Well, the board is either fixed, or it's going to run terribly. Cross your fingers and hope for the best. I'm at my technical limit right now.

Lee Enfield No 5

Message
Author
Alan De Enfield
Member
Member
Posts: 91
Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2017 11:28 am
Age: 60
Location: Wales
Wales

Re: Lee Enfield No 5

#31 Post by Alan De Enfield » Sun Jan 28, 2018 4:10 am

Austrian Police Enfield Marking.jpg
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
United States of America

Re: Lee Enfield No 5

#32 Post by PhilRich » Sun Jan 28, 2018 5:17 pm

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
United States of America

Re: Lee Enfield No 5

#33 Post by PhilRich » Wed Apr 18, 2018 7:05 pm

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: 91
Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2017 11:28 am
Age: 60
Location: Wales
Wales

Re: Lee Enfield No 5

#34 Post by Alan De Enfield » Fri Apr 20, 2018 6:39 am

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

Tommy Atkins
Global Moderator
Global Moderator
Posts: 351
Joined: Sat Jun 03, 2017 4:47 pm
Age: 66
Location: Hagerstown, MD
Canada

Re: Lee Enfield No 5

#35 Post by Tommy Atkins » Fri Apr 20, 2018 9:38 am

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

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

Re: Lee Enfield No 5

#36 Post by PhilRich » Fri Apr 20, 2018 1:46 pm

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.

Tommy Atkins
Global Moderator
Global Moderator
Posts: 351
Joined: Sat Jun 03, 2017 4:47 pm
Age: 66
Location: Hagerstown, MD
Canada

Re: Lee Enfield No 5

#37 Post by Tommy Atkins » Fri Apr 20, 2018 4:36 pm

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.

Post Reply

Return to “British Empire and Commonwealth”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests