[Zundfolge]

I was surfing around and came across an interesting company called Gibbs Rifle Company. They make shiny new rifles based on Enfield actions.

http://www.gibbsrifle.com/sport.html

The rifles are pretty inexpensive, which makes me wonder about the quality.

Does anyone know anything about these guys?


Their Quest II Carbine in .308 looks real tempting at only $280.


http://www.gibbsrifle.com/images/quest2.gif

[swingset]

They're not new, they're refinished No1 actions, some of which are Indian POF rifles.

Not bad, but it's a fancy bubba-job. If that's your thing, go fer it. it's a real Enfield, albeit a shiny-pimpy one.

[Sylvilagus Aquaticus]

I've heard a few things both ways about the QC and smoothness...if you're inclined, check one out firsthand before putting any money down on one. Enfields are legendarily slick, and this tends to be a better-than-average Bubba job, but I've not felt the inclination to buy one for myself after seeing a few. I guess I feel like a Mosin-Nagant or a Swedish Mauser does everything I need for less money and the same weight without taking a perfectly good Enfield out of circulation.

It'd make a good truck gun if you need one, but then again, you could get 4 M-N M44's and a case of ammo for that much money.

Regards,
Rabbit.

[CaesarI]

Gibbs gets generally mixed reviews on their products. A lot of the work is rather haphazard. For a little more you can get a lot more gun:
http://www.scoutman308.com/

The final fact pushing me against it is that I shoot left-handed, so I'm waiting for the Kimber 84M to come out in a left-handed action.

-Morgan

[Dave Markowitz]

Based on my experience, avoid anything that Gibbs "gunsmithed" on. I got the chance to take several of their rifles to the range a few years ago and here is the writeup I did then for the gunwriter who asked me (as a Lee-Enfield fan) to check them out:

<begin>

On Wednesday 4/15/98, Josh and I took four of the Lee-Enfields up to Twin-S to give them a workout. As a result, I've come to the conclusion that Gibbs is the Chauchat of the Lee-Enfield world. The problems we encountered with each rifle are detailed below.

Rifle No.2A: I spent three hours cleaning all of the protective grease from this rifle, and discovered it to be in NRA very good condition overall. The bore appears to be in mint condition. When we took it to the range I discovered the reason that the bore is in such good shape is that the rifle will not chamber 7.62 NATO ammunition. The rounds go only about one half to two thirds of the way in. I tried 7.62mm from two different manufacturers: FNM (Portuguese) and LH (German or Austrian). This ammunition will chamber in other 7.62 NATO rifles, so we know it's not bad. And no, this rifle is not a .303. Another problem we had to fix before going to the range was to free up the rear sight, which was fixed in position due to over-application of paint.

No.2A Tanker: This one was a lot of fun. Just kidding. Again, this rifle appeared to be in NRA very good to excellent condition. I tried this one after getting nowhere with the uncut No.2A. Fortunately, the No.2A Tanker will chamber 7.62 NATO rounds. Unfortunately, after firing five shots the nosecap and the foremost portion of the 2-piece forearm started to walk off the end of the rifle under recoil. It appears to me that the way Gibbs shortened the stock was to cut a section out of the middle, then glue it back together using a doweled butt-joint. They didn't appear to use much glue, and who knows what kind of glue they used. In any event, it wasn't sufficient to stand the recoil of 7.62mm ball fired in a carbine. After smacking the loose part back into place and re-tightening the barrel band screw, I fired four more rounds. After the fourth shot (9th total), the loose part fell off the gun. It came as no surprise that the 50 yard group resembled a buckshot spreader load fired from a cylinder bore shotgun. Also, at this point, the forearm spring stud (an internal part which applies upward pressure to the barrel) vanished into the Zone of Lost Things, if it was ever there in the first place. Nice guy that I am, I glued the forearm back together with epoxy after bringing this rifle home. Further, the upper handguard on this piece started to crack under recoil.

No.7 Jungle Carbine: This rifle, a No.2A cut down into pseudo-Jungle Carbine configuration, also appeared to be in NRA very good shape. We noticed that as it came from Gibbs, the backsight protector was missing. Also, the magazine is a bitch and a half to remove. Josh fired about 15 or 20 rounds through it. For the first several shots, the magazine would drop down a little in the mag well, so that unless he reseated it, the bolt would not pick up the next cartridge in the magazine. The handguard on this rifle also cracked after a few shots. Accuracy was lackluster, on the order of no better than four inches at 50 yards from the bench.

No.1 Mk.III* Tanker: This rifle was the best of the four we took to the range. Granted, that ain't saying much. Exterior condition would rate NRA very good plus, and the bore would probably rate NRA good. The lands are well-defined, but there is some pitting in the grooves. It shot a few inches to the left at 50 yards, and groups ran at about four inches with new .303 British made by Sellier & Bellot and some Winchester 1980s vintage surplus. I have a feeling it could do somewhat better. As you know, the sights on SMLEs suck (as do my eyes). I tried a little snapshooting with it at clay birds and bits of wood laying on the 50 yard backstop. Once you get a feel for the Kentucky windage required, it's easy to nail them dead center. This carbine has potential as a close-in deer rifle or urban carbine. Unfortunately, this rifle has excessive headspace, as evidenced by primers starting to back out of their pockets. If it weren't for this problem I'd be really tempted to buy it. (But if Gibbs were to make me a cut-rate offer to account for the bad headspace I'd strongly consider it.)

We did not take the No.4 Mk.I Tanker, or the two sporterized No.2As with us. Considering the record the four we did take, this is probably a good thing. You should be aware that as received, the No.4 Tanker is missing the firing pin retaining screw on the end of the cocking piece. This does not affect the safety of the gun, but I generally prefer my guns to come from the dealer with all of the specified parts.
Thanks for letting me play with them anyway.

<end>

He actually faxed it to Gibbs. I wish I could've seen their reaction.

[hksw]

I've got a Quest II Extreme (as pictured) and haven't really had any problems with it. Only problem I had (have) with the sights is that the grooved finger 'screw' for fine elevation adjustments at the rear doesn't move very well in the threads of the ladder but this can be overcome by disengaging it with the coarse adjustments like an AK. The stock mag has never moved on me and has fed fine. I've also found that surplus 2/2A mags work as well, but not those aftermarket ones. (You can tell the difference by the spine in the back and the small spring that, I take it, is suppose to take up any play between the mag a nd well,)

Ejection is erratic, though, but as long as your'e vigorous with the bolt, the empties will come out no prob. Have not found a good scope mount. The stock one that comes with the gun is not worth the metal it's made out of. B-Suares are not entirely stable. Best I can do with open sights is ~6" at 100 yds. Some round will keyhole but they usually, oddly enough, don't seriously affect the group size. The stock on mine was excellent, the fit and finish of the metal was so-so, but coming from India in the '40s/'50s I wasn't expecting any better. Good beater gun for me, IMO, but there are others like a Yugo SKS or AK clone that would work as well if not better for less.

[Andrew Wyatt]

Friends don't let friends buy bubba jobs.


if you want a sporterized enfield, do it yourself or have a good gunsmith do it for you, preferably to a rifle with no collector value to it.