Enfield Jungle Carbine...opinions?

[tobnpr]

Came across this while hitting up the local shops...
I know very little about Enfields- and should have taken some more pics including one of the entire rifle/buttstock but didn't. Also, didn't check the bore as I was in a hurry. Dated 10/44, this is one of the earlier ones.

Stock looks to me to have been poorly refinished, buttstock looks like a replacement/finish mismatch anyway (again- sorry, no pic other than the partial).

Bolt matches, mag does not.


I've always wanted a Jungle Carbine, and they seem to be getting scarcer- though the wood on this one might rule it out. Enfields seem to me, to be the last of the reasonably priced milsurps (not sure why that is...).

Is this even worth a "go back", and maybe an offer?

[kilimanjaro]

It looks good to me. Pull the handguard if you can and for the lightening cuts in the Knox Form. Check the flash hider with a magnet, should be steel.

Dry fire it with a spent case in the chamber and check for 'bolt flip'.

Mismatched magazines are standard.

It would be worth it to refinish the entire stock.

A 1944-dated carbine almost certainly was issued and used by the British, probably in Burma or the East Indies during 1945. Any WWII dates are scarce and collectable. Most were post-War use in the Indies, Malaya, various imperial 'police actions' here and there.

I know, I know, don't mess with the milsurps, but this one cries out for a restoration.

As far as prices of these go, for some reason the Jungle Carbine has suffered in the market, despite their popularity. I suspect most of the reason to be the tropical climate they were issued and used in, and the infamous Wandering Zero, which I believe not to exist.

They're good shooters and this looks like a sleeper, to me.

[Bill DeShivs]

I believe it's a legit carbine. The receiver has been repainted, and the forearm and handguard look like horribly colored replacements.

[Blindstitch]

I wouldn't listen to me but if you have room in your home and room in your bank account I would give it a new home.

[USCS]

If it's got a good bore, buy it. They are light, handy little rifles. I'm fond of mine.

[wogpotter]

if, repeat IF
The bore is decent.
The price is right.
The measurement from the rear face of the forend to the back of the forend barrel band is 14 1/4".
The bedding hasn't been redone.
Then I'd consider offering about $300 tops for one in that condition.
Both forend & handguard seem to be non original, possibly one of the Sarco No4 conversion kits.

[deerslayer303]

Yeah that fore end doesn't look right to me. Everything else looks right though. I would ask to remove the hand guard and check for the lightening cuts on the barrel. Here is a pic of my No. 5 with the wrong rear sight. I gotta find the correct one. There were alot of "Jungle Carbines" brought to market back in the day that were converted No. 4's.


And the Fore end, notice the black squared off cap

[wogpotter]

Its not the cap that worries me, the originals were made in both versions, apparently at random. My concern is the "grasping grooves" running under the stock front-band. I've never seen an original with the grooves in the first place & even on No4s the grooves stop short of the band cut. It really looks like a bodged cut down No4 set of wood like the one being advertised by Sarco a while back. The barrel band on the No4 was further forward so they chopped it off at the cut, gouged out a new groove & shortened it.

[44 AMP]

Besides the "wandering zero" issue (real or not???), Jungle carbines have the reputation of being the most "faked" Enfields out there.

I'm not expert enough to be able to tell a fake Jungle carbine from an original one, but if a price premium is involved because it is supposed to be original, it might be worthwhile to learn.

"NO 5 MK IRO"? all the letters on the receiver don't seem to be the same, isn't that ...curious??

[amd6547]

It does seem to have traces of green paint on it, which many jungle carbines did.

As to the wandering zero, the one I owned never exhibited it.

[James K]

The markings are very bad, but I have seen some almost as bad, maybe based on how much the guy with the electric pencil had to drink with lunch that day. It should read No5 Mk1 ROF (F).

Jim

[tobnpr]

The markings are very bad, but I have seen some almost as bad, maybe based on how much the guy with the electric pencil had to drink with lunch that day. It should read No5 Mk1 ROF (F).

It does. If you look at the 2nd from bottom pic, you can more clearly see the "(F)" at the end. Lighting...too dark in there not to use a flash and have it show up with the black paint- and the flash caused a glare.

I resized the pics because they were too large- here is the full-size one, a bit easier to see:

[IMG][/IMG]

[wogpotter]

Besides the "wandering zero" issue (real or not???)

Mine doesn't, others may vary, but there are several out there that don't either.

The markings don't bother me either. They do look horribly like mine & may be a combination of the refinish removing metal during buffing & so on. The "B" prefix is about right for an early rifle as well.



It definitely was/is a No5, (4-digit No, Marked as No5 Mk1 & so on & has all the correct lightening cuts that I can see), but the refinish & "iffy" wood make it a shooter grade at best (which it might be very nice as) which is why I valued it so low.

[kilimanjaro]

The markings are good, the issue is the stock. Either refinish or not. Finding a No. 5 stock set is going to be pretty darn tough, you'll have to live with the No. 4Mk2, either the one on it now or another one.

[wogpotter]

That's not a Mk2 stock, it has the Mk1's cross brace, not the transverse bolt of the Mk2.
It might be a No4 rather than a No5 though, the easy test is the distance to the band, the No4 is a good bit longer than the No5.

[joe sixgun]

Someone mentioned green paint? My No.1MK4 has green paint under the stock.

[wogpotter]

Yes green or khaki paint was applied in the field as an additional rust proofing measure when the old "red petroleum jelly" was found ineffective.