jungle carbine

[matt760]

my dad has a jungle carbine. i dont know if its an original or one of the imported conversions. it had been sporterized at some point and he couldnt hit anything with then put a scope on it and it shoots good. i hunted with it a couple times. i dont remember it having a bad kick to it. nothing like my .30-06 thats for sure. maybe the .303 is like the 8mm in that modern factory ammo isnt loaded as hot as the milsurp stuff? i think he had 180gr federals.

i am planning on ordering a No. 4 Mk I soon and a couple others as well.

[ww2colector]

but just to double check $300 is not a bad price or a enfield

[nathangdad]

by the British military. However, it is an interesting transitional design leading toward the jungle warfare that would follow the late 1940's.
I do not know any collectors really interested in it. I would not give over $200.00 for it unless you are just interested in the historical design
aspect of the gun.

[wunhunglo]

It wasn't dropped by the British military; it remained in service until late 50's/60's, same-same as the number 4's until they were replaced with the SLR (FAL).

Sure, it some had accuracy problems, in that it was not as accurate as the No4 but it was up to the job in the Malasian conflict where contacts were usually at shorter ranges.

Values are increasing and in the UK you would be very hard pushed to get one for 300 pounds let alone 300 dollars. They are not making any more of them so prices will go up!

[tkarnes]

I own a jungle carbine and it does have accuracy issues but at 200 yards it is good enough to consistantly hit a 12 in bull with a group of the same size using .303 1955 surplus.

[Beaker]

I'm no expert but just a few observations, the JC was built for a job called the Kokoda trail it probably arrived too late as is usual but still had a place in the next while because of the warfare in jungle that followed. If I was there (and I'm glad I wasn't) I think I would have preferred the M1 for pointing and rate of fire downside is less hitting power against less recoil which would have meant better followup shots.

Then its short life was ended by the assault rifle.

[Dan K. Evans]

I have a Jungle Carbine that is well used but wood and metal in good shape. I am more into history that shooting. How do you (anyone) feel about refinishing a historical rifle like the J.Carbine? I am currently refinishing my Garand and wonded if I should just clean the gunk off and keep it and the J. Carbine in a semi-original condition. What is the value of that kind of history to those of us who love guns? Thanks.

[madcratebuilder]

Interesting seeing this thread progress over a years period. The #5's are selling very well on gunbroker right now, with pristine rifles bringing $600 plus and shooter bringing near $400. So much for being worth $200, bad call.
I have done quit a bit of research on the rifle and have come to the conclusion that the 'wandering zero' was much exaggerated by the British military. They wanted a new semi auto rifle (L1A1) and felt complaints of the #5 would speed that along. Most modern day shooters find the rifle accurate with an occasional poor shooter. My #5 is a low round count rifle and I can shoot 2-3 moa with it using cast bullet reloads. I think a scope would help that by 1moa.

I have a Jungle Carbine that is well used but wood and metal in good shape. I am more into history that shooting. How do you (anyone) feel about refinishing a historical rifle like the J.Carbine?

Most collectors want to see the rifle in original condition. Scrub the stock with hot soapy water to get the dirt and grime off, then after it dries, a few coats of BLO. Use some 0000 steel wool to smooth out the wood when appling the first coat of blo. You don't want to remove any stamped markings. The dents and dings are well earned battle scares.

[Laufer]

madcratebuilder-: Do you mind a basic question?

As a relative novice, what does "shooter grade" mean, in terms of the bore, overall metal condition and the wood?

[GlockMeister]

To add to what madcrate said about scrubbing the stock, might I suggest getting,then adding to the water, some Murphy's wood soap. It works great.

Then if you like the natural look of and want to bring the grain out, you can rub it down after words, and I suggest doing this also, with boiled linseed oil. If you scrud the stock with water and just plain dish soap or anything else, as well as use steel wool, you'll want to rub it down with something anyways, that's for sure.

As for the Murphy's, I prefer the kind you mix with the water, not the ready mixed stuff. But to each their own...




Oh, and FWIW, I had this one on my watchlist, I guess now I can remove it. She's a beauty. I think anyways..

http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/Vie...Item=125854591

[madcratebuilder]

Originally Posted by Laufer

madcratebuilder-: Do you mind a basic question?

As a relative novice, what does "shooter grade" mean, in terms of the bore, overall metal condition and the wood?

It can mean different things to different folks. To me, it's any firearm that shows wear and tear but is in perfect mechanical condition.
To a collector it could mean anything less than 98% perfect.
It has a major impact on pricing. For instance, a S&W M29 no dash, 44mag revolver that has been stored, unfired can bring over 2k. The same revolver, still like new but fired may only bring $800.

[Capt'n Mil Coll]

Well my observations on the wandering zero on my JC is as follows. The first shot is in the bullseye. The next shots walk to the right in a straight line. It looks like this on the target. (o) o o o o This is from my direct experence with my Number 5. Most believe this is caused by the lighting cuts on the reciever. It could also be caused by contact with the wood stock "bending" the heated metal on the rifle.
I dont know what causes it for sure but I do know it does wander on my carbine.

[Alan De Enfield]

Originally Posted by Capt'n Mil Coll

Well my observations on the wandering zero on my JC is as follows. The first shot is in the bullseye. The next shots walk to the right in a straight line. It looks like this on the target. (o) o o o o This is from my direct experence with my Number 5. Most believe this is caused by the lighting cuts on the reciever. It could also be caused by contact with the wood stock "bending" the heated metal on the rifle.
I dont know what causes it for sure but I do know it does wander on my carbine.

Here follows a comment on the No5 from Captain Peter Laidler (many of you will know the name from his books). Captain Laidler was / is a REME armourer who has worked on 1000s of Enfields and still does at Warminster.


"I have to confess that until I was in New Zealand in 1967, I didn’t know that in early 1949 the No5 was on the cusp of being introduced as the standard service rifle to replace the No4. I read this while reading an old, little document in the workshop bosses office, ASM Leo Francis ( ….remember him Kim?). The document was about the sale of and introduction into New Zealand of the .22” No8 rifle. The document was aimed at Australia too but I never saw a No8 when I was there, except for an odd-ball owned by ASM Clive Connors at Bandiana. He was another RAEME Armourer …., who’d probably ‘liberated’ it when he was somewhere. I did get him some spares sent over in the freight from Malaya, consisting of 1 complete and another all-but complete rifle but I digress again. The document in Leo’s office at Ngaruawahia went on to say that the No5 was introduced into British Army service and will eventually supplant the No2 rifle and various others throughout. ‘Throughout’ probably meant the other odds and sods such as the No7’s and No9’s plus the little ex US lend lease Mossbergs that you could still see occasionally. It was correct because the No8 did replace them eventually although the RAF Cadets at Abingdon did still have a couple of No7’s in 1982. But the No8 was the norm.
Oh, yes. The document said that the No8 rifle had been developed in look, style, feel and weight as a direct result of the forthcoming decision to adopt the No5 rifle as the standard arm throughout the Army. I asked Jock Annandale about it in conversation and he’d obviously heard and read this and commented to me that while it was a laudable idea, the No5 had many problems and while it might be OK in the jungle and as a short range close quarter weapon, it was definitely NOT a rifle for long ranges we’d expect in Europe. This was because once it got hot, its zero went. It was as simple as that. And as you all know, once you start to follow your zero over the target, it’s time to stop for the day. That’s because YOU are following the zero and generally, your eyes are going and you’re tired. But when it’s the RIFLE that’s causing it……………. And the No5 RIFLE did. He also told me, in words that Warrant Officers are apt to use when a silly suggestion is made, that the notion that the whole of the Commonwealth was going to change, when they were knee deep in perfectly good, almost new No4’s was pure , er ….., horse, er ……, manure!
I asked the other Armourers in Malaya, especially the LEP (locally enlisted) Chinese and Malays (known as MOR’s …, Malayan Other Ranks) and they all knew about the rifles going off zero but in the short ranges that they were used, it was academic. So in Malaya they stayed. You could always tell the high mileage rifles, apart from the shot-out barrels because the backsight axis pin retaining pin (longest name of a part on the rifle. The PIN, retaining, pin axis backsight) was always sheared where the bodies had expanded at the rear and sheared it. So, if at the moment of firing/and max pressure/load the body spreads at the rear, especially during a gun battle, I suppose it would upset the balance between the locking lugs, bolt and cartridge seating on the bolt face.
I think I mentioned earlier that when we were doing the big Crown Agents FTR programme, it was priced (so I was told) that if 70 came in, 70 went out and if some were ZF’d (scrap) then they’d be replaced from our ANZUK (I think this was Aust, NZ and UK stockholdings) mobilization stores from the huge …., and I mean HUGE Ordnance stockpiles close by at Johore Bahru. So we would cannibalise No5’s and if necessary, send them out with No4 bodies.
I don’t think it was the kick that made them wander off because we would fire hundreds every day in just shorts and boots. No shirts, hats or ear defenders. During this shooting the boss of the Ordnance Stores depot, a nice bloke called WO1 Arnold, (we all called him ‘Sir’ to be polite), used to bring his son down for days during the school holidays, especially on Bren days and son, age about 15 or so used to load the magazines and shoot the rifles/Brens for function testing first then we got him used to shooting the accuracy tests at the special Armourers target screen. He was quite good too and always mixed in. But we were only a couple of years older than him anyway. His mum was always nice to us, so was dad really, and used to bring a load of bottles of cold Frazer and Neave orange juice and home made things to scoff for break. We had some Brens with front grips that you could use as heavy SMG’s, fired from well tucked back in the waist during jungle patrolling and we’d let him fire these at the targets from very close range. God, I shudder at the thought now. If I saw someone doing it now I’d go ballistic …., let alone allow a young lad to do it! The Small Arms shop 2i/c S/Sgt Beady and the AQMS Dick Shepherd used to think it was a bit of a punishment to be sent on the range for the day because the No5’s used to jump about a bit and crack but when there were a few of us there, we were out of the way
Oh, yes. Back to No5’s. Some of them just wouldn’t zero so they’d be examined and if necessary, re-barreled or just stripped for spares or scrapped. some were as good as gold. I never did get to the bottom of why they had a wandering zero problem. Just theories but they certainly did. Whether YOURS has or not is a bit academic but while I don’t think it had a bad name, it certainly wasn’t a myth".

