Yesterday's Weapons Forums

So I am supposed to be picking up this No. 5 jungle carbine this weekend.

Looks like an early Fazakerley made rifle by the serial number, but the rear sight is BSA made.

The rifle would have been made around March/April of 1946.

looks like a nice one , congrats


what serial number ? i cant see any FAZ markings on the left reciever at all - is it that i cant zoom on the photos ?

That is a fine looking rifle.

Been eyein the No.5s everytime I go out to the gunshow. They look like a lotta fun. Congrats on your buy!

Only number I can find on it is V422 on the butt socket (Seen on photo) and magazine. It is electropenciled on the bolt.. What (If anything) does that mean?

It might be an early converted one. one of skinners books says they took long rifles and converted them to carbines.

Somebody in another forum said it is a Fazakerly (sp?) made June 1946.

I thought the stocks without nosecaps were early production. Mine is a November 1944 Fazakerley and it has no nosecap.

The image shows the distinctive No.5 action body lightening cut on the lefthand wall.
Some No.5 carbines which suffered sprung action bodies were repaiered by fitting a No.4 replacement action body. Usually though a Jungle Carbine with a No.4 action body will be a fake made up from surplus carbine barrels and wood work, or replicas of these, fitted to a No.4 action.

Well I did get a manual about Lee Enfields, and according to it , from the serial number I do have a Fazakerley made sometime in 1946. So it's a real No. 5.

First Enfield I shot extensively was a No.5 belonging to a friend who later became a serious collector and skilled gunsmith.

I'd given him all my old reloading supplies when he first expressed an interest in reloading, and he got me interested in the Enfields.
We used to go shooting every weekend, using up hundreds of rounds of reloads and good quality Milsurp ammo.

That young fellow has owned his No.5 since he was twelve, and its as much a part of him as "Old Tick Licker" was to Daniel Boone.

The No.5 is probably the best of the Enfields for use as a sporter in as is condition, and still no slouch as a combat rifle.
It may not lay down huge volumes of fire but for quick reaction shooting with a highly effective cartridge its superior to most modern assault rifles. Also if properly loaded its effective range is equal to most 7.62 battle rifles, while being more comfortable to carry and quicker to bring to the shoulder.

yup , by the serial prefix it has to be a FAZ , they used "A" thru "Z" [except for 'I' & 'J' ] in their first major run of production [they did run an initial run of about 1000 with 'FE' prefix ] and "V" falls in 1946

both started in 44 , BSA [all double letter prefixes] made the least at about 81,000 and finished in 46 , FAZ made 170,000 and finished end of 47 ,

my initial comment was related to the fact that most BSA were marked on the left wrist as this was , FAZ used the left receiver as well as the left wrist ,

Well being English, I'm surprised they didn't use the "limp" wrist.

J/K

glad you said that , i couldnt do so and remain my politicxaly correct self

that is a nice looking rifle

Every Faz No5 I have seen has the serial number on the receiver, not he wrist. Also the Faz should have the date next to the No5 MkI EP marking. A EP'ed bolt is a force match, not original. Nose caps are random, some were removed in service, some added. Possible No4 conversion??

Are the cuts on the knoxx form?

No electropenciling on mine. And what is a Knoxx form?

early ones were marked on the wrist and no the no4s were not a routine 'conversion' to these , the no5s were made this way , except for the really early trials stuff ,

the cuts he referances were to the reciever , knox form [where the bbl screws to the reciever for lack of better words] and if you compare a no4 to a no5 they are obvious - sorry i dont have photos ,

The lightening cuts on both sides of the receiver at the backsight look legit. I'm still thinking this is a BSA, not a Faz.

Here's a Faz a few months older, note the marking on the receiver with date group and serial number. All Faz No5's built in 1946 I have seen are marked like this.



The OP's rifle is similar in marking to this BSA.






It means the bolt may be force matched, not the original.



The No5 was often faked by importers using the No4 as the base rifle. I have even seen faked lightening cuts on the receiver. Twenty+ years ago there was a BIG difference in price between the No4 and No5, that gave incentive to many to fake the No5. Today the prices are much closer and it's not worth the effort for the fakers to do this.

I don't know, paid about 100 bucks more for the No.5 than I did for my No.4.