Enfield No 5 Jungle Rifle

[Owen W]

Gentlemen, a mate of mine in the US found an Enfield No 5 Jungle Rifle in an arms dealer's store. He was told that the RWF tested the rifle. Can anyone shed any light on what he was told? Many thanks. Owen

[ap1]

Hi Owen,

Reading the wiki link on the rifle. Its very possible RWF were involved in the trialling of the weapon. Production began in 1944 and since we had 2 Bns serving in the far east since 1943, it seems credible that some of those guys may have participated in unit trials in-theatre.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jungle_Carbine

[Baconwallah]

I'll do some checking in the weekend. Books never are where I need them.

What I do know offhand: in 1880 the Arms Committee began testing various designs of magazine rifles to replace the standard single-shot infantry rifles in use at the time (the Snider and Martini-Henry). A Sergeant and three men of 1/23 Royal Welch Fusiliers were detached for the purpose. One of the men, a Pte Gregory, was wounded during these trials when a cartridge in the tubular magazine of the Wincheter rifle he was testing was ignited by the nose of the following one. That led to the adoption in 1887 of the box magazine Lee-Metford rifle, the ancestor of the later "long" Lee-Enfields which in turn were introduced in 1895.

Perhaps this is what was meant?

John

[Baconwallah]

On further reflection I think it very likely that the RWF story refers to 1880. The Rifle No 5 was designed, tested (RSAF Enfield, Small Arms School Bisley) and produced (Fazakerley, Shirley) in the UK. Conversion kits for No 4 and No 1 (SMLE) rifles were also designed and tested (Bisley) in the UK. The RWF battalions in India and Burma were certainly not involved. The No 1 conversion kit, by the way, was intended for India and Australia, where only the good old SMLE was produced.

John

[ap1]

To be fair John, we are individually looking at different centuries. If it is the Jungle Carbine. Then that wasn't produced until 1944 and I am referring to the two battalions deployed in the far east in 1943 onwards. Not the battalions in the 1800's. Although I agree your version sounds more likely, especially as its documented.

Thanks.

[Bob Bacon]

There is a good thread here with regard to the Lee Enfield No5 Mk 1 (Jungle Rifle)

http://www.ww2f.com/small-arms-edged...e-carbine.html

[jungle1810]

Hello all,
Re the Mark 5 jungle rifle some specifications for you, these refer to the mark 1.
Rifle mark 1.
Calibre 0.303,(7.7 m.m ) Length 1,003 metre. (39.5 inches.)Length of barrel 476 m.m.( 18.7 inches ) weight 3.25 kilogrammes (7.15 lb) Muzzle velocity about 700 metres (2,400 feet per second)Magazine box 10 rounds. The purists state this rifle had a hard recoil but in truth I found acceptable. One factor a jungle patrol leader had to bear in mind was the bare barrel if you did not keep it a fair distance from the compass it would tend lead you astray and this error was magnified the longer you travelled, The jungle rifle the 2nd battalion R.W.F used was of a later mark (Design) I however used the mark 2 modified American carbine. The different models manufactured was U.S.Carbine ) O.300 Calibre mark 1, M1, A 1,, M2, and mark 3. I used the Mark 2 modified and the specifications were Carbine mark 1(2) calibre 7.62 m.m. (0,300 inch) Length 904 m.m. (35.6 inches) weight 2.36 kg (5.2 lbs) Muzzle velocity 600 metres (1,970 feet per second)
The early production model had a 10 round box magazine, but later models had a 30 round magazine. And the same caveat applied on navigating in the jungle as the mark 5 jungle rifle the commpass had to be kept clear of the bare metal on the barrel
Regards RBD aka jungle1810

[Baconwallah]

To be fair John, we are individually looking at different centuries. If it is the Jungle Carbine. Then that wasn't produced until 1944 and I am referring to the two battalions deployed in the far east in 1943 onwards. Not the battalions in the 1800's. Although I agree your version sounds more likely, especially as its documented.

Thanks.

I could perhaps have made myself clearer, Al, sorry. Let me summarise and rephrase:

The Rifle No 5, the Lee-Enfield Jungle Carbine, was entirely developed and tested in the UK in 1943-44. I never heard of actual jungle troop trials. It would have been stretching resources a bit to send five rifles to India for testing and then bring them back to Enfield again for modifications (and then, perhaps, once again to check the feasibility of any redesigned details...). These modern mass produced weapons could not be produced in the Indian and Australian arms factories, which could only handle the old Rifle No 1 (the SMLE). The two RWF bns in India and Burma at the time are very unlikely to have been involved, until they received the final product in 1945.

There is another, more likely source for the story, documented by Lee-Enfield expert Ian Skennerton in his book The British Service Lee and repeated by myself in Appendix VII of the annotated edition of Old Soldier Sahib. This concerns the testing of various magazine rifles in 1880, as described in my earlier post, and this time RWF personnel were demonstrably involved.

I think it highly likely that the story told about the Rifle No 5 by Owen's mate in the US is in fact a distant echo of the 1880 trials.

John

[jungle1810]

Hello all,
I have just read baconwallahs last thread number 8. I can add a few more facts to my previous thread. The xiv Army received the mark 4 S.M.L.E in 1945. The mark 5 jungle rifle to the best of my knowledge was first used for test in Kenya. It then progressed to Malaya and Borneo. I think baconwallah is correct in regards to the service condition tests of the mark 5 and are pretty near the mark. The only rifle I can think of that was proved and tested in Malaya was the F..N (Fabrique Nationale)I heard a story that a C.T courier bumped into a small party party of Gurkha's led by an English officer who had an F.N. on test. It appears that the officer ,let rip with a snap shot at the courier as the C.T turned around and bolted sharpish, to every ones astonishment he kept on running. The rest of the patrol burst out laughing.The officer was most dismayed by this he was adamant that he hit the bandit. The patrol regrouped and followed a blood trail and then found the bandit next door to death, through loss of blood. In effect the F.N. was far too powerful, and in this case the bullet went through the bandits small pack and shoulder blade and at the point of exit a small hole could be seen. the velocity of the bullet had cut through the shoulder blade and come out leaving a small wound. The fact that he died some distance away led the M o D to have a rethink about the use of the F.N because a single round should have stopped the bandit. And the conclusion reached by the hierarchy was if you hit a man in action and do not stop him cold the weapon is no good.
Regards RBD aka jungle1810

[Rog Ball 01]

I can confirm that the rifle was in use in Malaya/Singerpore in 1953, and when the family visited 2 RWF in Port Dickson I saw it ther.