Got talking to a mate about it tonight who has been shooting longer than I’ve been alive and he stated when we got talking about my Enfield that it may not be a fake built in recent times as I suspected. He went onto to say that during the Malayan Emergency, Palestine, Suez and Jordan there was a need for a handier battle rifle and there weren’t enough original No5s available so a quantity of No4s were “retro fitted” as No5s but not necessarily marked....? Really? I’m sceptical, but, what do you reckon....?
Obviously, my rifle looks like a 5. But the first give away is supposedly that the butt stock has two holes filled in on the bottom edge which shows it was originally a 4. Take the wood work off and there is no lightening flutes on either the receiver or barrel. So a again a No4.
But, the barrel has been shortened and there are rings around the barrel for about six inches towards the breech as if it had been turned down on a lathe. Supposedly, fakes made in the 90s and so, had aluminium flash hiders with no bayonet lug. Mine is steel and has a lug. The barrel and the receiver are both parkerised. Oh, and the barrel inside, is lovely!!
As for markings, on the left side of the receiver on the flat next to the receiver ring is a capital K with a dot either side, like “.K.” Then it’s marked “No4 Mk2” and below that, “F57 FTR”. On the same left side, just above the safety it’s marked “IAC ALE”. There are some other marks that I can’t discern on the top of the receiver and on both sides of the butt mount. There is though, a “H27” on the right side of the mount. All of the marks were made before the finish was done or re-done as the Birmingham proof marks show differently.
So, anyone heard the story as offered to me? Likewise, anyone know what the marks mean?
