To Be Stamped, or Not To Be Stamped, That is the Jungle Carbine Question

mr.tickle

EOD Guy said:
I’m looking at a No5 Mk1 Jungle Carbine to add to my collection and everything looks to be correct. The receiver, bolt and magazine match…except there are no stock numbers.

Was there a time when they marked these three items but not the stock?? I know eventually all four were marked but didn’t these start out with just the bolt matching the receiver and later on added the magazine/stock to match?

Thanks for the info!

My 1946 dated model is numberless on the stock.

Reply

Save

Like

Alan De Enfield

· #3 · 6 mo ago

EOD Guy said:
Was there a time when they marked these three items but not the stock??

Yes.

Font Publication Handwriting Writing Art

See less See more

Reply

Save

Like

Reactions: 1

EOD Guy

Discussion Starter · #4 · 6 mo ago

Alan De Enfield said:
Yes.

View attachment 4042783

So…if the rifle is dated anywhere from Jun 46 to Nov 46, having a numbered magazine but not a numbered stock would be “correct”….correct?

If it’s dated after Nov 46 and the rifle does not have numbers stamped into the forend of the stock, it is not the original stock…correct?

Thanks again for the info!

Reply

Save

Like

Alan De Enfield

· #5 · 6 mo ago

EOD Guy said:
So…if the rifle is dated anywhere from Jun 46 to Nov 46, having a numbered magazine but not a numbered stock would be “correct”….correct?

If it’s dated after Nov 46 and the rifle does not have numbers stamped into the forend of the stock, it is not the original stock…correct?

Thanks again for the info!

Basically - yes !

All rifles (No4 & No5) SHOULD have had the mags and forend retrospectively numbered, whatever their date of manufacture, when they next came in for their annual service / check-up.

However with the amount of un-numbered (mags & forend) No4s & No5s about it is quite possible that the 'message' (instruction) did not get acted on by some armourers.

Or : It has been refitted by a civilian gunsmitrh.

Either version could be true.

Reply

Save

Like

EOD Guy

Discussion Starter · #6 · 6 mo ago

Alan De Enfield said:
Basically - yes !

All rifles (No4 & No5) SHOULD have had the mags and forend retrospectively numbered, whatever their date of manufacture, when they next came in for their annual service / check-up.

However with the amount of un-numbered (mags & forend) No4s & No5s about it is quite possible that the 'message' (instruction) did not get acted on by some armourers.

Or : It has been refitted by a civilian gunsmitrh.

Either version could be true.

You Sir, are greatly appreciated. May all your breakfast toast be smothered with beans!

Thank you for the information.

Reply

Save

Like

Reactions: 2

milprileb

· #7 · 6 mo ago (Edited)

The reality of military weapons is such changes are not 100 percent actioned. Rifles in service at unit level can not easily be pulled for such numbering when the weapons are needed for unit readiness. Considering the expanse of the globe where No.4 and No.5 weapons were serving with deployed units, this numbering requirement was at best problematic // sporadic in compliance. With no replacement weapons readily available , a unit commander has little choice here for a numbering requirement... form vs substance... rifles remained un numbered as it was simply nice to have nonsense directive. Always better to ask forgiveness than ask permission not to do something.

Anyone in command knows this.

Reply

Save

Like

Reactions: 3

Alan De Enfield

· #8 · 6 mo ago

milprileb said:
The reality of military weapons is such changes are not 100 percent actioned. Rifles in service at unit level can not easily be pulled for such numbering when the weapons are needed for unit readiness. Considering the expanse of the globe where No.4 and No.5 weapons were serving with deployed units, this numbering requirement was at best problematic // sporadic in compliance. With no replacement weapons readily available , a unit commander has little choice here for a numbering requirement... form vs substance... rifles remained un numbered as it was simply nice to have nonsense directive. Always better to ask forgiveness than ask permission not to do something.

But remember every rifle was 'pulled in' by the unit armourer twice a year (presumably on a rolling system , not all rifles on the same day) and it was during that 'servicing / reblacking / repairing' etc that the numbers should have been added to the forend / magazine'.

It didn't always happen but I very much doubt that it was because 'no replacement weapons were available'. None would be needed. Each rifle would only be out of commission for a few hours.

Reply

Save

Like

milprileb

· #9 · 6 mo ago

Alan,

Maybe but maybe not...lots of rifles did not get numbered

Reply

Save

Like

Reactions: 1

Alan De Enfield

· #10 · 6 mo ago

milprileb said:
..............lots of rifles did not get numbered

On that we both agree.

Reply

Save

Like

H

husk

· #11 · 6 mo ago

Huge numbers of No 5 rifles weren’t even issued to the troops, including WWII dated ones, so I doubt many were even inspected by an armourer before being released for sale by MoD. In my experience, it’s the norm for 1944 and 1945 dated examples to not have serial numbered wood or magazines.

Reply

Save

Like

EOD Guy

Discussion Starter · #12 · 6 mo ago (Edited)

Thanks again for all the information. In my opinion, the stock finish looks original, but when it comes to the wide world of Enfields, I know that I don’t know enough.

…what says those folks who know better than I do? Does this look original or refinished? Based on the overall rifle, I don’t think this one was issued.

See less See more

3

Reply

Save

Like

JB White

· #13 · 6 mo ago

Looks to have been aged dark, cleaned, then oiled.
Finish isn’t bad. Just remnants of old stains which cannot be removed unless stripped and bleached. Has someone done that, THEN it would look refinished.

To be frank, if seeing it close up I would be looking for signs of “the oven cleaner method”.
This one looks as though things may blend back once the patina returns.

Reply

Save

Like

Reactions: 1

J

jjspearson

· #14 · 5 mo ago

I have a Fazackerly dated 10/44 with serial number C2718 on receiver, bolt, magazine and left side of butt socket.

Air gun Wood Shotgun Trigger Musical instrument

See less See more

Reply

Save

Like

Reactions: 1

GeeRam

· #15 · 5 mo ago

EOD Guy said:
Thanks again for all the information. In my opinion, the stock finish looks original, but when it comes to the wide world of Enfields, I know that I don’t know enough.

…what says those folks who know better than I do? Does this look original or refinished? Based on the overall rifle, I don’t think this one was issued.

Easiest way to tell is the state of the rubber butt pad. If there is any wear, or marks on the butt pad, from rifle drill, its been issued (and thus refinished)

Reply

Save

Like

Reactions: 1

J

jjspearson

· #16 · 5 mo ago

I put repro rubber butt pad on this rifle. It had Ethiopian rubber innertube pad. This is not drill rifle. It was issued and used.

Reply

Save

Like

Alan De Enfield

· #17 · 5 mo ago

jjspearson said:
I put repro rubber butt pad on this rifle. It had Ethiopian rubber innertube pad. This is not drill rifle. It was issued and used.

It looks as if it may have been on the edge of a fire - is that blackening on the furniture fire damage ?

Quite a few of the RTI No5s have shown similar damage.

Wood Trunk Brick Brickwork Building material

See less See more

Reply

Save

Like

Reactions: 1

limpetmine

· #18 · 5 mo ago

I have two 1947 No. 5's. They are brothers to each other. One has a stock serial number, one does not. They are a few hundred away from each other in serial number. Maybe the guy on the line had to run to the loo that day.

Reply

Save

Like