No5 Age question

[Nick S]

Just picked up a No5 with the serial number PF 02680 (not sure if the leading character is a 0 or O.) It also has the SA broad arrow in U stamp.

Any idea of its age?

ETA - Matching numbers on the metalwork, no number on the woodwork, mis-matched magazine.

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.

[GeeRam]

Not a real No.5 by the sounds of it, converted No.4 would be my guess.

I see you in London, and I am aware of a countrysports RFD based south of High Wycombe that had a No.4 converted to No.5 for sale early this year, and I'm pretty sure that was a PF prefix?

[GeeRam]

Only 2 makers made the No.5, ROF Fazakerly and BSA Shirley, with the vast majority being made at Faz.
BSA made ones are easy to identify, as they have the M47C code stamped into the left side of the receiver wrist in front of the buttstock.

A Faz built one with be marked similar to this one in attached photo, with the No.5 Mk1 ROF (F) marking and the month built and serial number on the bottom line, in this case a Feb 1946 built.

[Alan de Enfield]

Just picked up a No5 with the serial number PF 02680 (not sure if the leading character is a 0 or O.) It also has the SA broad arrow in U stamp.

Any idea of its age?

ETA - Matching numbers on the metalwork, no number on the woodwork, mis-matched magazine.

The PF serial numbers are used by Fazakerley in the early 50's, on their No4 rifles, if it is a 'Faz' rifle then I think you may have picked up a 'fantasy piece' as the production of No5s' ceased (1947) long before the PF prefix serial number were introduced.

Please post some pictures, the barrel (showing the 'fluting' just in front of the Knox form), and both sides of the action between the breech and the rear sights.

If it is a No5 then there should be weight reducing 'cut-outs' in the action when compared to a No4.

If it does turn out to be a 'modified' No4 and you were sold it as a No5 then you should be entitled you a refund if you bought it from an RFD. If you bought it privately then unfortunately it is a case of Caveat emptor.

The Fazakerley No5 serial numbers never made it past "AC" prefix.


Post some pics - you never know it may be the 'long lost, last No5 ever built.

Never say never with Lee Enfield's

The Arrow in the U marking is a South African military ownership marking.

[Nick S]

Yes - I think you're right and it's a converted No4 (The person that this came from has had it for a number of years, so not that one though.) It's quite nicely done - it has the correct bolt, woodwork and rear sight - but no lightening cuts on the barrel knox.

---------- Post added at 03:47 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:45 PM ----------

If it does turn out to be a 'modified' No4 and you were sold it as a No5 then you should be entitled you a refund if you bought it from an RFD. If you bought it privately then unfortunately it is a case of Caveat emptor.

I paid the grand price of £0 - so I'm quite happy with the deal! (Swapped it with a friend for a CCTV camera I had.)

[browningautorifle]

How about some pics of this one for info sake, and because we'd love to see it anyway.

[GeeRam]

Yes - I think you're right and it's a converted No4 (The person that this came from has had it for a number of years, so not that one though.) It's quite nicely done - it has the correct bolt, woodwork and rear sight - but no lightening cuts on the barrel knox.

---------- Post added at 03:47 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:45 PM ----------



I paid the grand price of £0 - so I'm quite happy with the deal! (Swapped it with a friend for a CCTV camera I had.)

Clearly not the same one then, although quite a co-incidence.....although to be fair to the RFD, I just remembered that the RFD I indicated didn't actually have it for sale, they had it in as a RFD transfer for a customer that had purchased it elsewhere.

---------- Post added at 04:01 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:56 PM ----------

It's quite nicely done - it has the correct bolt

If it has a correct No.5 bolt handle it should have the serial number of the original No.5 it came from on the back of the bolt handle?

[Bindi2]

As PL said they converted No4s into No5s in Malaya because they didn't have any No5 rifles left to go back out as replacements.

[Nick S]

This is the only one so far...

[Alan de Enfield]

This is the only one so far...
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...5jpgraw1-1.jpg

That is enough to show it is a No4 body.

The lightning cuts for a No5 body don't appear to be there.