-mounting) over the rear of the chamber and a big paint sag near the charger bridge. The socket has only the ENGLAND export mark, a couple of small broad arrrows, and some small marks I don't recognize.
The trigger guard extension has the proper undulating shape for the No.5, but the bolt handle is solid, without the lightening hole in the knob. The front sight has M/47C stamped on the left side, and on the right, a broad arrow, a sideways C (or a headphones symbol, but no headphone jack is evident), and three tiny unreadable marks.The bayonet lug has an angled notch on the right side. No marks on the magazine except partially obliterated numbers and file marks. The stocks, barrel-band, and rubber-pad buttplate have no marks, and there are no withdrawn-from-service opposed arrows anywhere.
If I had to guess, I'd guess it's a genuine No.5 which had been sporterized at some point and later semi-restored, so the receiver, trigger guard and buttplate and possibly the wood are original; the barrel, bolt, and sights are replacements from some other model Enfield or modern repros.
Any other information, suggestions or speculations would be welcome.
-- David
-
Legacy Member
It sounds to me as if someone has rounded-up a heap of Enfield parts and said "lets see what we can make".
It would appear to be a total 'bitsa' that has not seen an amourer for many, many years.
At what stage does a rifle become something else - it would appear that the only 'correct' part is the action.
Photos would help to finalise the thinking, but, a No5 it isn't.
Mine are not the best, but they are not too bad. I can think of lots of Enfields I'd rather have but instead of constantly striving for more, sometimes it's good to be satisfied with what one has...
-
-
FREE MEMBER
NO Posting or PM's Allowed
Originally Posted by
Tremors.476
there is the proper amount of space (7 3/4 inches) between the barrel-band and the receiver.
...
If I had to guess, I'd guess it's a genuine No.5 which had been sporterized at some point and later semi-restored ...
-- David
Neglected to mention that that the squared metal cap to the fore-end is missing, and the wood there has been rounded off, suggesting an original No.5 stock, sporterized at one time.
-- D
-
Advisory Panel
Originally Posted by
Tremors.476
here it is without pictures
You could always email me the pics and I'll put them here. Check your PMs for messages...
-
-
Legacy Member
Originally Posted by
Tremors.476
Neglected to mention that that the squared metal cap to the fore-end is missing, and the wood there has been rounded off, suggesting an original No.5 stock, sporterized at one time.
-- D
Not sporterized. Removed in service because of water damage under the metal cap. PL discussed this in his notes.
-