Is this a jungle carbine?

joe n

joe n

CGN Ultra frequent flyer
Rating - 100%
298   0   0
Or just a basterdized Enfield? I do not know the first thing about these, but looking for someone who does who can tell me exactly what she is, and what I can hawk her for. Thanks guys,
Joe








 
Last edited:
Wrong rear sight and the forestock doesn't look right at the tip. Also every #5 I've seen has it's markings on the upper left side of the receiver on the flat spot that is blank and refinished looking on this one. Flash hider looks correct. Is the bolt handle knob hollowed out?
 
4th picture down, I cant read teh eletropencil markings but thats the one that will tell you

the rear sight is incorrect

and from the other photos of the receiver it looks to be a No5

the side is lower in the rear of the receiver on the No5

also if you take off the top wood you'll see the scallops
 
...the markings on the barrel. I've never seen those proof marks before. Unless I'm blind, or just unobservant, I don't think mine has either a chambering stamp or pressure rating.[/QUOTE]

These are standard Birmingham commercial proof marks placed on the arm after it was surplused.
 
What I see: correct stock, flash hider, mixed serial numbers...

What I need to see: is the ladder sight graduated to 800? Does the bolt match the rcvr, and if so, is it hollowed out? Remove the rcvr from the stock: are there cuts near where the barrel and rcvr meet? (The real No.5mk1 has them) Is it faintly electro penciled no5 mk1 on the right side?
 
The receiver is a correct #5. The sight has been changed over the years. I can't read the flat on the receiver???
 
If you remove the flash hider and the barrel is the same thickness to the muzzle it is not a #5 but a cut down #4. The wood looks like its not original but so it probably needed freshening up.
 
I was thinking the same thing as Mr. Grizzles.. I heard that no5's were reproduced for a short time so mayhaps this is one of those?
 
take the top piece of wood off and take a pic of the barrel nut. it should be fluted like this. if not. its not a carbine.

 
JTF# said:
take the top piece of wood off and take a pic of the barrel nut. it should be fluted like this. if not. its not a carbine.

Click to expand...


That is a very good but not absolute indicator. Those lightening cuts are correct for a No.5 barrel, but there is still the slight possibility that a real No.5 barrel was installed on a No.4 receiver. But as Woodchopper said in post #4, this one is a No.5 receiver.

The tell-tale difference between the receivers is between the rear-sight and the charger bridge: Both have a scallop out of the right side, but the left side of the No.4 was a vertical slab all the way between those two points while a No.5 had a lightening cut at an angle inward there just in front of the rear sight.

A hollowed out knob on the bolt handle is correct for a No.5 (the original requirement was for a "Shortened. Lightened" version of the No.4 for airborne operations) but some No.4s also got them late in the war and a No.5 could get a replacement bolt from a No.4 as an expedient for repair in service so it wouldn't prove the rifle wasn't a genuine No.5.
 
"...never seen those proof marks before..." Like Green says, standard Birmingham stamps for milsurp rifles sold out of England. Has nothing whatever to do with the military of any country.
 
I can just make out what looks like "No" and "F" marking, so likely a No5 built at Fazakerly other marks should be a serial number (2 letters followed by numbers) and a date x-xx, actually, should look like this




Incidentally, if anyone has a later dated one than this, I'd love to hear about it - this one was built 3 months after they officially stopped production and is the latest dated No5 I've ever heard of. Also, if you have a higher serial number.
 
Last edited:
enefgee said:
I can just make out what looks like "No" and "F" marking, so likely a No5 built at Fazakerly other marks should be a serial number (2 letters followed by numbers) and a date x-xx, actually, should look like this




Incidentally, if anyone has a later dated one than this, I'd love to hear about it - this one was built 3 months after they officially stopped production and is the latest dated No5 I've ever heard of. Also, if you have a higher serial number.
Click to expand...


I'll need to check now I had 2 in the 9/47 - 11/47 range with AC6### serial numbers, I sold one, but they were only around 200 serial numbers difference.

when I saw your picture above I thought hey that looks like the one I have
 
enefgee said:
I can just make out what looks like "No" and "F" marking, so likely a No5 built at Fazakerly other marks should be a serial number (2 letters followed by numbers) and a date x-xx, actually, should look like this




Incidentally, if anyone has a later dated one than this, I'd love to hear about it - this one was built 3 months after they officially stopped production and is the latest dated No5 I've ever heard of. Also, if you have a higher serial number.
Click to expand...

& over three & a half years earlier.....
j2vf.jpg
 
a company did take the number 4 rifles cut them down to look like the original no5 rifles easy way of telling is to take off the rear handguard and u should see grooves cut in barrel these are on all no 5 it was done to lighten the no 5 s--markings on barrel could b imports country markings
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom