Looks Like a Mark5 ?
- Thread starter CDNSailor
- Start date
Well for starters… pre-1944 no.4mk1 receiver, no.4 shortened barrel, reproduction flash hider, missing all the weight reduction features of a no.5, wrong rear sight, wrong furniture…
Have you looked at any photos of what a no.5 rifle should look like as opposed to a sporterized no.4 rifle?
Have you looked at any photos of what a no.5 rifle should look like as opposed to a sporterized no.4 rifle?
- Location
- Nova Scotia
Not a No5. Just a sporterized No4.
No5 didnt come out till March 1944. Also missing the iconic No5 buttstock with concrete rubber butt pad and slide sling loop. Lower forearm sticks out way too much.
If you bought it as it being a No5. You were hozed.
No5 didnt come out till March 1944. Also missing the iconic No5 buttstock with concrete rubber butt pad and slide sling loop. Lower forearm sticks out way too much.
If you bought it as it being a No5. You were hozed.
Last edited:
It might be someone's project. Or, many years ago, No. 5 rifles were worth somewhat more than No. 4s, and a company in the US bubba'd up reworked No. 4s with full length barrels fitted with muzzle cones. Golden State Arms in California? Yours could be one of these.
If it shoots well, it should be a good rifle.
Incidentally, during the 1920s, nomenclature of British rifles changed. Primary models were given a Number; variations a Mark designation.
So, a SMLE became a Rifle No. 1 Mark III (or III*). The later Lee Enfield was the No. 4 Mk. I (or Mk. I*, I/2, I/3, II or 2, depending). You were hoping your rifle was a No. 5 Mk. I, not a Mark 5.
If it shoots well, it should be a good rifle.
Incidentally, during the 1920s, nomenclature of British rifles changed. Primary models were given a Number; variations a Mark designation.
So, a SMLE became a Rifle No. 1 Mark III (or III*). The later Lee Enfield was the No. 4 Mk. I (or Mk. I*, I/2, I/3, II or 2, depending). You were hoping your rifle was a No. 5 Mk. I, not a Mark 5.
Last edited:
- Location
- Nova Scotia
The barrel is too long, looks like a uncut No4. Not 19" like the No5. Wrong front sight. No5 the front sight and FH is 1 piece. Not 2. Held by 2 pins on the top.
It is the No5 Mom says we got at home.
Thread on the muzzle cone.
It is the No5 Mom says we got at home.
Thread on the muzzle cone.
Hi. Your rifle is a British made No. 4 Mk I (commercially converted to appear similar to a "Jungle Carbine" - the No. 5) for the simple reason of appearances for sales promotion. Some were made by Surrey Arms U.K. and are stamped on the barrel but others were not. The Brit No 4 was very cheap in Eng;and and readily available for conversion. If it doesn't take a bayonet it is uaseless a a service rifle. Old US gun advertisements will usually display such conversions as yours. John
Thanks for all the great facts everyone. I only paid $200 cdn for it and was not really to concerned about value. I had a sporterized mark 4 as a teenager and even with the fog of years long gone, I thought this was a reproduction. Ill.just have fun shooting it.
the 4's were converted into "jungle carbines" in the 60s by santa fe, golden state and other usa distributers and were sold to unsuspecting buyers who wanted a real 5 and/or didn't know the diff or couldn't afford a real one. interestingly enough, these rifles have become somewhat of a niche collectors items to some, sort of like the eals have become. if you got if for 200, you did well. shoot and enjoy
https://search.brave.com/search?q=santa+fe+jungle+carbine&source=desktop
https://search.brave.com/search?q=santa+fe+jungle+carbine&source=desktop
