Prototype .22 No5 Rifle.

[browningautorifle]

nothing more than commercial efforts by BSA to compete in the small bore market

Are you suggesting these were simply assembled by BSA from existing parts for civilian sales then? Perhaps?

[Peter Laidler]

I suppose the answer to your question is yes BAR. Simply because the MoS spec had already been laid down, the new trigger mech already patented, rifles made for trials, one type already accepted (by 1951)........ Only my view of course. But none of these several variations that have cropped up in the past seem to fit into the No8 trials frame as we know it according to the documented trials examples (at the PR and Warminster) and the paperwork

[Buccaneer]

Are you suggesting these were simply assembled by BSA from existing parts for civilian sales then? Perhaps?

That's an interesting thought as I know that the owner of this rifle is convinced that it is "genuine" he has even told me that the Pattern Room would like to get their hands on it but as Peter has pointed out if BSA were making up rifles for the commercial market who knows what configuration they cold have been built in.
The only official mark of any description is on the bolt in the form of a pair of crossed banners just before the serial number stamp but the bolt could have come from anywhere, if this really was a pre trials prototype should it at least have some other marks, and why build 25 if the number on the butt socket actually stands for the total number built?

[Peter Laidler]

I'm thinking along the lines that following the completion of the MoS contract (was it 9,700 each by BSA and Faz - or total. I forget without the papers handy) BSA touted their own wares to the trade, individuals and the Nat SmallBore RA asking for orders. While these 'new' BSA rifles might incorporate many of the No7 and 8 features, they couldn't incorporate the No8 specifics such as the trigger mech, bolt and platform that were subject to MoS patents. That seems to be the reason there are quite a few variables. While the Army trials at Hythe only trialled the long and short barrel types. There were other options trialled but these were cosmetics, such as fore-end styles and chequering formats which Fazakerley were not able to incorporate into series production as I seem to recall.

Incidentally, service users of the No8, including Cadet Forces could quote a little understood and known about section from the 1936 ER's and purchase a rifle from the War Dept. The price for a No8 rifle was listed as £22.

[browningautorifle]

the owner of this rifle is convinced that it is "genuine" he has even told me that the Pattern Room would like to get their hands on it

If they don't have one, then I'd think it's not strictly kosher...?

[sparky12130]

thats one neat .22!

[Peter Laidler]

The more I look at the photos, the more I'm convinced that it is a BSA(?) project to commercialise their small bore production line as best they could using what was there. The No7 ejector for example. They couldn't use the combined loading platform/ejector of the No8 as this feature was protected by patent. It certainly looks like a No8 butt that has been re-profiled too. A simple job and also a feature of nearby P-H 'sporting' rifles of the 50's. The body is a bit of an enigma as it looks like a mix of a No4 and No5 spec.

I can't see a backsight bed like that, held in place with 4x(?) 6BA screws lasting more than 10 minutes - or 5 minutes on a good day - during any UK trial.

Nope, just another atempt at BSA to capitalise in the commercial world

The butt plate looks like a standard No8 butt plate. We used to see these marked with the BSA logo, DRC, LRC and no mark. They were rubber with the steel insert. Later ones were neoprene and later repros were the hard plastic - and FAR better than the original rubber and neoprene! If you made off the butts by taking the heel and toe down a bit and then tried to fit a butt plate you had to take the rubber down a bit.......... But not too much otherwise you'd get to the steel plate and that meant the butt plate was knackered. It also meant that your work on the butt was wasted too because the next butt plate would inevitably be oversize too - and need taking down with the same result.

[Roger Payne]

I had a quick squint at this thread when Buccaneer first started it, but have only just found a moment to look at the photo's carefully. I'm glad I did as I now know what my mystery bolt is that is similar to but not the same as, No7 & No8 bolts, that has been scuffing about in a drawer for decades!

[Peter Laidler]

Comments on the hybrid body DRP?

[Roger Payne]

Yep, I acquired a couple of the shortened bolt bodies at about the same time, thinking 'great! That's two really useful No7 bolt bodies to keep for a rainy day!'. Trying to fit a No7 bolt head soon disabused me.....