Lee Enfield No 5

Alan De Enfield
Member
Member
Posts: 130
Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2017 11:28 am
Age: 60
Location: Wales

Re: Lee Enfield No 5

Post by Alan De Enfield »

Austrian Police Enfield Marking.jpg
Austrian Police Enfield Marking.jpg (71.64 KiB) Viewed 3621 times
Lee Enfields were certainly issued to the Austrian Gendarm after the war, there are many examples showing the 'Police' markings



I don't think the rifle is 'fake', to be a fake it has to be a 'made-up' rifle that isn't a No5 pretending to be a No5. I'm sure it is a correct No5 but has 'had work done to it' in the civilian market.

I simply posted the Germanic fonts to show that both the 4 & the 6 are potentially standard Germanic fonts, they are certainly not UK fonts.
I don't think the idea of it being a 'Rack-Number' stands scrutiny - the rack-number is so that the 'storekeeper' can see each rifle at a distance when it is in the racks, can easily locate a specific rifle, and can see 'if one is missing', if the small 46 was a rack number it would need to have very close inspection of the rifle to see it, and they may just as well have used the individual serial number.

If the paint is not on the barrel underneath the furniture then it is definitely not the work of the military - the whole ethos of painting the metalwork was to protect the metal from the dampness collecting under the wood - firstly by coating in petroleum jelly, and then as we know, subsequently by paint.

The 2.222 is the 303 cartridge length and is part of the UK civilian proof testing, it should also have (under the paint ?) 18.5 tonnes per square inch and either BNP or NP. The fact the paint is OVER THE TOP of civilian stampings proves that the paint was applied after it left service.

You say that there are no import marks, but then go on to say that it is marked 'England'. That is the USA import mark to comply with the pre-1968 US Import regulations.

It would be interesting to see the makers marks (model, factory, year and serial number), if it was (say) a 1947 then that would certainly put paid to any idea that the 46 was the year.
"When a well-packaged web of lies has been sold gradually to the masses over many years,

the truth will seem utterly preposterous and its speaker a raving lunatic". Dresden James

PhilRich
Registered User
Registered User
Posts: 13
Joined: Tue Jan 23, 2018 10:48 pm
Age: 99
Location: Pacific Northwest

Re: Lee Enfield No 5

Post by PhilRich »

The manufactures date stamped on the left side is 1945.

PhilRich
Registered User
Registered User
Posts: 13
Joined: Tue Jan 23, 2018 10:48 pm
Age: 99
Location: Pacific Northwest

Re: Lee Enfield No 5

Post by PhilRich »

This is a question concerning export proof marks for this rifle. What was the date of the law requiring the proof for export? Was this something that was only required after 1954 or for the US market? The reason for the question is, if the proofs were only required after 1954, then what is the significance of the "46"? Or, is this something that cannot be explained?

Thanks,

Phil

Alan De Enfield
Member
Member
Posts: 130
Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2017 11:28 am
Age: 60
Location: Wales

Re: Lee Enfield No 5

Post by Alan De Enfield »

The Proof Markings are UK CIVILIAN PROOFS.
Any firearm (and its pressure bearing components) must be proved before it can be sold in the UK to a UK Civilian - there is no such things as 'export proof marks' - if being exported then proofs would only be added if it was a requirement of the receiving country.

The markings are nothing to do with exports or exporting.
For example - the US dealers that bought 'truck-loads' of Mili surplus Lee Enfields would keep them in a bonded store after purchase, and arrange to have them shipped from there to the US - as they never 'hit the street' in the UK they would not be UK prooved.
"When a well-packaged web of lies has been sold gradually to the masses over many years,

the truth will seem utterly preposterous and its speaker a raving lunatic". Dresden James

User avatar
Tommy Atkins
Global Moderator
Global Moderator
Posts: 923
Joined: Sat Jun 03, 2017 4:47 pm
Age: 66
Location: Hagerstown, MD

Re: Lee Enfield No 5

Post by Tommy Atkins »

Are you sure of that?
Here's my mummy-wrapped, unissued No4 Mk2.
It was BNP proofed! Under the mummy wrap. The only "breach" of the mummy wrap was at the receiver left side wall to verify serial number I assume.
Attachments
mummy w BNP.jpg
mummy w BNP.jpg (591.93 KiB) Viewed 3343 times

PhilRich
Registered User
Registered User
Posts: 13
Joined: Tue Jan 23, 2018 10:48 pm
Age: 99
Location: Pacific Northwest

Re: Lee Enfield No 5

Post by PhilRich »

Aside from what the proofs are, when were they required? Someone told me that they weren't required until 1954 in reference to being exported to the US. The reason for the question is to try to make some sense concerning the 46 that is stamped on the rifle, on the receiver and on the flash guard that was demilled.

User avatar
Tommy Atkins
Global Moderator
Global Moderator
Posts: 923
Joined: Sat Jun 03, 2017 4:47 pm
Age: 66
Location: Hagerstown, MD

Re: Lee Enfield No 5

Post by Tommy Atkins »

They've always been required in the non military segment of the U.K. AFAIK. Exported or not. It makes no difference.
I've found them dating back to 1856.

72 usmc
Gun Junkie
Gun Junkie
Posts: 2589
Joined: Fri Jun 02, 2017 10:28 pm
Age: 68
Location: Menomonee Falls, Wi

Re: Lee Enfield No 5

Post by 72 usmc »

PhilRich » Thu Jan 25, 2018 2:53 pm

I agree, the serial number is prefixed with BG. I'm not yet convinced that the rifle has been sporterized by removing the bayonet lug - still researching to see if there are any valid examples of this.

I just noticed that the lug, if present, would be positioned directly under the sight at the rear of the sight assembly. For this rifle the circumference is perfect and there is a faint part id stamping visible where the lug should be, the letter 4 is clear with what looks like a faint 6. Further review of the rifle shows that 46 is stamped on the right side of the action stock "yoke" or whatever it should be called.

I've added another set of pictures.
I'm thinking that the bayonet lug might have been removed and the rifle updated in 1946. (??!!)



These pictures show the paint color more accurately.
PIC added so you can see:
9Xxw0L2.jpg
aJmtQhb.jpg
bmg7AKr.jpg
bLV263f.jpg
QUGRc8J.jpg

Pictures by 72 USMC updated due to loss of photos on 4 June 2020. Restored as best I could 28 July 2020
To old to fight and to old to run, a Jar head will just shoot and be done with you.

72 usmc
Gun Junkie
Gun Junkie
Posts: 2589
Joined: Fri Jun 02, 2017 10:28 pm
Age: 68
Location: Menomonee Falls, Wi

Re: Lee Enfield No 5

Post by 72 usmc »

Here are the original pictures from the original first post reposted just in case the link goes down or account goes dead. Too good to lose. A great Jungle Carbine.
Lee Enfield No 5
Report Quote
Post by PhilRich » Wed Jan 24, 2018 5:04 pm

About 5 years ago I bought this rifle on Gunbroker. I'd like your opinions on whether the olive green paint job is authentic or not. I'm aware that some rifles were so painted.
The rifle is in good condition with matching serial numbers. I don't see any markings that indicate it went through refurbishment. The serial number was lightly stamped, hence the paint being scraped off to reveal the serial number.
Phil Rich Pictures from 23 Jan 20118 :
1 wwOutarg.jpg
2 hv1mev5g.jpg
3 QcKGjzrg.jpg
4 qi1cFj9.jpg
5 c6bZ20lg.jpg
Last edited by 72 usmc on Thu Jul 30, 2020 9:33 pm, edited 2 times in total.
To old to fight and to old to run, a Jar head will just shoot and be done with you.

72 usmc
Gun Junkie
Gun Junkie
Posts: 2589
Joined: Fri Jun 02, 2017 10:28 pm
Age: 68
Location: Menomonee Falls, Wi

Re: Lee Enfield No 5

Post by 72 usmc »

More of the Phil Rich 23 Jan 2018 pictures:
6 mDm10PQg.jpg
7 Ogz6e0gg.jpg
8 .jpg
To old to fight and to old to run, a Jar head will just shoot and be done with you.

Post Reply

Return to “British Empire and Commonwealth”