Unissued no 5 mk 1

[Peter Laidler]

I see that it's a 1947 - Z serial number prefix. Anyone out there in Forumland know the last Fazakerley No5 serial numbers. I expect it's out there somewhere.

When we were overhauling them, although I didn't take that much notice, I quickly realised that they ascended alphabetically in line with the month/year dates.

[Beerhunter]

I see that it's a 1947 - Z serial number prefix. Anyone out there in Forumland know the last Fazakerley No5 serial numbers. I expect it's out there somewhere.

When we were overhauling them, although I didn't take that much notice, I quickly realised that they ascended alphabetically in line with the month/year dates.

Mine is a 4/47 and its AA2XXX. I have the number list somewhere. I'll look tomorrow.

[Beerhunter]

To my eye if someone faked it up they went to the trouble of polishing off the original electric pencil markings and redoing them after the paint went on. The proof marks on the barrel look like they went on top of the paint, but that on the receiver ring does not,

I can't agree. I have one of those engravers (as they are called now) and with a little practice I could follow the original marking under a re-finish to achieve exactly that effect.

However to me it is the London Proof marks that are the clincher that this rifle has been refinished. The "Armed Arm" holding a Seax on the barrel is is part of the London Proof mark and it has clearly been applied prior to the current finish. There are just a few glints on some numbers on the rest of the Proof marks that seem to have been caused by loss of some finish.

[Thunderbox]

I can't agree. I have one of those engravers (as they are called now) and with a little practice I could follow the original marking under a re-finish to achieve exactly that effect.

However to me it is the London Proof marks that are the clincher that this rifle has been refinished. The "Armed Arm" holding a Seax on the barrel is is part of the London Proof mark and it has clearly been applied prior to the current finish. There are just a few glints on some numbers on the rest of the Proof marks that seem to have been caused by loss of some finish.

I think the wood and numbers are all genuine - the numbers have that "look" to them common to mint rifles. I suspect that just the barrel and breech ring have had a coat of something to tidy up the scuff and scratch marks you find even on "mint" rifles.

[krinko]

Peter,
The last reported serial number prefix for Fazakerley No5s I am aware of is "AC", which ran at least from August to December 1947----I had August and October, Lewis Maynard had December.
-----krinko

[Peter Laidler]

Thanks for that Krinko. I knew that someone would know