No 5 Jungle Carbine

[crazy mark]

Was out cruising thru gun shops today and saw a #5 Jungle Carbine with a 1945 date on it. Also saw an Ishapore #5 in 7.62 also. Even though the 1945 Beverly was slightly less than pristine it followed me home. If the Ishapore hangs around there too much longer I may have to grab it also. Now to get some loads assembled for this non-import marked rifle. Mark

[Buckshot]

.................Don't know which gunwriter it was who said the #5 was the best as-is milsurp hunting rifle extant. I think I'd have to clump the Russian M44 and M38 in there too. I read someplace where they had a fix for the so called 'Wandering Zero" deal too, but don't remember what they felt was the problem nor the fix.

It'll be interesting to hear how it shoots as you progress with it.

.....................Buckshot

[omgb]

I had one of those back in '77. It beat the heck out of me each time I fired it. Short stock, light rifle, stout loads = a beating. I did not like it much. The dang gun was none-too accurate either. I sold it soon after.

[felix]

Nick, my son, picked the Indian version up in 308W. It has tall lands at around 298 and a fairly quick twist by looking down the barrel. A fired case allows a 316 boolit to enter. Shoots very good, though, with 311 boolits. Good here meaning the proverbial charging objects at the riva'. No accuracy loads tried. All with 165 plus grainers, using 39 grains of that spotter machine gun powder. ... felix

[Bullshop]

Buckshot
That would likely be my favorite gun writer Finn Agard. We lost a good one when he passed on. The one thing I recal he mentioned he didnt understand is why they put a long range site on a close range weapon.
BIC/BS

[carpetman]

felix--does Nicks Indian version have bead sights? Indian guns dont need a Starmetal group,just a tight custer.

[robertbank]

Looking at the #5 rifle myself for a boat gun up here. Accuracy has always been a question with the Carbine, that and the effects of that small butt plate on the shooters shoulder. With reloads that should nto be a problem though. Would be interested in hearing how you make out, accuracy wise.

Take Care

[felix]

The English version, 303, I had back in the 50s. It would not shoot didly, but then I never did check the barrel size. Must have been overgrown like most of the smle generation. I had Boxer ammo from Public Sports shop in Philidelphia, and reloaded it with whatever boolits I had then. Before my cast days. However, this action, like on all smle guns, have a rear lock up resulting in stretched cases with hot ammo. I learned that early on, so keep pressures on the low side, like for a lever gun. ... felix

[StarMetal]

There's been a 303 in my life ever since a young kid. I've never had the jungle carbine, but have fired alot of 303's with cast and jacketed, including some original military ammo, even military ammo from back in 1907. I don't see it as a cartridge that kicks. I keep hearing that the jungle carbines kick. How could they possibly kick more then say the 1891 Argentine carbines, which are much smaller and much lighter and a very very equal cartridge? Same with the 7.7 Jap, the short rifles, which aren't very short, but are petty light for what they are, don't kick that bad either. Grand you, the 30-06 kicks more then all those, but then I don't concider it a real bruiser. I start to equate recoil with the 7mm Remington Magnum. So why does a #5 jungle carbine kick so much?

Joe

[KCSO]

First you take about 3 pounds off the rifle and then you make an itty bitty rubber butt plate that sticks out 1/2" from the real but. Then you harden the rubber to the consistancy of O1 steel. That 'el make 'em kick! I am in between on a carbine right now. I have had 3 and only one I couldn't get to shoot. As to wandering zero, well the good ones will move up to an 1 1/2 at 100 yards from session to session. I didn't feel that was a problem with a gun designed for 100 yards and under. Glass bedding and a perssure point 5 inches ahead of the knox form will usualy cure the problem.

[crazy mark]

Thanks for the advice. I loaded about 100 rounds today to try in it. I'm hoping it shoots as good as my #1 MKIII Ishapore. Recoil shouldn't be a problem as I shoot a FR-8, M44 and M38's and a 1891 Argie carbine. I'm trying to keep it in the 1600 FPS or so ball park. I'll let all of you know what happens. Mark

[rbstern]

.................Don't know which gunwriter it was who said the #5 was the best as-is milsurp hunting rifle extant. I think I'd have to clump the Russian M44 and M38 in there too.

Buckshot, I like the M44, but who wants to drag a spike bayonet around the woods? Even removed, the lug alone is uglier than the bayonet. I have an M38, and it's a fine carbine, but the safety on it (and all of the Mosins) is much harder to operate than the Enfields. The Enfield safety is also 100% quiet, which is a nice bonus. The Enfield action also works easier. It's a more pleasing rifle to handle and shoot.

If I only had a Mosin, I wouldn't hesitate to take it out. But I'd reach for the Enfield first every time.

[Frank46]

KCSO, your use of glass bedding parallels my experience with the jungle carbine.
But in my case it was a necessity. The buttstock was so loose that even with the through bolt fully tightened it could be twisted in the socket. So after doing the buttstock it seemed only natural to do the forend as well. Shot remington 180gr softpoints and was accurate, minute of deer. Made the mistake of shooting some old rem 215 gr ammo in it ONCE. Frank

[crazy mark]

Took the #5 out today and it wasn't too bad of a shooter for the 1st time. Was getting 3" groups at 50 yds with some 314299 and 311284 boolits. Finally had a case head seperation. The broken case remover that came with my 49/56 took that out easily. Headspace is fine but looks like the chamber is a little long. Now the 1891 Argie continued to irritate me. Even with 323 boolits sized to .314 about every 4th -5th went sideways thru the target. Back to the drawing board on this one. Mark

[StarMetal]

Holy mackeral there Mark on the Argie. It's got a fast enough twist so that's not the problem. You done right sizing a .323 down to .314 too. How about this....have you slugged the muzzle and the breech and compared them? One thing is it sounds like the breech end is tight and the bullet is very loose coming out of the muzzle. .

Joe

[crazy mark]

Joe,
That's the next thing I am going to do. May have to counter bore this carbine. The crown looks good but I need to do a closer examination. I'm also pulling a lot of lead out of the barrel right now with the outers foul-out. The same boolits didn't lead up my #5 as I loaded the same boolits in both of them. Mark

[tinsmith]

I have have owned three or four No 5 Lee Enfields over the years. They just look so neat! Then when I shoot it, I remember why I sold the last one. Recoil Recoil Recoil and so so accuracy!. My last No 5 didn't want to feed cast boolits from the magazine to make matters worse. I'll stick to a good Mauser or K-31.

[Beans]

The "wandering Zero" was recently determined to be the fault of the lighting cuts in the receiver.

I made a jungle carbine out of a rescued Savage #4 Mk I ( receiver only) with all the correct hardware, stock, forearm, flash cone, rear sight, hollow bolt handle Etc. It did not have a "wandering Zero"

The rubber "recoil" pad was soft and narrow, by loading lead bullets and a light powder charge the recoil was not bad.

[Niner]

I think the actual No. 5 , with lightening cuts as they were created. and also only created in .303, shoot just fine. There is a large chance the "wandering zero" was a trumped up excuse in post war Britain to face the fact that the rest of the worlds modern armies had auto rifles.

I've got two of them and find them to have not all that much of a kick and really fun rifle to shoot as well.

The ersatz .308 versions are cut down 2A's that Navy Arms and another company sold for a few years. Collector value of them will probably remain low,"wandering zero" or not on the real jungle carbine.

[KCSO]

Hey, JUNGLE CARBINE they were made for ranges of 50 yards or less on man size targets. 3" at 50 yards is probably about what they required. If you work your load and tweak the gun a little you will get that down to 4" at 100. If you don't want case head seperation make your 303's from 30-40 Krag brass, it's bigger at the base and if you neck size you will get 6-10 reloads with cast.

