I wonder who built this Jungle Carbine .22?

cantom

cantom

CGN Ultra frequent flyer
Rating - 100%
554   0   0
Location
Conservative Canada
I bought this rifle a ways back on the EE. It's registered as a Maltby No 4 Mk 1. It's been converted to a .22 rifle using what is probably a LB No 7 barrel cut down to Jungle Carbine length. I believe the rifle was built using one of the Numrich Arms kits to convert a No 4 to a faux Jungle Carbine. The buttstock hardware all looks new. The wood was ultra dry, I've been rubbing in coats of BLO for a couple of weeks and it's looking pretty good.

On the left of the receiver it says No 4 Mk 1. On the buttsocket is 1944 and a serial number starting with AE. The bolt number matches. Funny things are, the finish is that unmistakeable Long Branch green parkerizing, there is a big C Broad Arrow on the receiver ring, the bolt head is LB, and the receiver has been converted to No 4 Mk I/3 receiver mounted trigger configuration. No FTR marks visible anywhere. I wonder who built this? My guess is a CF gunplumber of some description...
I have Linseed oil buildup on the metal...anyone know a reasonably easy way to get it off?

JC22001.jpg

JC22002.jpg

JC22003.jpg

JC22004.jpg

JC22005.jpg

JC22006.jpg

JC22007.jpg

JC22008.jpg

JC22009.jpg
 
Saw one at the Calgary gun show last year.

.303 barrel had been shot out and the owner had replaced it with a C No 7 barrel. It was cute and I would have bought it but noy for $600
 
Green parkerizing is the result of long term storage in cosmoline. There was no such thing as green parkerizing when that rifle was new. Green parkerizing solutions came about because our Southern cousins think M-1 rifles should be green. They weren't green either. It's strictly a chemical reaction.
"...reasonably easy way to get it off..." Try a soaking in some Varsol.
 
Interesting conversion to hung trigger; not a conventional FTR conversion. Whover made it up was a pretty decent 'smith. When this rifle was discussed earlier, I think I mentionned that I sold a No. 7 barrel into BC for a .22 No. 5 project. I do not remember who the buyer was. It was in the days of the old Gun & Knife forum. No way to tell if it was that barrel though.
 
tiriaq said:
Interesting conversion to hung trigger; not a conventional FTR conversion. Whover made it up was a pretty decent 'smith. When this rifle was discussed earlier, I think I mentionned that I sold a No. 7 barrel into BC for a .22 No. 5 project. I do not remember who the buyer was. It was in the days of the old Gun & Knife forum. No way to tell if it was that barrel though.
Click to expand...

The CGNTZ member I got it from lives near Ottawa and said he got it at an Eastern Ontario gun show.

I've never seen anything like that screw that comes up from underneath to attach the trigger conversion...the FTR rifles had that setup soldered on did they not? Thus it was probably done in Canada...
 
Last edited:
The rifle is interesting. It is not a Longbranch but totally Canadian receiver and bolt. Also it should be noted that the bolt and receiver match serial numnbers. Was there also a kit sold to convert No. 4's to .22 calibre using the original bolt head and handle?

Also, the barrel is marked R near the shank.
 
Last edited:
skirsons said:
The rifle is interesting. It is not a Longbranch but totally Canadian receiver and bolt. Also it should be noted that the bolt and receiver match serial numnbers. Was there also a kit sold to convert No. 4's to .22 calibre using the original bolt head and handle?

Also, the barrel is marked R near the shank.
Click to expand...

According to the CFC it's a ROF Maltby (British) receiver. The fact that the receiver ring is stamped with C Broad Arrow and the action is green parked is interesting and a bit confusing, the rifle must have found itself in Canadian service and been FTR'd at Long Branch postwar while still a military .303. Note that the bolt head is stamped LB, thus is a No 7 bolthead. I think some enterprising gunplumber put it together as a project. It's a nice rifle.
 
cantom said:
According to the CFC it's a ROF Maltby (British) receiver. The fact that the receiver ring is stamped with C Broad Arrow and the action is green parked is interesting and a bit confusing, the rifle must have found itself in Canadian service and been FTR'd at Long Branch postwar while still a military .303. Note that the bolt head is stamped LB, thus is a No 7 bolthead. I think some enterprising gunplumber put it together as a project. It's a nice rifle.
Click to expand...


I think the R on the barrel shank is interesting. It's very hard to tell if this is a sleeved barrel or a completely replaced .22 barrel because of the flash-hider. If it is not a sleeved barrel, the R would mean a FTR replacement, no?
 
I've since noticed something odd about this rifle. I knew before that the buttstock was walnut and the forestock and handguard were beech, but the markings on the buttstock strike me as odd. There is a very faint C-Broad Arrow marking on the buttstock wrist. This would be understandable if the stock was modified into a jungle carbine buttstock, but would there not have to be holes on the buttstock where the No. 4 sling swivel used to be? There is no hole and no filled holes. Nothing!

This would mean to me that it was a Canadian No. 5 buttstock. Is that even possible? What else might explain the lack of holes for a No.4 Swivel?

Another picture of the rifle:

80140995.jpg
 
skirsons said:
I've since noticed something odd about this rifle. I knew before that the buttstock was walnut and the forestock and handguard were beech, but the markings on the buttstock strike me as odd. There is a very faint C-Broad Arrow marking on the buttstock wrist. This would be understandable if the stock was modified into a jungle carbine buttstock, but would there not have to be holes on the buttstock where the No. 4 sling swivel used to be? There is no hole and no filled holes. Nothing!

This would mean to me that it was a Canadian No. 5 buttstock. Is that even possible? What else might explain the lack of holes for a No.4 Swivel?

Another picture of the rifle:

80140995.jpg
Click to expand...

The C Broad arrows on this rifle are definitely one of the things that made it interesting...I never saw the one on the wood.
 
It is very faint on the underside of the wrist. Faint but unmistakable. It may have been trimmed to dispose of the swivel holes, but as you can see from the pics, the buttstock is not abnormally short... still a mystery so it seems.
 
skirsons said:
It is very faint on the underside of the wrist. Faint but unmistakable. It may have been trimmed to dispose of the swivel holes, but as you can see from the pics, the buttstock is not abnormally short... still a mystery so it seems.
Click to expand...

If you hold a normal No 4 buttstock beside it you can see where the swivel holes would fall...if it's long enough and never cut for one that is a bit interesting...I also wonder why a Maltby had a C Broad Arrow on the receiver ring...could it have been built by a gunplumber with C Broad Arrow stamps to hand??
If you measure the one on the wood and the one on the receiver, are they the identical stamp and size?
 
The markings on the wood are certainly different than the receiver. It's obvious that it wasn't the same stamp or it was an inked stamp because the marking is so worn and faint. I would not be surprised to see a Maltby with Canadian markings as it is entirely plausible for any manufacture of Lee Enfield to find its way into Canadian service. Even some P17's in World War I have C broad arrows.

The idea of holding a No. 4 buttstock up to this No. 5 would be a real good idea. Too bad this is my only Lee Enfield.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom