School me on the Enfield Jungle Carbine

[JeeperCreeper]

Specifically the RFI (Indian made) 308/7.62x51... I found one for sale locally and know nothing.

Are they any good? Are they cheap knockoffs? I can't find solid info....

 

[Carolina Tater]

Specifically the RFI (Indian made) 308/7.62x51... I found one for sale locally and know nothing.

Are they any good? Are they cheap knockoffs? I can't find solid info....

As far as I know Ishapore (India) never made the Mk5 jungle carbine let alone in 7.62 nato and I do know a lot of people have taken other smle pattern rifles and mocked them up as jungle carbines but I cant say without a shadow of a doubt that it is not legit

 

[25-20 WCF]

The Ishapore 2A-1 rifles were direct copies of the Enfield Mk III pattern chambered in the 7.62x51 NATO round. About a quarter million rifles were made by the time production ended in 1974. Many were sold as surplus when the Indian military transitioned to the INSAS, etc. automatic arms.

I suppose that some 2A-1 rifles were modified to the “Jungle Pattern” by aftermarket suppliers using surplus rifles.

.

 

[mokin]

I agree with Carolina Tator. I've never seen a 7.62 "Jungle Carbine". My guess is that it's some kind of remanufactured rifle. That doesn't mean it's not a good shooter. While the .303 British is a cool cartridge, 7.62 is much less expensive and easier to find.

What everyone really wants to know is how much and can you put pics up?

 

[Carolina Tater]

I did a little digging on the interwebs and if the info I found is to be believed a legit one will have "Rifle No 5 Mk I" on the left side of the receiver

 

[JeeperCreeper]

Deleted

 

[earlthegoat2]

A Legit “Jungle Carbines” or properly known as a No 5 Mk 1 and marked as such on the receiver (even electropenciled on often) will have a hollow bolt handle knob, lightening milling in the receiver, a fold down peep style sight mounted to the receiver, lighter barrel profile, Fazakerley or BSA as the manufacturer. Of course there is also the flash hider, shortened stock and forend and other obvious visual differences. Apparently the most important one of these features is the lighter profile barrel. That is the least likely thing to be falsified in any conversion.

So no, Ishapore never made a No 5 but there are many Ishy Jungle Carbine conversions out there. Often they won’t have the receiver mounted sight and that is the first thing I usually notice. This usually means the donor rifle was a No 3 type as opposed to a No 4 type with the folding receiver sight. As was mentioned earlier, Ishapore Guns were of the No 3 type.

My experience with the Ishapore Guns has been good. Nice to be able to find ammo.

 

[Robert]

While they are right, there was never an official No5 jungle carbine, RFI did make a jungle like carbine. Or someone made one based on the RFI 2A-1. Either way it's a cheap knock off of the real thing.

I used to have one and I don't remember it having other marks but I clearly remember the RFI marks and the proof marks. It was a meh rifle. Not overly accurate, heavy for what it was, and LOUD. Fit and finish was not terrible, but not great either. If not pay more than $300 for one. If that much.

 

[earlthegoat2]

Santa Fe made many Jungle Carbine replicas and used plenty of Ishapore rifles in 7.62 as donors.

 

[ApacheCoTodd]

I look at them more as their own Carbinization of a .308 Indian than a *Jungle Carbine* or even a *knock-off* and value them as such.

The way I see it, the ONLY thing they share with a righteous No 5 Mk I is a general length and the repo muzzle device.

Making an Enfield shorter has its merits if not queering a collector piece - which no one will ever call an Indian Enfield.

Making an Enfield .308 is also, as above.

Getting a premium for any ridiculously tenuous connection to a No 5 Mk I would be a waste.

A fun ballistic boondoggle at best and, best be CHEAP!

Todd.

 

[Jerry M]

IMHO 7.62X51 is too high pressure for this action. Drop in a hot .308 Winchester load and you could have problems. Plus there is no way to add a scope.

 

[M1key]

I owned three SMLEs at one time. No.4 Mk2s. Handled a few Mk5s. A friend told me his had the infamous "wandering zero". Owned the Ishapore in 308. It shot OK, but the rifling looked like it had an extra "offset land" LOL. I can't imagine a "jungle version". I would look elsewhere...

M

 

[boom boom]

The whole Ishapore manufacturing bit and their conversions to 7.62 is something where there is a lot of folklore but not as much hard evidence. It doesn't help that commercial importers were building parts rifles with whatever parts they could get cheap and sell cheap to folks wanting a Bambi blaster.

As said above, the genuine rifle is marked accordingly, has some controversial step taken to remove metal in certain places to make them lighter to carry, and is loud and obnoxious even in .303 with a decent helping of recoil. The round receiver of the No. 1, Mk3 is an obvious tell that it is not genuine as the No. 5 was based off the No. 4 receiver which is squarish for mfg. ease. The No. 4 and 5 have rear receiver mounted peep sights while the No. 1 has a barrel mounted open rear sight and so on. The barrel profiles are different as are the stock forends (there is a slight difference in buttstocks but a No. 1 buttstock can be altered to fit a No. 4 for example with doing a whole lot).

Now, the later Ishapore 7.62 rifles were made with supposedly better steel but examples have turned up where bog standard No. 1's were converted to 7.62 as well. There is a similar dispute over bolt head and bolt body mfg as to whether or not the Indians simply used .303 proofed bolt heads altered for 7.62 extractors or whether new ones were made with better steel and ditto for bolt bodies. I suppose that someone versed in Hindi with the proper security clearances might eventually shine some light on this via Indian Military Archives but that might be a long wait.

The long and short of it is that this is a case of caveat emptor and a buyer of such has to be prepared for disappointment as well as getting a diamond in the rough.

 

[Old Stumpy]

I have no experience with Jungle Carbines in .308 or .303, and only other Lee Enfields in .303.

However, I did own an FTR (Full To Rebuild) SMLE rebuilt by Isahapore. It was quite a mix of parts.
An early brass butt-plate and nicely figured butt-stock. An Australian-made action. New birch fore end wood and handguards. And a new Ishapore barrel painted brown over the blueing inside the fore ends.
It was very well done. And, it was a tack driver. The most accurate Lee Enfield that I ever owned,including a new two groove barrel Savage.

 

[Blkhrt13]

From what I’ve seen there is far more fakes than legitimate examples floating around out there. I’d still have a decent clone especially if it was in the original chambering and lacked hack job lightening so I could shoot it when I felt the urge. But I’d be sore if I paid real price for a copy.

 

[Danger Mouse]

While they are right, there was never an official No5 jungle carbine, RFI did make a jungle like carbine. Or someone made one based on the RFI 2A-1. Either way it's a cheap knock off of the real thing.

I used to have one and I don't remember it having other marks but I clearly remember the RFI marks and the proof marks. It was a meh rifle. Not overly accurate, heavy for what it was, and LOUD. Fit and finish was not terrible, but not great either. If not pay more than $300 for one. If that much.

If it is in good condition with matching serial numbers you can get more than that. I almost bought a 1946 manufacturer year. It was going for nz $800 10 years ago.

The no4s go for more money