Picked up a new rifle today...

built in 1945. It's a Lee-Enfield Mk5 Jungle Carbine .303 caliber.

Got it after a recommendation from the "I'd really like to know what in the hell happened to him.." former member of this forum, Chris Kavanaugh.

Found one online at a dealer that specialises in antique/curios and relic firearms.

It's in very good condition, haven't shot it yet but I'm hoping to do so this weekend.

I had some problems with Winchester shells not feeding in my 303 back about 1980 or so.
It seems they were made a bit longer than the military rounds and have rounder points. They were OK if you dropped them in from the top single shot style, but they would not feed from the magazine. Maybe they have fixed that now, it was not every shell either, but out of a box of 20 at least 4 would be like that.


You can use .308 bullets if you are loading your own shells. They are slightly smaller than 303 bullets but not enough to hurt anything.
Almost all bullets in 30 calibre are .308 diameter while .303 is just a bit larger and actually measures .311 or .312 diameter.

Sierra might still make match grade 303 bullets.
I used to use 150 grain .308 bullets instead of the .303 bullets when I was hand loading. They seemed to shoot about the same as the 303 on the range. They were certainly easier to find in the stores.


When you are buying ammo you will notice 303 is available in up to 220 grain.
You really don't need that heavy of a slug for anything you might hunt in North America, except possibly a Kodiak.
The most common weight seems to be 180, and even that is heavy compared to most other 30 calibre rifles like 308 or 30-06.
You can still get the 174 grain bullets too if you look for them, but they are usually older surplus stock.

I've found and bought some 180 and some 174 grain bullets. I'm probably going to learn how to reload as I've been told by knowledgeable folks that a 150 bullet is an ideal round for my rifle. I don't plan on hunting any bears with it...;^)

Thanks for the info.

Nice find. What a great rifle. Mind me asking what you paid for it, ballpark figure is fine.

A buddy of mine used to have a Jungle Carbine that we would take to the range all the time. With the regular iron sights it wasn't the most accurate thing I've ever shot, but it was plenty accurate for a battle rifle. The best part about it, IMO, is the carbine size. I never used to be one for short barreled rifles, but the Enfield changed my mind.

In fact, after messing around with it I decided I had to own a compact size rifle, though in a more modern cartridge such as .308 or maybe even .223 to keep it more managable. I decided on Ruger's M77 Compact, though I haven't had the chance to pick one up yet.

Anyway, good luck with it. They're definitely neat little rifles.

Would be interesting to know if that was OBG's old Jungle Carbine. I know it was kept in California.....

The Lee Enfield No 5 has a pretty serious design fault for a carbine as unlike the AK47 or M16 derivatives it can't really be used without making sure the butt stock is securely held into the shoulder as it will kick like a mule especially with Mk7 and Mk8 ammunition. It should still be accurate out to 800 metres though with the best ammunition, which is something AR15 and AK47 owners could only dream about (esp AK47 owners)

I always find it amusing that this type of rifle is always referred to an antique/museum curio/relic when in the right hands is much more powerful and deadly than current issue assault weapons.

Another entry for the 'It might be an antique but...' post perhaps..

Not a firearms expert but I thought I understood physics.
Why does a shorter barrel produce more recoil?

I would have thought that more of the gas from the charge escaped out of the barrel before expanding fully, so the bullet has a lower velocity and so there is LESS recoil transferred to the weapon?

One word...rifling

The muzzle velocity for the No5 (2,539 ft/s 774 m/s) wasn't that much different from the No4 (2,770 ft/s 844 m/s) but the No5 was nearly 2 lbs (about 7 lbs compared to 9lbs for the No4) lighter or about the same as the lightweight M16 ). The No4 was already known for its substantial kick.

e.g if you compared the ft.lbfs energy of the .303 at 180gr you get (2,636 ft·lbf) as apposed to the 5.56x45 Nato at (1,303 ft·lbf) the .303 has twice the recoil energy in a rifle weighing the same. The No5 Carbine makes the AR-15 feel like an underpowered plastic pop gun by comparison.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xAKUhv1gSQA

For exampke the No5 is 4 1/2 lbs lighter than a M14 for similar recoil power.

Weight,

Also loss of weight forward which increases barrel rise and will feel like more recoil.

The shape of the stock and fit of the stock will have as much to do
with felt recoil as anything.

Thanks - I was just thinking of the bullet dynamics not that the gun was lighter.

I paid in the neighborhood of $350 for it. Which compared to the prices for an Enfield just a few years ago is high I know but the reality is that those days, and those rifles are gone. Given it's condition after being in use since 1945, I feel pretty good about it's durability. I won't be using it nearly as much as it was meant to be used.

Counting for inflation $350 is a very good price for one in good shape. Jungle carbine always was a rarer item and a bit of a collector's piece.
At one point people were cutting down mark 4s and selling them as jungle carbines.

About the person who mentioned how they kick. Yes, they sure do!

The question of accuracy is another thing, Am Fear mentions 800 yards. You might be able to hit something at that range, but they were not really made as a sniper rifle.
They were meant to be light enough to carry through the jungles of Burma and south east Asia. The expected range was about 100 yards and they were much more than accurate enough for that.

Jungle carbines make good hunting rifles for bush/forest conditions.
Even though putting a scope on them is a PITA because you need a special scope mount to deal with the shape of the receiver, at least you don't have to change the shape of the bolt handle or anything like that if you really want a scope.
For quick shots at less than a hundred yards a scope isn't really needed.

How's ammo availability for taht where you are?

I have a 30-40 Krag which is a similar cartridge, tho uses
.308 bullets instead of .311". It really likes the heavier bullets,
especially the 220 grain by Hornady. Their reps say it will work
fine on any big game, so thats what I use. Also it likes 170 grain
lasercast lead bullets which will work good for practice and small
game. Gotta handload both tho.

I would stick with the diameter made for the rifle for best accuracy potential.

Although the barrel length of the No5 is 100 mm shorter than the No4, with some half decent optics (that can handle the recoil forces) and some Mk8 .303 boat tail ammunition, you should be able to get reasonable groupings out to 800 metres @ around 8 to 12 inches. You should be able to get somewhere near to the sniper performance of the M25 system with the No5 being couple of lbs lighter than this specialist SOCOM weapon.

Happy shooting.

Yes, I guess you would need to be rolling your own ammo for the 30-40.
The 30-40 Krag-Jorgensen round is very similar to 303 British.
As for the rifle itself, they are beautiful rifles, very well machined with extremely smooth actions.
The magazine is a bit different, loading from the side instead of through the top. I think it was actually the inspiration for the .303 Lee-Enfield
The ones I saw were very accurate and they made Enfields look like trash as far as fit and finish went. They really were pretty, kind of like the .303s made by BSA.

I would agree with staying with the designated bullet calibre as a general principle, but as I mentioned Enfields are interesting.
During the war years they accepted wide tolerances on the bore diameter in favour of increased production.
The bores can be anywhere between .308 and .318.
So if you are handloading and can't find .311 or .312 bullets trying a box of .308 and seeing how it groups makes good sense.

Somebody mentioned Mark VIII (Mark 8) ammo.
If you run into Mark VIII leave it alone. It was made for Vickers machine guns and had more powder in it.
I think it stresses the action too much in a rifle and it tends to burn the barrel more too.
Besides that it will be really old surplus FMJ and you don't want it for hunting anyhow.
If you are going to shoot surplus ammo stick with Mark VII (Mark 7)

The only other thing about ammo is most of the current surplus ammo from Eastern Europe uses the Berdan type of primer which you can not reload.
That is fine if you are not reloading or if the shells are cheap enough to throw away the brass, but if you are reloading you might as well by reloadable brass if you can. That means Boxer type primers, most shells made in the west use Boxer primers.

Just some final bits of trivia, SMLE (smelly) stands for Short Magazine Lee Enfield.
Some of the early .303s were made as calvary carbines. They were shorter and had a slide to shut off the magazine.
>.303 Savage is not the same as a .303 British, even though the bullets are the same diameter.


I think I have mentioned almost everything I know about .303 in this thread now.

I'd say might, not should, it is an rather exceptional battle
rifle that shoots 1 moa.

Thanks again for all the tidbits of knowledge, some of you obviously know your Enfields very well, far better than I do!

As for ammunition, the shop I got the rifle thru, (a local dealer had to receive it and do the paperwork as it was bought online) usually carries .303 ammo. It's also pretty easily found online, I've purchased some from 2 of the larger online gun/outdoors suppliers. Have a box on order that should be delivered either today or tomorrow in fact. I don't like paying the shipping but there's no sales tax so it pretty much equals out.

Thanks for the tip about the reloads. I'll look into that. The range I hope to be shooting it at this weekend has a pretty well stocked reloading shop onsite, I'll be talking to them about my options.

Off to buy a slip on recoil pad...;^)

plus shooting glasses and hearing protectors too I hope.

Already got all the safety stuff. Ear plugs and muffs for me and my son. And safety glasses. Thanks for reminding me.

Try 4" at 100 yards.

http://castboolits.gunloads.com/showthread.php?t=49003

Nice little gun, it kicks like hell, though. One thing, DO not use .308 bullets. I know this from experience as the most common caliber in Argentina used to be the 7.65mm Mauser (also mikes .311 in the barrel). Many years ago there were no bullets available so we tried .308's from several brands. You could hit a boar at 50 meters but at 100 meters you could easily miss. Basically they had the same accuracy as slugs from a smooth bore.

I keep reading about how badly this rifle kicks, I shot 30 or so rounds thru it yesterday, wasn't bad at all.

Combination of 174 and some 180 grain FMJ bullets.

I might still get a recoil pad for it but it didn't kick nearly as bad as I expected it to.

Kept the distance down but it was surpisingly accurate at 50 meters. I didn't have my prescription glasses with me so shooting further would have been guesswork at best. I'm looking forward to zeroing it in at 100 meters.

It's been a while since I've been to a shooting range, when did every one start using bench mounts and bipods for casual shooting? I don't see the fun in basically locking down the weapon and trying to hit the same hole in a paper target over and over. Once I get the sights set I'd rather see what I can hit standing and prone than sitting in a padded chair and a bench. Different horses for different courses I guess.

JohnE, I wonder the same thing. Me and my VZ-24 and M-44 go and shoot plain old iron sights out to 100 yards. I need to get the Mauser down to a gunsmith though, as it's wildly off at 100 yards (about 8" down, and 8" right).