no5 Jungle Carbine any experts to tell me about this
- Thread starter Ravage
- Start date
- Location
- Western Manitoba
OP - just from what I think I see in the third picture in your original post. There are scuff marks on the chamber area of the barrel, near and around the flutes, that appear to be from a barrel vice. From what I see, what I think is the barrel aligning mark is not "dead centre" with that action screw hole. It may look different in hand. But that seems to me that the barrel has been "screwed on" and may not be "torqued" all the way to alignment. Not real unusual when swapping out a barrel to have had to use a "breeching washer" or to shave the barrel shoulder to get to perfect alignment and headspace. That may cause a headspace issue, so best get headspace checked before shooting it. Further, if that barrel is not perfectly clocked to the receiver, as indicated by the alignment marks on barrel and receiver, then the front sight would not have ended up "straight", using the original grooves for the cross pins that hold that flash hider in place. New grooves would have to have been cut, or that flash hider was epoxied or soldered in place if it is actually sitting "top dead centre" to the receiver flats, if the barrel is not torqued to alignment.
- Location
- Western Manitoba
Despite my previous comments, I am with rgg_7 - Post #22 - no real evidence yet that it is "unsafe" - get the headspace checked and use it!!
From looking at pictures online the rear sight is supposed to sit in between the eyelets touching both sides to keep the sight centered and not moving. it looks like both eyes are way to far apart and the rear sight has 1/4" play right or left in the space between the eyes there is no way the sight would ever stay zeroed. I think at some point both eyes were removed ! I definitely didn't get a chance to do my due diligence on this one that's for sure
I don't even know if that is repariable or needs a new receiver because as it that one is frackered
https://ibb.co/yFJFMWw
I don't even know if that is repariable or needs a new receiver because as it that one is frackered
https://ibb.co/yFJFMWw
Your picture highlights my concern, with that much play there is zero chance that rifle stays zero, and with the missing pin a good chance the sight even falls out over time with recoil.
It makes my blood boil to see people get taken advantage of like this when they are trying to enter the milsurp world
Here is what a tight and correct one looks on a No.4
Ya I don't know what is the best to do I am sure somebody is looking for everything else for no5 its just the receiver that seems to be the issue, I could try to find just a no5 receiver but that sounds like it might be impossible or try to find a no4 receiver and rebuild it using that ? at this point matching and original is not words that can be used lol Everything else looks pretty decent, Anyone know of a place to source receivers ?
I would be careful about trying to make this one work. A receiver might run you a few hundred dollars, then you have to install which means either tools or a gun smith for probably another $200, at that point you’ll be $1100 in the hole on a gun that matching and original might fetch $800, but frankenstiened together may fetch the original $600 you paid for it or less. Parting this out may be the way to go.
I don’t know what the rear sight on a No.5 sells for but the No.1 singer style sight on a No.4 (the same style as the number 5) goes for $80-100 alone, the magazines typically go for around $50-70, but yours is chopped from a No.1 so hard to say there. The stock could probably fetch $200. The barrel maybe another $200, the metal bits, maybe another $100.
Parting it out would likely allow you to recover your cost and then maybe some extra
- Location
- Western Manitoba
OP - looks like the "fix" was not really completed - you are correct in your concern about the spacing on each side. You could resolve that - "fine tune the fix" - with small washers each side of the rear sight body. The trick will be to get correct amount of shim washers on each side so rear sight sits more or less centered with bore line. It would help you a lot to drill a hole and install a little cross pin, so that rear sight axle can not work it's way to the right. By shimming the rear sight left/right and the drift adjustment available on the front sight, should be able to get your windage set. So long as the height of the "new" ears are precisely the same as original, the yardage markers on your rear sight might be correct - else will have to find out where it shoots for different ranges. Just going by your pictures and the picture in Post #46 - the protrusion of the little piston under the rear sight - my "guess" is that your rear sight axle is much higher than original? That would likely require a very tall front sight insert?
I do not have the specs for zeroing a No. 5, but I seem to recall that the test for setting No. 4 sights was shot at 100 FEET (33 yards) using the battle sight. 5 standard service rounds were to land in a rectangular box - 1" wide and 1 1/2" high. So long as all 5 rounds were within the box or were cutting a line of that box, was deemed "good enough for government work". I am under the impression that No. 5's were not, and were not intended to be, as "accurate" as a No. 4, so worth your while to look up what was the sighting setting and the expected accuracy standard. These battle rifles were never meant to be "precision" "bug eye" shooters. I would not be surprised if a No. 5 was expected to do about 5 MOA or so... That would make it very much deer or moose capable out past 200 yards or so...
I do not have the specs for zeroing a No. 5, but I seem to recall that the test for setting No. 4 sights was shot at 100 FEET (33 yards) using the battle sight. 5 standard service rounds were to land in a rectangular box - 1" wide and 1 1/2" high. So long as all 5 rounds were within the box or were cutting a line of that box, was deemed "good enough for government work". I am under the impression that No. 5's were not, and were not intended to be, as "accurate" as a No. 4, so worth your while to look up what was the sighting setting and the expected accuracy standard. These battle rifles were never meant to be "precision" "bug eye" shooters. I would not be surprised if a No. 5 was expected to do about 5 MOA or so... That would make it very much deer or moose capable out past 200 yards or so...
Last edited:
If you are still looking for a No5 Carbine, I noticed one at DelSelins in Vernon BC last time I was there. Don't know if it was all matching but I'd give them a call to find out. They don't have a good website but I'm sure they ship.
