Gibbs rifle jungle carbine No 5


PDA






magsnubby
May 18, 2006, 11:01 PM
I just brought it home a little while ago. It's marked:

GIBBS RIFLE
7.62mm
R.F.I.
1968

It has a synthetic stock and what looks like a satin nickle finish. I have no idea what the finish is. The bore is nice and shiny and no pitts that i could see. I got the rifle, a scope mount, a 10 round pack of ammo marked "NATO BALL, INDIA, a 20 round box marked "INDUSTRIA ARGENTINA", 3 packs (10 rounds each) of gun store reloads, a 20 round box of Hornandy 150gr SP, a box of Winchester 150 gr Power Point, a partical box (11 rounds) of the same Winchester ammo.

It cost me $160 and a pair of Sony 6x9 3 way speakers (they cost me $53.95 otd on sale).

I think i just found my new deer rifle. I can't waite to get to the range.

If you enjoyed reading about "Gibbs rifle jungle carbine No 5" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
SlimeDog
May 19, 2006, 03:13 AM
Don't know much about the rifle, but beware of Indian 308 surplus:

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=104808
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=77914
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=67812

Regards,

-SlimeDog

Sunray
May 19, 2006, 01:02 PM
Gibbs took perfectly good rifles and bubba'd them into No.5's. I believe they used Indian made No. 1 Mk III rifles. As with any Lee-Enfield, check the headspace with proper guages before you shoot it. Gibbs no longer makes these rifles so you're on your own if the headspace is bad. Mind you, I've never heard anything about Gibbs rifles being known for bad headspace. You will find the felt recoil to be stout though.
India isn't part of NATO and never has been. Their ammo is of iffy quality. I wouldn't shoot anybody else's reloads either. Unless you know what gun shop loaded the ammo (so you can sue them if anything bad happens), pull it all and load it yourself.

kfranz
May 19, 2006, 01:58 PM
Be aware of Indian Surplus. Investigate it for yourself. Do NOT rule it out, as most of it is fine and dandy.

rbernie
May 19, 2006, 02:23 PM
I believe they used Indian made No. 1 Mk III rifles.This rifle is a 7.62x51 chambering, so Gibbs used a Ishy 2A as the donor rifle....

mainmech48
May 19, 2006, 02:35 PM
As has been said, it's basically an Ishapore 2A SMLE that's been reworked to pseudo-No.5 configuration. Chambered for the standard 7.62x51 NATO cartridge, the SMLE design was adapted through the use of updated materials and metallurgy and issued to Indian military units prior to their adoption of the FAL.

While I'd second the advice to have the headspace verified, I wouldn't worry too much about using standard NATO-spec ammo in it if it checks out okay. Indian mil-surp ammo has a rep for being an inconsistent performer, but my own standard 2A is surprisingly accurate with Aussie and S. African surplus. Groups of 3" or a bit less at 100 yds with the stock irons from the bench are common, and could no doubt be bettered by someone with younger eyes or the addition of a scope.

IMO, Gibbs intended these to be a rugged, inexpensive hunting/utility carbine. The "jungle carbine" configuration might be pure marketing, but it doesn't detract from its practicality for the intended purposes.

While a sound example should be safe to use with most factory .308 Winchester loads (I'd studiously avoid anything in the "light magnum" category) conservative handloads designed to give the best accuracy in your particular carbine rather than extracting the last f/s of velocity would be your best bet for hunting medium game, IMO.

TimboKhan
May 20, 2006, 06:31 AM
If these are the same rifles I am thinking of, wasn't there an issue with accuracy being absolutely horrible with them? These are the jungle rifles with the cone shaped muzzle brakes, right? I recall reading an article in some gun magazine in which they said that accuracy was terrible with originals, though I can't remember how the re-issues stacked up. Anyway, I might be thinking of a completely different rifle, so if I am wrong on this one, feel free to point and laugh.

Detritus
May 20, 2006, 07:31 AM
If these are the same rifles I am thinking of, wasn't there an issue with accuracy being absolutely horrible with them? These are the jungle rifles with the cone shaped muzzle brakes, right? I recall reading an article in some gun magazine in which they said that accuracy was terrible with originals, though I can't remember how the re-issues stacked up.

you're thinking of references to the original REAL No.5 carbine. which in structure is a No.4 receiver that has had various areas of metal cut or milled away (hollow bolt handle as an example) and these cuts are said to have reduced the regidity of the receiver to a point where some No5's suffer from "wandering zero".

the rifle being spoken of in this thread is not a real No5, it is a jungle carbine conversion made from a Ishapore 2A rifle which has a No1 MkIII type receiver, without the lightening cuts of the No5. if this rifle is in accurate it will not be b/c of a lack of rigidity in the receiver.

rangerruck
May 20, 2006, 02:10 PM
the argentina ammo should be very good, it is because all the old nazi's set up shop in some of the s.a. states, and made good stuff. however if i were you , i would taek the india ammo to a range or dealer, and ask them to dispose of it.
it is that dangerous.

Nhsport
May 20, 2006, 02:57 PM
I would be interested to know how the trigger is on this. Years back I bought an Ishapore gun that someone had chopped down. Didn't even realise it had been chopped untill I took off the front barrel band to clean it up. It had sighting issues because the sights were closer together by however much it had been chopped. This threw the geometry of the line of sight through the sights vs. the bore all to heck. The bore was only fair to good.The trigger was a mess. I expect military triggers to be long and heavy (this certainly was both) but this was just crunchy and nasty. I thought I could clean polish and play with springs but this one didn't get any better. I think someone had been inside and dremeled all the case hardness off the original stuff . I didn't spend tons of money originally ($150) but it was more than I should have spent. I just fell in love with the idea of a SMLE in .308. live and learn. Friend of mine who only owns AR's,sks,.22's and shotguns wanted a beater bolt gun so I sold it to him for $50
A year back I found a mark IV .303 for $139 at the local shop covered in cosmo. The counter guy was likely sick of customers tracking the cosmo over all his other guns and offered to rod the bore so I could look at it. Took him 15 min to find the bore but it actually was really nice. Had a horrible looking armory patched stock (looked bad but solid and useable) and nice crisp trigger. This gun seems to shoot well but I need to get more bench time with it.

Diomed
May 21, 2006, 02:12 AM
Some Gibbs carbines have issues with quality control - as in they've been known to spontaneously disassemble after a few rounds. So, exercise caution.

These are the jungle rifles with the cone shaped muzzle brakes, right?

On the No. 5, it's a flash hider. The effectiveness is debatable.

I recall reading an article in some gun magazine in which they said that accuracy was terrible with originals, though I can't remember how the re-issues stacked up.

Pointing and laughing, though not at you. The No. 5 being inaccurate is an old wives' tale.

Limeyfellow
May 21, 2006, 02:18 AM
The flash hider purpose was to protect your eyesight from the muzzleblast. Without it you can suffer some horrid afterimages.

Still nothing is more fun than firing a No5 at night and watching the flames shoot 6 foot out the end.

Diomed
May 21, 2006, 04:25 AM
I know it was for the shooter. It just didn't work well for everyone, or so I have heard. (Can't try it myself as the local rifle range closes before dusk.) Seems like gouts of flame would wreck night vision whether they were huge, or just pretty big. ;)

I think it was more of an issue with the cordite loaded ammo - were you using that or MkVIIz/modern stuff?

Gewehr98
May 21, 2006, 01:19 PM
The No. 5 being inaccurate is an old wives' tale.

Most likely the effects of a loose forend/action attachment. Tighten the king screw, and the No5Mk1 shoots to point of aim quite nicely, at least my original BSA variant does.

Regarding Gibbs' quality of fit and finish, there's a reason they garnered the "Fibbs" name before they just plain quit butchering Lee-Enfield rifles for profit. Having seen examples of their craft self-destruct on the range, including an impressive downrange launching of a forend and nosecap from one of their "tanker" SMLE rifles, I would run, not walk, away from anything stamped Gibbs.

If you enjoyed reading about "Gibbs rifle jungle carbine No 5" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!