No5 MK1 questions

[pake]

Hello all. I'm a new member here at Milsurps. I have recently acquired a few new to me rifles, among them is I believe a complete No5 MK1.

To make a long story much shorter, a few weeks ago my son and I were visiting a friend of his who mentioned in passing that he had a few guns that he was thinking about selling. That peaked our interest so we asked what he had. Within minutes he produced two shotguns and two rifles. They had belonged to his father, several years gone, and no one else in the family had any interest in them. The shotguns, a model 97 Winnie 12 gauge and an Ithica 16 gauge soon caught my son's eye. I was eyeing the two rifles. One was a 1917 Eddystone which had been sporterized, but it was nice. Bishop stock, Timney trigger, very nice bore. The other rifle was the No5, although he didn't promote it as such.

We made an offer for the four guns which he accepted, seeming happy that they were going to someone who cared about them. We were certainly pleased as we feel as though we made a good find at a very good price.

Now for my comments and questions about the No5 Mk1.

The rifle seems authentic, but it had spent the last thirty some years in the attic.



The serial numbers all match including the receiver, barrel, bolt and fore end of the stock. The lightening cuts are there on the receiver, and under the upper stock on the barrel. It has the correct butt pad and flash hider. There is no nose cap. Did all/ some/ none have the metal nose cap? Or is this piece cobbled together? The stock does not show any repair work.

What do I have?

A few more pics.











Thank You very much for any responses!

pake

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.

[smle addict]

Very nice score on a post war No 5. Looks all original and correct to me. The earlier no 5's had a metal cap on the forend. There were some discussion threads in the past about near mint No 5's making their way over here (US) in the 50's/60's in large numbers. Pretty common on GB and other on-line sites. I have a Fazackerly (also 1946) and a BSA (1947) in the same condition. Appeared to be unfired, but I shot them anyways, and continue to shoot them quite regularly. Great rifle, congratulations.

[Peter Laidler]

I never ever quite worked out whether the fore-ends with caps, which of the two sorts or cap-less came first, second or last! Not that it made one jot of difference to us who were using, maintaining and repairing them. Mind you, that was in the severe tropics but pictures of Kenya show both sorts in use too and that ain't tropical! The parts lists and EMER's make no mention of it/them and in any case, if we got one that had ANY sign of rust beneath the cap, off it came, peg rivet hole, make good and out it went! All the ones we had as spare parts during the 60's came as the cap-less type.

Once they'd been in the warm-to-touch linseed bath the cap-les type were far longer lasting. The main problem was warping so far as I remember - but that affected all of them

Has anone looked into the actual sequence of which type of cap and/or capless

[villiers]

Looking at the penultimate photo, I thought it looked a bit like warping too (but suppose it could just be the angle the pic was taken at). The rifle looks quite new, so the bore should be perfect. Did they come free floating from the factory??

[Peter Laidler]

Yes, barrel free floating from the nocks form forwards. Unless the fore-end warped of course. Warped fore-ends always seemed to split the handguard at the front too for some reason

[5thBatt]

I never ever quite worked out whether the fore-ends with caps, which of the two sorts or cap-less came first, second or last! Not that it made one jot of difference to us who were using, maintaining and repairing them. Mind you, that was in the severe tropics but pictures of Kenya show both sorts in use too and that ain't tropical! The parts lists and EMER's make no mention of it/them and in any case, if we got one that had ANY sign of rust beneath the cap, off it came, peg rivet hole, make good and out it went! All the ones we had as spare parts during the 60's came as the cap-less type.

Once they'd been in the warm-to-touch linseed bath the cap-les type were far longer lasting. The main problem was warping so far as I remember - but that affected all of them

Has anone looked into the actual sequence of which type of cap and/or capless

First no cap, then a rounded cap that followed the rounded tip of the forend which was difficult to manufacture so was short lived, then no cap & then the type we are familiar with, most early No5s are with out the cap.
Pake, i would have expected your No5 to have the cap, yours may have an earlier forend on it thats be numbered to match & as they did not originally number the early forends we'll never know for sure.

[Peter Laidler]

Ah......, but WHERE did that assumption come from 5th Batt? There's nothing written anywhere and it doesn't appear to be a climatic thing as we had all sorts. And believe me, From my experience it'd seem most strange to go to one cap THEN revert to NO cap, then change to another cap............. and then supply spares later with..... NO cap, contrary to whatever! The 11/55 EMER and drawing shows NO cap. The 7/44 original parts list shows NO cap with the STOCK, fore-end as an assembly of the tie plate and rivet. NO cap and rivet. But amendment 3 dated 5/53 is fore-end assembly with cap, rivet, tie plate and tie plate rivet. But this becomes difficult to decipher as all the part numbers change from the old B1-BJxxx numbers to post-war Ordnance B1-CR numbers.

To be honest, the caps were just trouble!

[pake]

Thank You all so much for your prompt and helpful replies!

To my untrained eye, the rifle appears new or near new. I don't know that I would claim unfired, but certainly the bore is not worn at all. The biggest issue was from years of accumulated dirt. The bolt is now very smooth although when I brought it home it was so dry that it would barely move. The action and bolt handle, after an initial cleaning, show paint (?).

villers, I can see why you might suspect warpage from my photo, but it is not. The rifle was turned to catch light on the serial number stamp. The biggest damage to the stock is a small area just below and rearward of the front band. There the stock had been gouged at one time. A small area appears to have been splintered out. I am surprised to see the number of stamps on the wood stock. Most were filled in with attic grime, but in normal service I can't see how they would have lasted very long at all.



Above the splinter and below the sling loop you can see Crowns, and in another picture a large (upper case L)?



Once again, your interest and help are very much appreciated. I feel as though I found a little prize in this one. Maybe saved it from obscurity.

pake

[villiers]

Compared with most of the long serving fives I´ve seen, your `gouged´ stock is just about pristine. (BTW, think the `gouge´ would come out quite well if steamed with a wet cloth and household iron)

Peter, I´ve also seen fore-end caps on fives made out of cut down No 4 caps. But this is the first `capless´ No 5 that I like the look of.

[pake]

By the way, I did not purchase this piece to be a shooter necessarily, but I would like to give it a go unless there is a compelling reason not to. What are your opinions?

I have quite a bit of new Privi Partisan and am equipped to reload as well.

pake