1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

the no.5 mk.1 or "jungle carbine"

Discussion in 'Firearms Research' started by garrettedwards777, May 27, 2009.

  1. my pride and joy i was left the rifle by my father who passed away 5 months ago i have not been able to shoot the darn thing but i hear its a pretty nice rifle i love the feel and the sights but i would like to get the mk4 i love the way the wood on the mk4 how it stops at the muzzle it looks like a nice rifle to shoot and someday hang on a wall i love enfields and alot of ww1 and ww11 rifle's what do you think of the mk5?
  2. Oro

    Oro Well-Known Member

    I like the Mk. 5, but I have to ask - are you a big fan of James Joyce or ee cummings?
  3. KenWP

    KenWP member

    The Mk. 5 Jungle carbine was the most inaccurate firearm ever made. They made great battle rifles because they naturally spread lead all over the place as is. Most of them have been retired after guys learned that anyother cheap rifle was several times more accurate then one of them.
    Gunsmiths have tried to make them shoot for years and gave up. Mass production seemed to have failed the Mk.5
  4. well the style is nice and it was good for its time yes there are better rifle's but my father passed and left it to me and I will shoot it with pride. Some day I plan to get maybe a rem. 700 model in a smaller cal. but im no hunter I just enjoy to go shooting at targets and cans up in the woods of Washington and I am also an iron sight guy scope's are not really my thing I like the old way of hitting the target.

    thank for the info (not what I want to hear) but I do thank you for your time. If there are any rifle's you know of that would be more accurate but still the style I like please let me know.

    thanks again
    Garrett Edwards.
  5. Oro

    Oro Well-Known Member

    Garrett, I was joking about the ee cummings, but yes I like the #5. I'm also with you on iron sighs. The most sophisticated rifle I own is a pair of Winchester 94s. Here's why I agree with you about the Enfield:

    1) It's pretty. It's balanced, and it just looks right. Any engineer can tell you anything that does that, and works, is a work of art.
    2) The jungle carbine variant may not hit out to 300 yards, but so what? I noticed the word "jungle" in the name, so that's not part of my expectations about a carbine.
    3) It's historic. Very historic.

    The .303 Enfield #5 shares a lineage with all Enfields, and make no doubt about it, they saved the allies in WWI. Without the Enfield and the hard, disciplined troops of the regular British forces in the first weeks of WWI, there would possibly have been no Allied victory in that war. It was the smooth action, quick magazine, and good accuracy that let a small but professional group of British soldiers slow down the right wing of the German forces enough to stave off defeat of the French armies in the early days. No other rifle of the time could have let them do what they did, and it's one of the most historic rifles of all time. The Garand alone did not win WWII for the Allies. The Brown Bess, the Mauser K98, the Ak47, the Springfield Musket - no argument exists that any alone was a "war winning" weapon. But an intelligent, documented, and sensible argument can be made the BEF's use of the Enfield in the fall of 1914 prevented defeat in WWI.

    There's an adage I read once by a very knowledgeable firearms historian who said, in regard to WWI - "The Germans brought a hunting rifle. The Americans brought a target rifle. The British brought a battle rifle." The more you study the arms of WWI and WWI, the more you realize how true and pithy that statement is.

    And if what you like is the later jungle carbine, so be it. I love the Enfield for the history above. After his death, a teary Churchill said of F.D. Roosevelt, "He saved the world." I think an intelligent argument can be made of the Enfield stating the same. And there is no other personal weapon I think you can say that about.
  6. waiotahi52

    waiotahi52 Member

    It's horses for courses. Jungle carbines were made for what their name suggests, shooting at close range, in the jungle, if you want a sniper rifle great, don't use one of these. I owned one once, had the nicest bolt action I have experienced, couldn't hit a bus at 200 plus yards but lethal up close.And you don't get mud in the end of the barrel if you carry it pointing down, unless you are really really short.Enjoy the thing!
  7. Sunray

    Sunray Well-Known Member

    "...was the most inaccurate firearm ever made..." Who told you that? Wikipedia? Knew a guy who used one to hunt moose for eons. They were slated to replace the No. 4 until the troopies complained about the felt recoil at length. Accuracy wasn't an issue.
    "...my father..." Condolences for your loss.
    Check the headspace before you shoot it. And wear a thickish jacket. That india rubber pad on the butt won't help tame the felt recoil. A slip-on recoil pad will. Does increase the LOP though.
  8. Oro

    Oro Well-Known Member

    Yes, that's what I've read. It was the recoil an blast that gave it a bad rep, not accuracy.

    Troopies? I don't recall these being issued to cavalry - because we only call our cavalry, either fighting mounted or dismounted, "troopers." But I see you are in the "commonweal" so maybe your terms for infantry are different? I haven't seen commonwealth infantry called troopers except for the "regulars" before WWI. All of them were extinct by the Somme, so I haven't seen that term used commonly since then. Or you were being intentionally anachronistic, which I get. But I'm curious if it's still a common term and I didn't know that, and I am wrong.
  9. im not to sure but i have nothing good about recoil from the no.5 some guy on this website told me the no.5 mk1 is the worst rifle ever made must not be much of a british troopers rifle's.
  10. Kleanbore

    Kleanbore Moderator

    Some time back (around 1959 or 1960), I happened to read a published account of the official the UK specifications for the No. 5. I noticed that the specified accuracy at 100 feet was less than I was accustomed to obtaining from my Model 1903 at 100 yards from a bench. I quickly gave up my desire to own one.

    Around that time a friend acquired one. It was noticeably less accurate than any of his No. 1 Mark III or No. 4 rifles with the same surplus cordite ammunition.. Fun to handle but very inaccurate indeed.

