Questions on No 5 MK 1 authenticity

[Aragorn243]

Found a No 5 jungle carbine today that is priced such to really call it into question.

I found no markings on the rifle other than a 4 digit serial number with the U prefix. The serial number is stamped on the receiver, bolt handle, stock near the end of the fore end. The magazine serial does not match. I can see very faintly where it had been ground off MK ??? on the receiver above the serial number. The sights appear to be correct, it is is a fake it's a good one. I did not take the hand guard off to see if it has the grooves cut into it.

I read that it is possible this was a commonwealth rifle that was sold as surplus to a third country and that the markings could have been ground off at this time. Bore is a dark but very good rifling, will probably clean up. Stock is solid but has a reddish shellac similar to that found on many RC k98's. Front hand guard ring is in bad shape but is the only part on the rilfe that is.

Feels like a good solid piece but I'm no expert on these and the lack of manufacturers mark and proof stampings has me concerned. The serial number stamp on the bolt looks like many I've seen photos of on the net on legit rifles, there is part of what looks like a proof mark directly after it. The serial on the receiver is stamped, not electropenciled which seems to be more normal for these. Also the U prefix is much higher than any others I could find.

There is an import marking on the barrel that id's it as a MK 5.

The price is just over $200 so I don't think I'd be in bad shape either way but would prefer legit over fake obviously. The gun shop just got it in and I suspect from the way he was acting, the lack of markings has him wondering a bit too. If this is legit, it should have what look like finger grooves cut out of the receiver ring? I've seen a photo but it wasn't real clear.

Information

Warning: This is a relatively older thread This discussion is older than 360 days. Some information contained in it may no longer be current.

[finloq]

A gentleman just posted pics of his new No.5 on another sight. His pics are excellent. Compare and contrast. http://forums.gunboards.com/showthre...ckage-(w-Pics)

[Aragorn243]

Somewhat helpful, that is what the rifle looks like but as I said, the markings on the one I'm looking at are gone. Where the "England" is stamped on the ring between the stocks, the serial number has been stamped. Where the electro penciled ID label is, there is a very faint marking that I can partially read and it's apparent the marking was ground off.

[bradtx]

Aragorn243, The action body should have the same lightening cuts as in finlog's link, pic 3 (You should see the same gap between the backsight and the upper edge of the action body.). You'll need to remove the handguard to see if the barrel is correct. BTW, the nomenclature is No.5 Mk.I. A Mk.5/Mk.V is shorthand for a whole different L-E variant.

I cleaned a new to me No.5 with nothing but gun oil and a twill cloth and lost the electro penciling on the LH sidewall because it was so lightly done.

Brad

[Aragorn243]

I'm going to stop in and look at it again today with a copy of the photo showing the receiver.

[Aragorn243]

I bought it. Every part on this rifle looks identical to all the photos from finlog's link. I can make out electropencil marks very faintly as I described above that say "No 5 MK", that's as much as I can make out on it. I removed the handguard, the barrel appears to be correct with the fluted cut outs and it is covered in proof marks. No rust under there either.

And the nomenclature is No 5 Mk 1 303 U - KING on the import mark. Thanks for pointing that out, I get these rifles all messed up in my head. So I'm hoping I did good. I don't have time until the weekend to get some photos up but will definately get some up soon after.

Thanks for your help.

I changed the title of the thread so it makes sense. Sorry for the confusion.

[Steve H. in N.Y.]

This sounds like a legitimate No.5 that I used to own which was rebuilt at Ishapore. The Indians are known for sometimes removing the original manufacturer's markings. Does your rifle by any chance have the transverse wood screw through the forend?

[spinecracker]

I came across a No.4 Mk.1/3 the other day that had the original marks removed. The locations where the marks were removed makes me think it was a Savage. The rifle had been reserial numbered, and FTR had been electropencilled on the left side of the receiver. There was no Ishy screw. Could this have been a Fazakerley FTR? Sorry to hijack the post, but I have recently come across several Enfields that have had the orginal marks removed, and I wonder how common this is.

EDIT - got my answer via a search on gunboards (http://forums.gunboards.com/showthre...e-No.4-Mk.-1-3) - the rifle I saw was FTRed at BSA, according to the information in the discussion. Anyone know how common BSA FTRs to Mk1/2 or Mk.1/3 configuration are?

[bradtx]

spinecracker, The BSA FTRs and conversions are fairly uncommon, but not rare.

Brad

[spinecracker]

Brad, that is what I thought, but as I had not heard of them until yesterday, I had a big lump of ignorance that had to removed lol. The seller wants $280 for the rifle, and it is in pretty good condition, and I would like to have 1 Enfield (having to sell a 1941 Long Branch and an Enforcer to cover some medical bills was just a little heart-wrenching, although I won't admit that to the wife lol). There is a gun show coming up in 1 week, so I might wait until then to make my mind up (and raid my daughters piggy banks...)