Green Glow
Member
Have one with not the square bolt firing pin end but a round one.....what's up with that?
Jungle carbine with round back of bolt fitting?
- Thread starter Green Glow
- Start date
- Status
lysanderxiii
Member
Pics?
Ignition Override
Member
AlexanderA
Member
My guess is that somebody put a Mk. III striker on a No. 5 carbine.
Paratus
Member
There were four different types of cocking pieces, presumably interchangeable across all Mks / Nos
.
.
Most of the round styles you will see on pre WW2 rifles.
OP
OP
Green Glow
Member
Ok. mystery solved. I have an arisaka last ditch with a pretty mum safety on it also. Someone replaced the welded slug type.
OP
OP
Green Glow
Member
I've heard of putting lead or lead shot in the stock hole of a jungle carbine to increase backweight (I know weight is weight and not where it is) so as to reduce kick. Any thoughts?
earlthegoat2
Member
I wonder if it is a real No 5.
There were many No 3s and No 4 converted to look like Jungle Carbines and a little parts mixmastering would probably not have been frowned upon.
There were many No 3s and No 4 converted to look like Jungle Carbines and a little parts mixmastering would probably not have been frowned upon.
wiscoaster
Member
I think I remember seeing a No. 5 with a round cocking piece on a YouTube video (it might have been "Forgotten Weapons") that I took note of at the time, so the OP's could indeed be genuine original cocking piece. Might even be rather unique very early production or proof rifle. Then again, it could be a fake as noted above. Look for some of the other signs that it's a genuine No. 5, like the hollow bolt handle, receiver & barrel cuts & fluting (you can only see if the stock is off), trigger location, etc. There's yet another YouTube video on the differences.....
AlexanderA
Member
The Australians never shifted over to the No. 4. They made Mark III*s throughout WW2. They were also users of the Jungle Carbine. It would not be unexpected for an Australian armorer to slip in a Mark III* cocking piece when repairing a Jungle Carbine.
We don't know what the OP has. I could be one of the No 1 MKIII's converted into faux Jungle carbines. These SMLE's have a rounded cocking piece
Did that w a H&R single shot 12 ga. It helped some. Still kicked hard but was noticeably lighter on the recoil department.
Everyone put pennies, I poured shot into the buttstock cleaning kit holes of my match Garands and M1a's.
It really helped reduce recoil at all stages of the game. I think my rifles, with their heavy barrels, and lead shot, must have weighed 12 to 15 lbs. The real killer was the AR15, or all things. The AR15 was very difficult to shoot offhand, the short sight radius, and the whole thing was extremely sensitive to trigger snatching. And the market responded with lead weights. I purchased the buttstock weight, which fit into the cavity of a AR15 buttstock, and that must have weighed seven pounds. So to make the rifle balance, I also purchased two full, under the handguards, lead weights. I think that AR must have weighed 17 pounds. Carrying that rifle, in its case, the 1000 yards of Viale Range was an absolute shoulder hurting experience.
If you wanted to shoot good offhand scores with an AR, you had to pork the thing up.
Dave DeLaurant
Member
Use lighter handloads or temporarily replace the buttstock with one from a standard No.4 -- that narrow rubber buttpad on the No.5 actually makes felt recoil worse.
Ugly Sauce
Member
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2020
- Messages
- 6,203
I wonder why my Bogus No.5 does not kick hard? My Yugo M48A is the hardest kicker I have, and it's tolerable. (my worst kicker is my 5-poind single shot 12ga shooting 3" slugs)(which is NOT tolerable)
Ugly Sauce
Member
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2020
- Messages
- 6,203
Works great until you want to carry the rifle any distance.
It’s good cardio.
It could be an "old wife's tale",but I was told by my step father when he visited from the UK and saw mine,that the concept of the No5 was as paratrooper rifle. The narrow rubber butt pad was to protect the floor of aircraft not your shoulder.. He was issued the No5 when he was in post WW2 Malaya and said he liked the rifle. He also said the name "Jungle Carbine" was never used.
OP
OP
Green Glow
Member
My take is I read that the original specs called for a soft rubber pad on the back of the jungle carbine. But "the powers that be" decided that they'd deteriorate in a warm wet climate so of course without asking the troops, opted for a harder, more durable rubber.
OP
OP
Green Glow
Member
Numrich has a repro soft replacement.
Here is a good place to start reading about the different Enfield versions and how to spot fakes.
https://webpages.uidaho.edu/stratton/en-page/fakes.htm
There are entire books written on the different Enfield rifles that are almost a must to own for serious field collectors.
Accordingly the Australians never made a No.5 since they were never set up to make the No4 MkI to begin with. Australia did make around 100 No.6 jungle carbines though.
And if you run across an Enfield No.7 Jungle Carbine in 308 it is definitely a fake. None of the Enfield 2A/2A1 rifles were ever converted into tanker or jungle carbines for military use.
https://webpages.uidaho.edu/stratton/en-page/fakes.htm
There are entire books written on the different Enfield rifles that are almost a must to own for serious field collectors.
Accordingly the Australians never made a No.5 since they were never set up to make the No4 MkI to begin with. Australia did make around 100 No.6 jungle carbines though.
And if you run across an Enfield No.7 Jungle Carbine in 308 it is definitely a fake. None of the Enfield 2A/2A1 rifles were ever converted into tanker or jungle carbines for military use.
Carl N. Brown
Member
On the Aussie No.6 Forgotten Weapons: Australian Prototype Jungle Carbines
- Status