    A year or so ago I read on one of these fora that one of the reasons for the inaccuracy was that the receiver was lightened, with an attendant reduction in stiffness.

    Makes sense. That may not apply to the many counterfeit conversions on the market.
  11. enfields

    mine in deed is the same I think still a great bolt easy to use and the stripper clips go in so easy one finger can do it. My lithgow is a sht.le 111* that is much diffrent looks like a no.5 but no flash hider maybe custom I think but it to is a pretty good rifle. (if you would like to see picture's of the lithgow to see how strange it is ill have to e-mail them not to sure how to put them on this page
  12. KenWP

    KenWP member

    I guess some of us can read about how accurate a rifle is and some of us that used one know how inaccurate a rifle is. Some of us are old enough to have been there done that. So far out of all the post's about one says that a jungle Carbine could be accurate. I have ran into a lot of hunters with 303's and if they never had a 10 shot clip they would be meatless as they sprayed lead all over the bush trying to hit a animal.
  13. Jim K

    Jim K Well-Known Member

    "The Mk. 5 Jungle carbine was the most inaccurate firearm ever made. "

    Wow! No one ever claimed that the No.5 was a target rifle, but mine shoots around 4" at 100 yds, which is not really spraying lead all over the bush. I think I could name some firearms that were/are less accurate.

  14. JR47

    JR47 Well-Known Member

    Ok, I'm actually old enough to have seen the paperwork detailing the problems of the No.5. It was afflicted with a "wandering zero". It would still group, but the zero moved with no apparent rhyme or reason. Reminds me of the problem M1 Carbines had when cleaned out of the stock during WWI and Korea.

    The original No.5 Carbines had lightening cuts in the receiver, which many seemed to think were the cause of the problem. In light of this, it may explain why my No. 7 Gibbs carbine, a .308 chambered 2A Enfield, cut to resemble the No.5, has no such problem. Magazine holds 12 rounds, and the little gun will hold 2"@100 yards with premium hunting rounds.

    FYI, the rubber butt pads of the original No. 5s were of a softer composition than what is found today. The rubber aged poorly, and stiffened a good deal in the first few years of exposure to light and temperature. Newly outfitted pads absorbed a fair amount of recoil, but it was still, on the No.5 noticeably heavier than standard barreled Enfields.

    Before anyone assumes. I have examples of both, thank you. I like the 2A conversion much more. :D
  15. Jim K

    Jim K Well-Known Member

    It was from a No.5, too many years ago, that I first learned the real purpose of a flash hider. A friend had one with the flash hider cut off, and we were shooting at dusk, turning dark.

    That little carbine with Mk VII ammo put out an orange, red, blue, purple flash that must have been three feet across and 5 feet long. After firing it I was blind for several minutes.

    Before that I had assumed (!) like a lot of others, that the hider was to keep the enemy from seeing the flash. The JC proved that idea wrong.

  16. geologist

    geologist Well-Known Member

    I have an all matching Shirley manufactured LE No.5.

    It shoots just fine, 3-4" at 100 yards off the bench and it holds its zero. I think that the wandering zero may have been partly due to the British army wanting to modernize to a semi-auto along with the rest of the world after WWII.

    In most Canadian mining and forestry camps 20-30 years ago, it was very common to see a No.5 in the kitchen tent for problem bears. Countless bears, black, brown and white have been taken with a No.5.

    Enjoy your Dads rifle and if you hunt, take it out once in a while, they're too nice a rifle to leave in the safe.

  17. John-Melb

    John-Melb Well-Known Member

    As Geologist said

    "Enjoy your Dads rifle and if you hunt, take it out once in a while, they're too nice a rifle to leave in the safe."

    A rifle should be purchased, owned and used for a reason, you wouldn't use a lever gun in a benchrest match.

    A Number 5 will never be as accurate as a Number 4 or a SMLE, it wasn't design to be. It is what it was designed to be, a lightweight, fast, hard hitting weapon for use in close scrub or timber. For what it was designed to do, it does it well.

    Enjoy you Number 5 Garrett, and enjoy it often.
  18. tman65

    tman65 Member

    not accurate?

    I realize this topic is a couple months old but thought I would throw in my 2 cents... I have a VERY nice sporterized no5 mk1 rof (f) that will consistently shoot 1.5 groups at 100 yards all day any day with any factory load.. and it has yet to "wander" its zero! if thats not accurate, I reckon I need to re-evaluate the definition of accurate! it does however have "substantial" recoil.
    maybe I got the only accurate one. not trying to step on any toes,..just stating my experience with mine
  19. Sunray

    Sunray Well-Known Member

    "...Troopies?..." Hi. It's a generic term for any OR regardless of his Regiment. As in "The troops". Has nothing to do with cavalry or the PBI(Poor Bloody Infantry). The Regimental system is alive and well, up here. Cavalry units have troopers and so do arty units(they call a Cpl., a bombardier too, I think). PBI units can use 'riflemen' or 'private'. I drink for a reason.
    "...except for the "regulars"..." We still have Regulars('Regs'. full time, paid for every day), Militia(part time, paid only when on duty) and Reserves(paid a specific number of days per year. Officers running Cadet Corps, for example), up here. Prior to W.W. II, 'The Regs' were called 'The Permanent Force'. Militia units had to volunteer for active service as a whole. It's not like that now. Lots of Militia troopies are serving in Afghanistan, et al.
  20. MissouriCrowinMass

    MissouriCrowinMass Well-Known Member

    Here are 6 reloads within 1-1/2" with the Ladder Sight at 50 yards with 58-year old eyes with glasses. I think my Jungle Carbine is pretty good. It's not a K31 or an M39 but its plenty good to hunt anything with at 100 yards.

    Attached Files:

Share This Page