Why all the hate for Ishapore?

BOHROK

BOHROK

CGN Regular
Rating - 100%
63   0   0
Location
SW Ontario
I just read the forum on here where a fellow member was asking about their Jungle Carbine and it came out that is was a ishapore rework and immediately the value dropped and “ishapore screw” comments.
I myself own a Jungle Carbine that is a ishapore rework and I love it, looks great functions flawlessly and is accurate! I always here that they are completely worn out junk but I have never really encountered that issue, that being said I am not an expert. Are they really any different then any other surplus rifle that comes over. I want to hear your opinion on ishapore rifles either way and why.
 
I don’t worry about the naysayers. Ishapore rifles, whether manufactured or reworks, can be very nice, just like anything else. A lousy screw sets some people off, so be it. I have some Ishapore rifles and a couple of.410 No. 1’s.
 
I give it about as much credence as the folks who sneer at Russian Captured K98s, none.

Like anything, you can get really nice RFIs and beat up ones - and the same goes for any British, Empire or Commonwealth made firearm or piece of militaria.
 
I cannot speak to their SMLEs, however my first-hand experience with Ishapore 1A1 "clones" of the FN FAL has been that they are very much inferior examples of the design as compared to any other known FN FAL or variant. They are poorly reverse-engineered from genuine FALs such that they accept a mish-mash of metric and inch-pattern (and many Indian-unique-size) parts. On top of the peculiar parts sizing, the parts themselves are much more roughly machined and finished than their Western world counterparts. The ubiquitous wood screw through the wooden pistol-grip was the dead give-away that you were looking at an Ishapore "FAL". I know for a fact that many of the Ishapore manufactured No.5 "Jungle Carbine" bayonets require fitting to properly mate to a British-manufactured No.5. That alone, speaks volumes to me about the dimensional peculiarities of the Indian service rifle copies. Do they function as intended? Probably, but it doesn't make me eager to trust their metallurgy when Indian parts aren't decently finished nor even compatible with those same firearms parts produced by the remainder of the Western World....
 
Bartok5 said:
I cannot speak to their SMLEs, however my first-hand experience with Ishapore 1A1 "clones" of the FN FAL has been that they are very much inferior examples of the design as compared to any other known FN FAL or variant. They are poorly reverse-engineered from genuine FALs such that they accept a mish-mash of metric and inch-pattern (and many Indian-unique-size) parts. On top of the peculiar parts sizing, the parts themselves are much more roughly machined and finished than their Western world counterparts. The ubiquitous wood screw through the wooden pistol-grip was the dead give-away that you were looking at an Ishapore "FAL". I know for a fact that many of the Ishapore manufactured No.5 "Jungle Carbine" bayonets require fitting to properly mate to a British-manufactured No.5. That alone, speaks volumes to me about the dimensional peculiarities of the Indian service rifle copies. Do they function as intended? Probably, but it doesn't make me eager to trust their metallurgy when Indian parts aren't decently finished nor even compatible with those same firearms parts produced by the remainder of the Western World....
Click to expand...

That's why they are interesting. :) A Third World country attempting First World technology.

Grizz
 
There's two things going on here. First is Ishapore made arms, and the other is British and Canadian (and Australian?) Enfields that were reworked at the Ishapore arsenal. In my experience the pre-WW2 Ishapore No.1 rifles are fantastic and beautifully made. The late war ones get a little rough. From a shooting point of view there is no problem with Ishapore made or refurbished rifles beyond the problems with any rifle of that vintage. Call it Eurocentric thinking, but I think the dreaded Ishapore screw is a deal stopper for those who collect Enfields for their historic value. It shows they came from India instead of the battlefields of France and Germany which lessens their value for those interested in that history. The other thing is for those who want their collectable rifles as original as possible, the screw is a big drawback that can't be covered up or repaired. I feel that way about 'FTR' No.4's especially if they are converted to Mk.II configuration.

Then you find a well worn Long Branch No.4 with sand under the stock, New Zealand markings and an Ishapore screw and wish it could talk and tell you the adventures it has been through.
 
Last edited:
I have a #1 mk3 Ishapore rifle and it works great built in 1945. I love the history of rifles that fought in the war so I can see the draw to British lee Enfields but although with the year of my rifle I doubt it saw service outside of India, many Ishapore rifles fought in North Africa
 
There's probably a good amount to be said about differentiating between an Ishapore "rework" and something entirely made by/at Ishapore; there are more than a few people now clamouring for those 2A and 2A1 rifles.... ;)
 
Personally I want to get my hands on an Ishapore 2A1 to have an Enfield action that I can put a lot of rounds through without burning the wallet. Of all the bolts I've fired over the past year or so, the Enfield's is the most enjoyable and satisfying to work.
 
The screw is to fix a problem with cracking stocks that was not confined to Ishapore work. I did a fair bit of research on this a while back and found that the British FTR process could also involve installation of a reinforcing screw. However the use of a wooden dowel in the same vicinity was more common. So just because there is a screw there or a dowel it does not necessarily mean Ishapore.

This does not seem to be common knowledge and as soon as people see any alteration they automatically think Ishapore and downgrade the value.
 
The point of these rifles is they are a part of history and did what
was expected of them.
The FN FAL design was stolen from FN by India and claimed to be their
own design. The Enfield was built with help from the British and evolved
 
kjohn said:
I don’t worry about the naysayers. Ishapore rifles, whether manufactured or reworks, can be very nice, just like anything else. A lousy screw sets some people off, so be it. I have some Ishapore rifles and a couple of.410 No. 1’s.
Click to expand...

^....one of the very few LE's I'd love to own. Trying NOT to look for one, but if I find one that shoots modern .410...I may make a bad financial decision. lol
 
Arrow105 said:
Personally I want to get my hands on an Ishapore 2A1 to have an Enfield action that I can put a lot of rounds through without burning the wallet. Of all the bolts I've fired over the past year or so, the Enfield's is the most enjoyable and satisfying to work.
Click to expand...

your going to love it
 
Some thoughts:

1) Until Indian independence, the Ishapore Arsenal was a BRITISH factory. The SMLEs produced there were the same as SMLEs produced anywhere else, save for differences in the type of stock wood.

2) HUGE difference between a pre-1948 Ishapore anything and a post-1948 Ishapore anything.

3) Once the Indians dumped the brits, they started taking shortcuts in rifle production. You see more poorly fit wood, crude machining (such as squared off nosecap wings), increased use of Luan Mahogany stocks, which aren't as robust as walnut or beech, No.4 style tie plates on No.1 forestocks, and the Ishapore Screw to limit the severity of failure in the event a weak or poorly fitted forestock started to let go.

4) The Indians (pst-48) routinely refinished and kept using worn parts that in a UK arsenal would have been scrapped and replaced. India in the 40's and 50's was a poor country - go figure.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom