Lee Enfield No.5 Jungle Carbine

[Mastiff 7]

Hi all,

 

Recently bought a number 5 Jungle Carbine in very, very good condition.

 

Now I know this isn't going to be a popular rifle on here as it's a tad old (1947 to be precise) but I was wondering if anybody know's much about them?

 

Reason I ask is I took the Butt cap off the other day and found that the butt is packed with grease, anybody know wjy this would be?

 

Cheers,

 

Mick.

[matt_hooks 188]

Hi Mick.

 

Firstly, are you sure it's the No 5? The real no 5's, the Enfield made ones, will have "Rifle No 5 Mk I" stencilled on the left hand side of the receiver, whereas the later civilian conversions of mil surplus Mk 4's that are often called "Jungle Carbines" (because that was the name adopted by the company that did the majority of conversions) will either have no markings there, or the name of a manufacturer that didn't make the No 5. If it's a '47 model then it's one of the last real ones made!

 

If it IS a genuine No.5 then I'm jealous. I always loved the No.4, and the No.5 is that bit shorter and lighter. Of course the recoil is that bit heavier, but they were fitted with the rubber butt pad to help with that.

 

I'd be interested to hear if you suffer from the old "wandering zero". I've never heard of anyone that did, seems like a bit of a myth.

 

As for the grease, I've not come across that before so afraid I can't help there!

[Fishslayer 10]

A lot of those old military rifles are really a nice piece of history.

You hold it and wonder about where it's been and about the soldier using it to defend your country.

What are you going to use it for?

 

Post a pic for us.

 

Cheers,

Mark

[Imperfection 0]

Possibly some soldier stored grease there so he could lubricate the rifle in the field perhaps? Nice little find! Was the grease still sticky or had it started to go solid?

 

Im after a No5 too as they're a short quirky rifle and i like old military stuff.I already have a 1944 K98 Mauser and a 1934 M91 Nagant so an Enfield would have to be next!

[Mickey Finn 2,702]

<BR>Possibly some soldier stored grease there so he could lubricate the rifle in the field perhaps? Nice little find! Was the grease still sticky or had it started to go solid?

 

I second this theory. Or perhaps as a moisture barrier. I guess the question comes down to is is axle grease or cosmoline? If it's cosmoline. Then perhaps it never saw service and only had a cursory cleanup by non-military personel. before being sold. Either way, I'm sure it's a fine piece.

 

 

(On second thought. They probably could have gotten their hands on cosmoline quicker than axle grease back then. So, it wouldn't tell us anything.)

Edited December 29, 2010 by Mickey Finn

[Mastiff 7]

Thanks for the replies Gent's.

 

Matt, I sincerly hope it is an origional, the side is stamped as you said it should be.

 

When you shoulder it it does feel a bit odd knowing what it MAY have been used for (I hasten to add that is not why I bought it, I bought it because I've always wanted to own one after seeing a picture of my Grandad holding one in WW2 - I think it was taken in Burma).

 

Haven't experienced the "wandering zero" that they are supposed to suffer from but then I've only put 20 rounds through it to date.

 

Any way, enough wittering here's a couple of pics take by the RFD that led me to buy it:

 

 

 

 

 

 

Cheers

[matt_hooks 188]

Mike, looks spot on. I it's got the marking then it's an army original, very nice find and in virtually perfect condition by the look of it. How do you find the recoil on it? I've never had the chance to fire the No.5, I've heard it's a bit punchier than the No. 4, which makes sense what with it being lightened.

 

You have to love the attention to detail on them, right down to drilling the bolt ball out to lighten it!

 

The grease storage idea sounds like a runner to me, can imagine that in the hot and humid jungle conditions you'd need to keep things greased well to stop them rusting, but oil would run away too easily in the hot conditions. Does the grease look old?

 

Anyway, I'm not jealous... much!

[Mastiff 7]

Cheers Matt

 

Apart from my SG and Rimmy I don't have much to compare it to I'm afraid, kicks like a mule to me but I've never fired a No.4 or anything above a .44M yet (very new to firearms)

 

The grease looks and smells like modern synthetic to me hence my confusion.

 

If you are ever up Lancashire way you are more than welcome to put a few rounds through it.

 

[Fishslayer 10]

Hope your new rifle shoots as good as it looks!

 

Can you get a matching bayonet?

[pianoman 3,584]

That's a beautiful condition rifle you have Mastiff. It's definately a Lee Enfield No5 and these were made between 1944 and 1947. Evolved from the Enfield No 4 .303 SMLE service rifle as a shorter, more manageable carbine, it was found to be less effective than the No4 in general European terrain. However, it was well liked for it's quicker handling, though it did suffer from "Wandering Zero" with point of impact changes encountered later during the day. It proved itself well suited to closer-range jungle fighting and thus, the Mk5 303 SMLE carbines were extensively used by British and Commonwealth troops throughout the Burma campagn during WW2 from 1944 onwards and after the war with British troops staioned in the far east and India. If your grandfather was photographed with one of these during his war service, he was almost certainly in Burma. The rifle needed to be greased regularly as a moisture barrier due to humid, often wet conditions of jungle terrain. Perhaps the former soldier using it kept it in the butt recess for speedy application. The majority of these rifles were built by BSA Shirley.

 

This one looks one of the best I've seen. And certainly makes an interesting rifle to shoot with.

 

ATB

Simon

Edited December 30, 2010 by pianoman

[Mastiff 7]

Thanks very much for the comments Gent's, much appreciated.

 

Whilst looking for the right rifle I couldn't believe the number of them I saw that had been deactivated :realmad:

 

Damn shame.