1948 Faz No5 on the EE

[bgcameron]

I didn't know these existed.

 

[woodchopper]

hmmmm

I want to comment but need to consult the book,

my brain says there is something about this, but I have forgotten a lot.

I seem to think that they were only produced till the end of 48, I think I have has a 9/48 and a 10/48 dated rifle but here is where I start questioning my memory was it 47 or 48

as for serial number I seem to recall that the serial numbers were allotted to factories in blocks so that there would not be duplicate use.

disclaimer: this is based on my memory. perhaps smellie will post, he has a great memory for an old guy

 

[bgcameron]

I once had a 12/47 dated rifle with an AC6### serial number. I always thought that was about as far as they went.

 

[grelmar]

This tweaked a memory, so I did some googling...

Every reference I can find says that No. 5 production was done by the end of 1947.

Skennerton's serial # notes on the No. 5 also state:

No.5 Jungle Carbines only have 4 numbers, the Shirley carbines have BB to C? prefixes, last production was post World War 2. The Fazakerley jungle carbines ran from FE1 to FE1000 initial production, then with no letter prefix, followed by A1 to A9999 through Z9999.

http://www.enfieldcollector.com/serials.html

So, a "G" code serial would be fairly early in the production run, long before the 1947 end of production.

I dunno, Smellie is the guy who'd know for sure...

 

[bgcameron]

From another thread with a list of serials:

G6XX - ?/45 - Y - Anubis Priest ( Your date cannot be 1948 for a FAZ G prefix = 45 )

Maybe this is the same rifle. It is the only serial with 3 digits after a G.

 

[stevebc]

The electropencilling that reads "3/48, and G645" seem to be fresher than the "No. 5 etc" markings, and done with a different hand. For whatever that's worth...

 

[5THBATT]

Mistake, faked or a reallocated serial number

 

[Sherlock Gnomes]

Total noobish questions but could the receiver have been serialised and then maybe sent to long branch where it got finished once production wrapped in Fazerkley assuming it was never needed?

 

[Ganderite]

Could it be a spare receiver used to replace a damaged receiver, and the original # was used?

 

[paulz]

I like Ganderite's answer, but could conceivably be an FTR that they did not write FTR on.

 

[srdiver]

what stamping is on the Cocking piece?

 

[grelmar]

Could it be a spare receiver used to replace a damaged receiver, and the original # was used?

I like Ganderite's answer, but could conceivably be an FTR that they did not write FTR on.

The seller ad claimed it's a "rare, 1 of only 200 factory No. 5" rifles made in '48.

But I've never seen documentation to support production went past '47.

Dunno. there were a bunch of other pictures in the ad, but it looks like the ad has vanished.

 

[enefgee]

The seller ad claimed it's a "rare, 1 of only 200 factory No. 5" rifles made in '48.

But I've never seen documentation to support production went past '47.

Dunno. there were a bunch of other pictures in the ad, but it looks like the ad has vanished.

Well, that's not suspicious at all.

 

[philhut]

will have a better look this week when it arrives

 

[philhut]

I really like the little rifle, it shoots nice and is accurate at 100m on the range with the first rounds fired. The bolt fly's back like a firecracker when you pop the bolt with the pressure of one finger and closest very smooth. I could see this being a great deer rifle for a friend or family member/self at some point. There was a post made about it and it would be disappointing not to post the pics, here is the No 5

the end

 

[grelmar]

I really like my No. 5... I like full powered carbines in general. Such handy little guns.

But that date on it...

Anyone able to ping Smellie and get him to weigh in on it?