WANTED: rifle exactly like the Jungle Carbine

[tplumeri]

If by "Jungle Carbine" you are referring to a Lee-Enfield, then you are right, it will be limited to about 100 yds due to its penchant for scattering rounds randomly

yep, was only good at what it was designed for.
if you like the look but want a real huntr, get a "sporterized" No4.
lots to be had for cheap.
pie plates at 500 yds are no problem with steel sights.
the original No4 have the pop up sniper rear sight, adjustable out to 1300 meters.
just be careful with the milsurp ammo.

[Tikirocker]

Sarge,

This is not aimed at you but I am using your quote below as a general point from which to expand.

roughly baseball-sized 5-shot groups at 100 yards with Remington factory loads.

For a battle rifle that is pretty darn good with factory loads - most, if not all battle rifles were designed for MOM or Minute of Man type accuracy and no better. The modern military of the day knew that the marksmanship of the average rifleman was only going to be of a certain standard so there was no point giving a precision target rifle to a grunt who wouldn't put it to proper use; that little preiveledge was reserved for the hand picked heavy barreled rifles given to snipers.. Any round hitting any portion of a soldiers body was going to have the effect of stopping them, killing them or slowing them down and Minute of Man is exactly what these rifles were designed for ... however.

When trials were first conducted by the British on the No5 Mk1 rifle they trialled it side by side with the No4 Mk1. It was quickly found that the No5 Mk1 was as accurate as the No4 out to 600 yards and thus the effective range was given as 600 yards. The British also trialed the No5 using a standard No4 butt stock and found that accuracy improved yet even more - this is another discussion again. The reality of Jungle Warfare however is that the general effective range in which the rifle was to find practical use was 300 yards and under. The No5 can be made very accurate out to 600 yards given care and tuning of the stock and working with hand loads.

There are many reasons why people pick up an Enfield and claim them inaccurate ( Most do not find them so ... ) - many of these rifles have their original barrels, most of which are over 40 years old and more and have seen a few battles. In the Commonwealth Military all Enfield rifles saw regular inspections by REME base and field work shops ... these inspections were usually three times a year where they were continually checked and assessed for tolerances. In an Enfield rifles post war life they have likely missed about 40+ years of maintenance and care which leads us to why an Enfield rifle may not be as accurate as it could be.

1 - The furniture/stock has dried out ... Enfield rifles were treated with BLO ( Boiled Linseed Oil ) which was their natural and original finish. Over many years of sitting in storage the bedding on an Enfield can be completely altered from it's original state when it left factory or met last inspection. The receiver and barrel can often seem loose as a result of shrinkage. There are means and methods of fixing this and often times giving the stock a drink of Linseed Oil will allow it to return to it's former glory whereupon it will hug all its metal parts like it should. You will find that even this small act a benefit to your groups.

2 - Bore - If you take a rifle barrel that has seen a world war and then 40 years of shooting post war you are more than likely going to have a barrel showing it's age. Original Enfield barrels might well be showing signs of throat erosion and wear to the leade and also wear in the bore itself. It may not be hugely out of spec but before anybody claims their Enfield inaccurate they might do well to slug the bore first as they are likely to find they need to move to handloads with a slightly larger projectile.

I can't count the amount of times I've advised new Enfield owners to do this and the fliers they once had at the range disappear in the wake of very tight groups.

3 - Bedding - An Enfield rifle is a subtle bit of kit and requires a bit of care and craft in order to extract the very best from it. Understanding the black arts to bedding an Enfield is imperative and this is no less than the Commonwealth Armourers who inspected the rifles would have done in their days when new. People need to understand they are dealing with old battle rifles and not out of the box modern factory jobs. I shoot along side many Military Service rifle owners and these rifles can shoot the eye out of a bird flying when cared for ... let's not forget that it's also the nut behind the bolt that has much to say on accuracy also.

If anybody picks up a 40+ year old car that used to be high performance you can bet your life it won't run like it did when new ... it will need tuning and TLC to get it running at optimum again. If you do this it will repay you in kind with performance but you can't judge the performance based on 40 years of neglect and zero maintenance.

If anybody wants to know more about Enfields and getting the best out of them then by all means visit the forum ( http://www.surplusrifleforum.com/viewforum.php?f=27 ) there's plenty of top shooters running Enfields there. Sorry for the long winded post but Enfields are a passion for me and there are plenty of issues and misconceptions about them that often require exposition.

Cheers, TR.

[Tikirocker]

Ignition,

Thanks for the kind words mate ... I actually restored the rifle my self from a very sorry state, it was without a butt stock when I got it.

Just curious-how does the recoil compare to a MN 44? I

That's a tough one mate, I personally don't think the No5 is worse than the M44 - I would say the M44 had a bit more kick but the M44 is actually a heavier rifle so it shouldn't be the case. I tend not to suffer from recoil cause I'm a pretty solid block of beef which makes it tough to assess how it may effect another person.

If you can try them out side by side that would be your best bet.

[miragetex]

I bought 3 of the No. 5's when they were last available as surplus, and I think they are the best-handling military rifle ever made. However, all of mine show lots of usage and wear (they came from Malaysia), once in a while you can find one in much better condition than mine. I have a scope mounted on one (with the expensive-but-good CAD mount that doesn't require drilling) and that one will average around 2" off the bench with decent handloads, and only slightly larger with factory loads. None of my three have any wandering zero problem. Recoil is noticable, but a good slip-on pad not only helps the recoil but also adds some needed length of pull. The .303 cartridge is well proven to be more than adequate for any game in the lower 48 at reasonable ranges. If you can find some of the now-discontinued Hornady Light Magnum loads it's equal to a .308. I can't see any reason why you should settle for something "almost as good" when it sounds like the original No. 5 is just what you're looking for. Modern rifles are clearly "better" but the intangibles of the old warhorses are priceless.

[GoCart]

Thanks for all the input guys. I spent the weekend away from my computer and having returned I have discovered that this forum is GREAT. Thank you all for your input and I will make sure to post a pic of the new rig once I get it all together (Will probably coincide with PA deer season.)

You guys rock and I will do my best to add to this great community.

Keep up the good work,

GoCart