[Laufer]

Alan De Enfield: Very interesting. Thanks.

Whether a rifle has tight patterns or not makes no difference to this middle-aged guy, who only shoots at plastic or metal objects from a distance of 40 yards or less (except with the .22).
But out of curiosity, about how wide is the pattern of many JCs after about ten rounds fired in a five minute period, from about one 100 yards?

[gandog56]

Originally Posted by GlockMeister

To add to what madcrate said about scrubbing the stock, might I suggest getting,then adding to the water, some Murphy's wood soap. It works great.

Then if you like the natural look of and want to bring the grain out, you can rub it down after words, and I suggest doing this also, with boiled linseed oil. If you scrud the stock with water and just plain dish soap or anything else, as well as use steel wool, you'll want to rub it down with something anyways, that's for sure.

As for the Murphy's, I prefer the kind you mix with the water, not the ready mixed stuff. But to each their own...

All my cosmo drenched milsurps get a Murphy's treatment after the heat is applied to bleed out most of the cosmo.

[Bigdaveaz]

Another Fan of the no.5 had mine for 30 yrs love it! great shootin' rifle!!

[millwright39]

Originally Posted by Laufer

Alan De Enfield: Very interesting. Thanks.

Whether a rifle has tight patterns are not makes no difference to this middle-aged guy, who only shoots at plastic or metal objects from a distance of 40 yards' or less (except with the .22).
But out of curiosity, about how wide is the pattern of many JCs after about ten rounds fired in a five minute period, from about one 100 yards?

Here in A couple of weeks I will try it on mine as it has been awhile since I have shot them.

[Capt'n Mil Coll]

Nice collection Millwright!

[Iron_Colonel]

Welcome back Capt. Nice collection Mill.

[Laufer]

Millwright: you are 'da LE man.'

Those bayonets have a charming appeal. About what do they cost?
Might also limit muzzle rise, and some recoil.