Wooo Hooo, I'm getting that Jungle Carbine!

According to Reynolds some wartime manufacture No.4 rifles were found to require re sighting in after delivery due to shifts in bedding after being sighted in at the factory. A .01 gap was left between rear of fore end and face of butt socket on the theory that no contact there was preferable to unequal contact. They tried the same on the No.5.
Could be that in the tropics there was more swelling of the wood than a .01 gap could compensate for.

I believe everyone accepts that wandering zero is unlikely to appear in any No.5 rifles still extant.
Those rifles that exhibited the problem to any noticable degree were repaired or scrapped.
The vast majority of No.5 rifles in hands of civilian owners aren't likely to be abused to the extent that a combat rifle would be.
 
Could be that in the tropics there was more swelling of the wood than a .01 gap could compensate for.
Click to expand...

I'd say that might have been just one more area that could be a cause of concern - the heavier long rifles like the No4 and the SMLE faired much better in the Burmese jungles than did the No5. If you pick up a No5, it is very, very light ... the butt stock is very light also and hollowed out to a much higher degree than the No4 or SMLE. When damp and moisture start to ingress the fairly light weight furniture, you're sure to get movement ... then imagine going from standing temp to fire fight temps ... with rain, moisture, damp, heat ... the entire system becomes unstable.

The No5 was possibly better suited to a dry climate - would have been fine in a wet European theatre also. I think the moisture, heat and damp of the tropics, really made the difference at the end of the day.

The vast majority of No.5 rifles in hands of civilian owners aren't likely to be abused to the extent that a combat rifle would be.
Click to expand...

Actually, not so ... the No5's that the Malaysian Police and Military used up until a few years back were the same ones the British and Australians left them after the Malaysian Emergency War in the 1950's ... these same No5's are the same No5's that were later sold into market. You know this because the dates are 1945-47 ... they weren't making them anymore and as Cpt Laidler states, they couldn't get enough of them for parts ... because so few were manufactured. I'd say pretty much all the No5's people have in their hands today, got action due to the low numbers available. That is also why they started cutting down No4's and building No5's on the No4 actions.

Tiki.
 
Last edited:
I'd say pretty much all the No5's people have in their hands today, got action due to the low numbers available.
Click to expand...
And they haven't seen that level of use since then. The most heavily used No.5 carbines got repaired or scrapped, other less heavily used carbines may have never developed any wandering zero problems while in service, and are highly unlikely to do so now when fired at a range or on a hunting trip.

No.5 Carbines in NIB condition were sold here in the early 70's for $35 in discount stores. From what I remember these were correct No.5 carbines with a Suncorite finish and brand new wood without a mark on them.
More than likely FTR'ed and brought out of storage to be sold off.
Those may have seen action many years earlier, but were as new when sold off.
These would show only the wear they have received since then in the field as deer rifles, or no wear at all if simply hung on a wall or left in the wrap in a closet.

All issued military rifles varied immensely in the treatment and amount of use they received in wartime. Those that got the worst beating were scrapped, some were refurbished, others were never to see combat at all for one reason or another before hostilities ceased.
 
All rifles that got an FTR on them saw heavy use, that's why they saw refurbishment ... Factory Through Repair. Many rifles that went on to be sold into civvy street would never tell you how much use they got since in the instance of Base Repair or Unit Repair workshops, there was often little more than an R/Date stamped on the butt stock ... if they got that at all. Many stocks have been sanded since then, so more evidence would be removed in that effort.

There were of course in times gone by releases to sale of store held No5's that were from like new to refurbed. The point being that the No5's that the Indians, Pakistani's and Malaysians held for service were left to them by the Commonwelath forces ... so not only had they seen late war action in WW2 many of them ( Burma the main theatre ) but then many saw service in any number of small wars and counter insurgencies in their parts of the world since ... add to that duty in Military and Police capacity. This is all before they even hit civvy street for sale ... so I would say the rifles in peoples hands today vary from store refurbs to units that saw heavy use and were then sold out of service having reached their serviceable limit.

The most common thing on a No5 rifle is a worn barrel ... most of them. That alone tells you the rifle got heavy use ... if you find a No5 with mint barrel, you very likely got one from store. Mine was filthy when I got it and I managed to get it to clean up, I also bought a brand new spare No5 barrel in the paper ... always good to have a spare!

Tiki.
 
I just got a little irritated reading an article on Real Guns' website.

I have always passed on owning a British Enfield for a variety of reasons. The first is the two piece stock that can never be made to look slick as a sporter. the second is the anemic 303 British round and the third is the rifle's reputation for having a less than robust action that is rated for only moderate pressure levels.
Click to expand...

Really??? I don't call a MV of 2,720fps and 2465 ft lbs of energy quite anemic! I have hunted with the .303 round since I was 14 years old. And it will absolutely knock a whitetail's butt in the DIRT! Its is a man stopper round no doubt also. And then he touts the stock can't be made to look SLICK! In other words he can't BUBBA THE FINE ENFIELD easily! These morons who write these articles will praise a 30-30 Win, 35 Rem, etc. REALLY?? Whatever! To all the .303 haters LEAVE THEM ENFIELDS ON THE RACK, I'LL BE ALONG SHORTLY :D
 
There is no accounting for ignorance ... these people are found in every stick. The worst of it is that they give the bum steer to many newcomers, something that often takes time and patience to correct.

Tiki.
 
Tiki,
I'll be along shortly to your forum to decipher some markings on this rifle. Its not a BSA Shirley produced No. 5 I don't believe. And Also I need to fine the "correct" sling to go on her. And did the No. 5 come with a 300/600 "L" Flip sight like this one has on it? This carbine has all the indications that its the real deal except for the flip sight.
 
Deerslayer ...

You're welcome at surplusrifle any time mate. There were only two factories that manufactured the No5 Mk1 ... Fazakerley being the most common and BSA Shirley. If it isn't one then by process of elimination, it must be the other. The correct sights for the No5 Mk1 are the No5 Mk1 singer type sights, you may know it as a Ladder sight ... the difference is the No5 Mk1 ladder sight is marked to 800 yards as opposed to the 1300 yards of the No4 equivalent. The 300/600 flip battle sight is only for the No4 rifles and generally these were produced for the Mk1* models ... though years in civvy street has resulted in all the sights being swapped around on different rifles.

The No5 sling was a jungle green web sling, typical of the British canvas style, though you'll be fine with the standard khaki version also. ;)

Cheers, Tiki.
 
Tiki

Well I can't post over there yet until they approve my account. But here is a few pics of the info I'll post over there, when they deem me worthy :D She is all tore completely down right now. Its FILTHY, gonna give er a bath tomorrow.
007-1_zps6ab9a6ae.jpg

006-1_zps66725393.jpg

005-2_zpsbae0f553.jpg

004-2_zps1a6cbf1d.jpg

003-2_zpsc8e06f15.jpg
 
I don't call a MV of 2,720fps and 2465 ft lbs of energy
Click to expand...
Would that be with a 150 gr bullet?
If so what brand of ammo?

Near as I can tell the British never used bullets lighter than the 174 gr MkVII, though theres no telling what various sporting ammo manufacturers have tried.

The MkVII bullet was actually based on a 150 gr hunting bullet, the "Velopex", that used a light weight nose plug. Velocity of that cartridge was around 2600 FPS.
For some time they considered using a 150 gr spire point at 2600 FPS, but the available propellents of the day were better suited to the 174- 225 gr bullets.
 
yes that is modern 150gr. ammo. Those numbers are Norma hunting ammo. I load mine with 150sp .311 bullet 41grs IMR 3031 and that gets over 2600fps. It just irritates me to hear someone say the cartridge is "anemic". It has stood the test of time and for a cartridge that was originally designed for black powder, it had done quite well with cordite and smokeless.
 
Don't let internet experts get to you. Round here the average caliber for whitetail deer at under 75 yards is the 7mm Rem mag! Power replacing placement is such a silly idea.:rolleyes:

FWIW the .303 british was determined to be "too powerfull" & "Excessive", after WW@ & there were serious attempts to replace it with something having ballistics akin to the 30-30.
 
Good for you, glad you got the No. 5, it's a fun rifle to shoot and iconic enough that no one will see it and not think it's neat. The green sling is the correct one, but the khaki sling is fine, they used that in Cyprus. Get a bayonet, the genuine ones are $200 and up, some good repros out there for less. Stock up on the stripper clips, they're getting scarce. Ammo bandoliers are scarce, but available, in green or khaki.
 
FWIW the .303 british was determined to be "too powerfull" & "Excessive", after WW@ & there were serious attempts to replace it with something having ballistics akin to the 30-30.
Click to expand...
All the Main Battle Rifle cartridges were in that same boat, the Germans and Russians being among the first to look to intermediate cartridges for autoloaders.

The 7.62 NATO was not much more than a rimmless .303, with case better suited to mid length stroke autoloader actions.
There was a slight edge in velocity, mainly due to better propellents.

Ballistically the 150 gr commercial loads mentioned early are a duplicate of early NATO Ball ballistics.

The MkVII bullet caught a lot of flack because of excessive tissue distruction of non fatal wounds. Its killing power was never in question, but the lack of high quality anti-biotics among the AXIS powers medical corps (only the U S could mass produce Penicillin at that time) meant fewer survivals of wounded men and a much higher amputation rate because of tissue disruption and fragmenting.
A similar issue came up when some 7.62 ammo was found to fragment in much the same way, that ammo being officially pulled from production, the fragmentation was blamed on improperly made jackets.

PS
A penetration of sand bags or packed earth of 48 inches is often quoted for the .303. That did not match the results of my own tests with the MkVII ammo so I did some searching and found that this was the figure for the MkVI bullet. Later manuals state that the pointed bullet (MkVII) gave penetration of more like 42 inches, which is optimistic to say the least.
The older round nose bullets of the MkVI .303 and the .30-40 Krag out penetrated any of the later spire point Ball rounds of the same or lesser weight despite higher velocities.
 
That was my point in reference to the "under powered" comments from earlier.:cool:

The 7.62mm NATO wasn't the load I was mentioning, that was the U.S. T65 type "improvment" to the 30-06. I was thinking of the "intermediate power" rounds like the .270/280 that were originally in development for the EM-1 & EM-2 series as being comparable with the Soviet 7.62X39 round for the SKS/AK 47 & other similar loads. Those are ballistically similar to the 30-30.

I've done a bit of informal testing myself. The actual woodliegh type bullets with the dual core (not all MkVII had this core, particularly some of the "commonwealth made" stuff) were efired side by side at 200yds with 150 gr 7.62mm NATO ball ammo. The old .303 made much more impressive holes in wetpack. my buddy who was shooting the 7.62 comparison rifle called them "Post hole diggers"
 
That was my point in reference to the "under powered" comments from earlier.

The 7.62mm NATO wasn't the load I was mentioning, that was the U.S. T65 type "improvment" to the 30-06. I was thinking of the "intermediate power" rounds like the .270/280 that were originally in development for the EM-1 & EM-2 series as being comparable with the Soviet 7.62X39 round for the SKS/AK 47 & other similar loads. Those are ballistically similar to the 30-30.
Click to expand...
Several countries had experimented with intermediate cartridges before WW2. The Garand was originally intended to be chambered for the .276 Pederson cartridge which was practically identical in performance to the later British .280 in performance.
The British had tested a toggle link autoloader in that .276 caliber before the war.
The modern 6.8 Remington is in that same class.

The British used the No.5 carbine platform in testing of a number of intermediate cartridges, including the .280 and 7.62X39. I think these test rifles were single loaders, but some may have been modified to feed from a magazine.
A few have altered Lee Enfields for the 7.62X39 and the 5.56 cartridges in recent years.

The 7.62X39 is near identical to the .30-30 when the later is loaded with 125 gr bullets, but you seldom see the 125 gr .30-30 rounds these days, 150-170 gr being the standard loads.
The Remington autoloaders in .30 Remington (basically a rimless .30-30) , and fitted with long curved box magazines, were used on a small scale in much the same manner as an assault rifle, though without selective fire capability.

I'd have to say that the main battle cartridges were a better choice for most of the fighting done during WW2 and Korea.
 
Not that all that isn't rue, but I think you're totally missing the point that the .303 (along wirth almost everything else) was actually over powered, nothing was under powered.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top