Jungle Carbine Stock ,,Real or Fake, 8 pics

G

gerard488

Regular
GunNutz
Rating - 100%
25   0   0
I finally got the stock but missed out on the rifle I had planned to buy and restore. Now I am trying to find out if this stock is from a genuine No.5 or from a fake and if the marks mean anything. The handguard is damaged, probably beyond repair the rest of it looks pretty battle scarred. I`m not sure if the buttstock is from a No.4 or No.1, maybe the butt socket end will tell. I`m not sure if they are different







 
Looks legit to me.
I can only go by the by the photos , they appear also to be a matching set , but that's just speculation on my part.
The No.5 butt ( which you have ) is unique amongst all the other Enfields .
Too bad about the handguard but at least it will be great for display purposes.
 
She's pretty beat. The rubber on the butt looks thinner than it should be. Hard to tell, but the stampings on the stock don't seem right to me, but I'm not qualified to say for sure. The sling relief doesn't look right either. Is there inletting for a butt swivel bracket? There shouldn't be. Is there a counterbore under the butt plate? 2.25"x .8"x 3" deep.
The wood looks like a much older piece of Walnut to me as well, but again I'm not expert enough to say with confidence.
 
Last edited:
That stock is legitimate. What would be nice to know is whose military forces it served before being surplussed. That wood was ridden hard and put away wet. I may be wrong on this so if anyone has better information I believe your circle/88 stamp is out of Malaysia. That is just something in the back of my mind.
 
Everything there looks to be original. The wood ahead of the sling swivel looks a bit short but that is normal.

You will need a handguard ring to install.
 
You've got a No5 stock. From a later year 1946 or 47. Find yourself a donor action and new top guard and you're all set. Ron
 
SKScanuck said:
The butt stock looks freshly cut to me. No way that cut is over 50 years old. Looks like a No4 or No1 stock made into a No5.
Click to expand...

Does look like a fresh cut. But the rest of the buttstock does look quite No5 to me. My guess is that was cut to fit an ill-fitting butt plate and pad assembly, maybe from another No5; or... mystery...
 
The cut does look fresh but the rest of it and inside of the counterbore looks old.
As for "Looks like a beat up piece of ####.",some would say that an unused or unissued stock set doesn`t seem to have That "history" look.
I still haven't decided what to do with it since I missed out on the rifle to go in it.
 
louthepou said:
Does look like a fresh cut. But the rest of the buttstock does look quite No5 to me. My guess is that was cut to fit an ill-fitting butt plate and pad assembly, maybe from another No5; or... mystery...
Click to expand...

I'm not a No.5 expert, but I did do a good bit of research when I bought one with a serial number range that doesn't match its date.

I am going to say that the wood set is an original No5, but the buttstock was cut to do ?rot? ?damage? where the plate met the wood. I say this because the end inlet should be 1/8 to 3/16 of an inch longer. Any No5 wood I have seen a picture of that area should be longer. Does the end plate depth match the inlet on the wood?

edit: A pic from a site sponsor:
LE5-101.jpg


That is my thoughts.
 
The short fore end is reminiscent of rifles used in the areas with salt marshes. They had the metal caps removed because of all the rust/rot underneath. Some of course were made that way until it was found the ends were getting damaged or splitting. That one though leads me to believe it is from the far east. The butt stock cut is also a good indication of cutting off the rot under the but pad and metal butt plate band.

This used to be a fairly common sight. Many folks changed those stocks out because of their unsightliness.

Lever received a barge full of large wooden crates back in the late sixties that came out of the far east. The majority of the rifles wore similar stocks. The metal underneath the stock lines was pitted to the point of many of the rifles only being good for parts. We tossed hundreds of barreled actions because of the pitting. We didn't even bother to take off the flash hiders. We only saved the pristine parts that were saved by the cosmolene. Lee Enfield parts in those days were pennies a pound and usually came in their original boxes or wrapping.

OP, PM me.
 
The No5 is either the best or worst offender when it comes to "rules". There are few if any that apply 100% of the time. Some had no end caps from the factory, some had them. Sometimes a stock was replaced in the field armorers shop, by doctoring a No4 stock. Sometimes a forestock was done the same way. Production ended in September of '47 - or did it? I had one made in December of that year. It had a hollow bolt - unless it didn't. The only things that appear to hold true on every 'real' No5 are the rear sights and the cuts to reduce weight, along with the markings on the receiver and the barrel.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom