Jungle Fakes or not?

[Richard H Brown Jr]

Don't really care for our *former* overlords weapons, but.....

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2013/07/22/jungle-carbine-real-fake/

some quick what to look for's.

RHB

[Guamsst]

I cant see the pics now but real JCs are built off a No4 style action. They should have visible indents in the trigger/magazine housing around the front bolt and a lightening hole drilled into the bolt handle knob at the bottom of the knob. Also, they should have a short range rear sight I believe 800.

If you cant read a clearly marked No5 on the receiver or it is electropenciled then the wood generally has to be removed to look for the lightening cuts near the chamber area of the barrel.

Some No3Mk1 Jungle Carbines were built only a very few were actual arsenal built test rifles. The VAST majority (99.9999%) of No3 JCs are Santa Fe converisons or some other fantasy build.

[Guamsst]

Rereading what you stated looks like I may have just repeated the same info you were trying to post....LOL

[goo]

the most desirable of the JC's is the reknown greek jungle carbine. mine was the personal weapon of greek sergeant major scungilli souvlaki who, during the greek/turkish belligerant festivities on cyprus some years back, single handedly captured an entire enemy infantry battallion. the rate of fire and the accuracy of his greek j c was such that the battallion commander assumed he was surrounded by a machine gun company and surrendered.
my paticular j c is self cleaning and self zeroing. its value is such that my retirement is secured.

[Michaelp]

Golden State Arms was a major purveyer of the fakes in the 60s.

They were about 20 bucks when all other Enfields were about 10.

I had one that the flash hider assembly flew off abut every shot.

I have a real one that is extremely unpleasant to fire.

[mack]

I have five of the JC Enfields. Mine are fine to shoot and serve the purpose for which I purchased them, i.e., to carry afield and hunt deer. I don't mind the recoil which I find no worse than a Garand or Mosin. Stout, but bearable.

Santa Fe (Golden State) have considerably less value than authentic article but there is some collector interest in these. The rest of modified Enfield, whether Mk III or No. 4, proves the old adage about sporterizing rifles in general....why spend time and effort to make a rifle worth less than it was when you bought it. In other words, these were just ruined rifles.

[JB White]

At the time, GS/SF was turning cheap unwanted surplus into marketable items. They coined the terms 'jungle rifle and jungle carbine' which then sold for more than a bog standard SMLE. They moved inventory at a profit. That was then. Times have since changed.

[Guamsst]

I don't mind the recoil which I find no worse than a Garand or Mosin. Stout, but bearable.

Never noticed a difference in recoil either but I generally fire one end of the spectrum or the other. If it isn't a .22 then it is something in .30cal with a steel or brass buttplate.

[JB White]

The No5's recoil is a bit more noticable mainly due to the smaller rubber pad that has petrified rock hard over the past 65+ years. Not that it's bad when compared to some other lightweight rifles in other chamberings. Side by side though, my 1900 LEC/RIC carbine is a pussycat compared to the No5 using identical ball loads. The brass buttplate is more forgiving to the shoulder than the rubber during extended shooting sessions.

[S.B.]

Real JCs had several modification to them that differ from the no. 4s. Some lightening cuts and other mods. Don't think they ever saw service, maybe Burma? Rumors of wandering zeros convinced the Brits to drop them but, at this time they were gearing up for NATO compliance.
Steve