[newfoundlander]

The "Wardering Zero" of the No5 MkI is once of the most repeated "factual" statements " in the milsurp collecting world. Most who see a No5 think to themseleves..."that's a Jungle carbine which has a wandering zero". The No 5 is just that: a No 5 MkI. The label "Jungle Carbine" was applied by commercial vendors in the US who wanted to hype up the batches of No5's than being declared surplus. The rifles did see use in Malayan and Indian conflicts but it was intended to be a replacement for the No4MkI rather than act as a "special forces" type of weapon. The No5 wasn't liked by the brass as they were keen to get their hands on an SLR that had been in development for sometime. There were reports from the field that the gun did have difficulty maintaining a predetermined zero but this was largely the result of the affect temperature and humidity had on the rifle's bedding. No5MkII versions alleviated this somewhat but there were other factors at play. The shape of the butt stock which caused the heel to rise ever so slightly on the shoulder when fired. The aforementioned lightening cuts in the rear of the receiver did cause some flexing. There was no real concerted attempt or interest to save the No5 as organizational momentum had already began to realize the adoption of the SLR. Any limitation or problem with the No5 could only be beneficial to those pushing for the adoption of an all new weapons platform not based on the Lee Enfield.

I've owned and fired a number of No5's over the years and they are fine reifles with cast or jacketed rounds. Any accuracy problems that arose were due to the condition of the bore, loose actions or were technique related. I personally dislike the over sized aperture on the standard No5 sight and find it difficult to maintain a repeatable sight picture. The aperture on the leaf is better but I prefer to use a Parker Hale 5C with interchangeable aperture. Once set to my preference my No5's have always achieved very good accuracy comparable with the No4 out as far as 300 yards. I shoot prone with a sling from a consistent position. IMO bench fired No5's with standard sights produced acceptable accuracy but the flinch inducing recoil and vague open sight picture don't induce confidence in the shooter. When it comes to accuracy in No5's you have to have a clean bore, tight action and stock, a good sight picture and a repeatable shooting position.

[BruceB]

To this day, forty-four years after the event, I still believe a #5 Mk I either saved my life or spared me from serious injury. I killed an oncoming black bear at essentially zero range, so close that there may not have been ROOM for a full-length #4 rifle in the gap between the bear and my tender hide. The "accuracy" was ample, and the action speed was superb...I SWEAR that I had at least three empties in the air at the same time. I was fresh from extensive Army training with the #4, and in those days I could REALLY run the rifle at high speed.

The recoil of the #5 is easily reduced for range sessions by the simple addition of an inexpensive slip-on recoil pad.

Major E. G. B. Reynolds, widely accepted as an eminent authority on the Lee-Enfield rifles, wrote in "The Lee-Enfield Rifle" (1962): "The No. 5 Rifle performed admirably in the role for which it was designed, and despite its rather unpleasant recoil, was popular with the troops as a jungle-fighting weapon."

"...it was not easy to keep correctly sighted, and suffered from what was known as a "wandering zero". This was a serious defect and many attempts were made to eradicate it. Trials were performed with different forms of stocking-up, and a Mark II pattern was eventually developed, with which further trials were carried out in 1945 and 1946. In the new pattern, the stock fore-end and handguard were extended to within about 1/2" of the rear of the flash eliminator, and the rear end of the fore-end was strengthened by a stout screw and nut. The Mark II never went into production, and it was eventually decided that the cause of the "wandering zero" was inherent in the design of the weapon and not the result of movement of unseasoned woodwork as had been suspected. The decision not to retain the No. 5 Rifle in the British Service was made in July, 1947, and it was declared obsolescent."


The rear sight of the #5 is different from that of a #4, being calibrated to "only" 800 yards instead of the 1300 of the more-elaborate of the #4 sights. The large "battle sight" aperture is intended for fast, close-range work, and as such it is just about perfect, in my experience. The plan was that if time permitted, the leaf would be raised and a sight adjustment applied. I have used the battle sight extensively in bush country, and it works just fine. One's eye will automatically center the front sight in the aperture IF the aperture is ignored in favor of concentrating on the front sight.

I've owned Garands and M-14/M1A rifles for at least thirty years, and the first modification I make on a new-to-me rifle is enlarging that damned tiny aperture in the rear sight. The #4/#5 sights spoiled me, and also taught me a good bit about using such sights. That teensy aperture is the single greatest failing in the entire as-issued M1/M-14 design, in my not-very-humble opinion. It's fine on the range, but a PITA in any sort of cover or poor light. I have taken them up as large as 3/16", and still got good accuracy.....but, I'm accustomed to shooting with the #4 battle sight.

The Parker-Hale sights are great, and I even used one of them on a sporterized #4 for hunting, with the addition of an iris aperture which was set as wide as it would go....a BIG hole. No moose ever complained. I still have a P-H 5C with iris mounted on my as-new #4 MkII.

[quasi]

I have run a few #5's, still have 2 in the family. The zero's don't wander here in Alberta! I find them the perfect truck , utility, predator defense, camping gun.

[HABCAN]

Quasi, that's my experience exactly. Maybe it's the (lack of) humidity here?
And no, they don't kick hard.

[newfoundlander]

"The Wandering Zero" was really only a concern of The Crown's Armourer's in parts of the Commonwealth and those with an interest, vested or not, in killing the gun. It's a fine gun with built in limiiations. The gun was as a lighter version of the No4 without any unconventional materials in its design like bakelite or aluminum as were being tried in Canada. The No 5 was meant to be portable and light above all else. It was NOT a spec-ops spook gun as many would like to think. The No 5 was in ever sense a "No4 Lee Enfeidl lite"

[quasi]

I agree Habcan, anyone who thinks a #5 "kicks" should try a Marlin 1895 GG with heavy loads, they "kick" to me!

[DaveInFloweryBranchGA]

Don't know if it's ok to post here, but I have an excellent condition buttstock for a #5, it's had most of the filth, oil grease, etc cleaned off and is about ready for refinishing. Wood is excellent piece of walnut, but very plain.

If anyone needs a stock that isn't rotted out for their
#5, this is a good one. $35.00 plus shipping to your local.

Regards,

Dave

[Russell James]

These rifles served well in the Australian army in the jungles of Malaya and the like.
My father carried one and loved it as after carrying the No 4 in Korea believed the No 5 was much better suited to the confines of jungle warfare...............
Just the opinion of an old Digger.........
Lest we forget.
Russell James.

[robertbank]

Just another gotta buy one. Now I have the SKS I shuold get on the buy wagon again!

Take care

Bob

[longbow]

I've got a No. 5 and got one for my son.

I always kinda liked them and never got around to buying one when they were $25.00 at the Army and Navy Store in Vancouver.

Neither of these are in particularly great shape but they shoot okay. I have been working up cast boolit loads with a Lyman 314299 lapped and Beagled to get a 0.305" nose and 0.315" body. So far that is working not bad over IMR 4227 or 4198 with filler.

I have also been getting some pretty good results with paper patched boolits too but testing for both PP and plain cast continues. I'm thinking I need a scope to sort out shooter error from load issues at this point (old eyes and issue sites).

Haven't shot enough to note a wandering zero but I have read that it exists and that it doesn't. Seems to be opinions both ways. When I get time to do a little more shooting maybe I will find out.

All in all I like it.

Longbow

[dukenukum]

my #5 rocks using about any bullet and powder , the wandering zero is not that bad on mine 3inches at 50 yards all in minute of game animal .

[swabbie]

I woudn't trade my 1946 #5 for anything.Light years superior to my Mosin M44,and accurate enuff for my 200 yard range:mrgreen: