Looking for info and the value of this Jungle Carbine

Salty

Salty

CGN Ultra frequent flyer
Rating - 100%
19   0   0
Location
East Fraser Valley BC
This rifle was a buddy of mine's he bought it in the early 1980s from Lever Arms and its sat for years. That's all I got. It looks like my other No 5 mk 1 but as shown in the pics, those markings on the receiver are missing. SN and some other markings there and shown.

61FS8KBh.jpg

kToV9LBh.jpg

5uskaYch.jpg

BElDBcJh.jpg


Any idea what the story is here :confused: And, opinions on a fair price would be appreciated as its surplus to my needs. Many thanks..
 
the photos don't show what's needed to answer your question. From the first picture I think you may have a cut down No.4 made to look like a No. 5 with a refinished stock. If so it is worth a lot less than a true No.5. Two issues that jump out are the space between the rear sight ladder and the receiver and the fact that the markings have been removed from the left side of the receiver. We need a shot of the rear sight showing the numbers on the ladder, a picture of the nock's form (the bulge at the receiver end of the barrel) with the upper handguard removed, a picture of the serial number on the butt socket and a view of the left side of the entire receiver from straight on not angled like the first pic.
 
The stamp on the butt looks Indian and the receiver is correct profile for a No5. Indian rebuild procedure involved polishing all marks off as on this one and usually stampings were put on butt socket.
 
You should be able to get a minimum of $500 for it on a quick sale. More if you hold out for a while.

Indian reworks are at the low end of the collector scale. Not sure why.

Many of them are beat to hell with poor bores but they are all as well made as any other Lee pattern rifle IMHO. Many people really hate the reinforcing screw in the fore end. Some believe it's a repair. It is an acceptable repair method by other nations but would be replaced with another sound fore end at first opportunity.

IMHO, it's actually a very good bit of preventive maintenance. Why repair a stock "after'' it cracks when you can stop it from cracking in the first place??

SOCIALISM THRIVES ON POVERTY

TURF THE LIBERALS IN 2019

Liberals really like POOR people, they're making more of them every day.

If you can't vote CPC, stay at home in protest
 
Cottage Hill Bill said:
the photos don't show what's needed to answer your question. From the first picture I think you may have a cut down No.4 made to look like a No. 5 with a refinished stock. If so it is worth a lot less than a true No.5. Two issues that jump out are the space between the rear sight ladder and the receiver and the fact that the markings have been removed from the left side of the receiver. We need a shot of the rear sight showing the numbers on the ladder, a picture of the nock's form (the bulge at the receiver end of the barrel) with the upper handguard removed, a picture of the serial number on the butt socket and a view of the left side of the entire receiver from straight on not angled like the first pic.
Click to expand...

That's a characteristic of an authentic No.5, one of the areas where they shed weight from the No.4 design. Rarely will someone faking it have the wherewithal to make that cut in the receiver and refinish it.
 
Thanks everyone I appreciate it. The bore looks great and everything works as it should so I'll finish cleaning it up and post it on the EE in a few days now that I have an ID and an idea of its value. Indian, interesting, never woulda thunk it ..
 
Tooner yes I know, it looked from the pic like there was too little space, may have just been because of the angle. I think it was back in the 80's someone put out a bunch of No.4s that had been made over to look like No.5s. At first look I thought this might have been one of them. They tried hard but didn't get some of the bits right.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom