Jungle Carbine, rare or trash?

>>33154758
Why not both?

Yeah

File: IMG_1948.jpg (192KB, 1600x1200px) Image search: [Google]

192KB, 1600x1200px

>>33154758
Not all that rare but they are nice shooters. I've yet to experience the rumored 'wandering zero' with my 1945 Fazakerley.

File: One of few acceptable sporterized milsurps.jpg (21KB, 600x228px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 600x228px

I want this one

>>33155043
That looks like a sporterized No4, not a No5 'Jungle Carbine'. The rear sight base and bolt handle are incorrect for a No5.

I like originals, not mark 4s that have been modified. I am having a little trouble finding .303 British.

>>33155580
I've shot a lot of Prvi Partizan over the years. The only .303 I actually load for is my Martini-Enfield as it doesn't shoot well with boat tail bullets. It seems to like 180gr Hornady round nose soft points, though. I'd like to load 215gr's to emulate the MkII load it was intended for, but Woodleigh bullets are too damned expensive to punch paper with.

Damn, yeah it is expensive. I can hardly find it under a buck a round. Unless I buy it in bulk,

Mk 3 > Mk 4 > Mk 5

>>33155721
To be honest I don't like the look of the Mk 3. Looks like something some one would make with legos..

>>33154758
I have always liked enfields. I have a No 1 Mk III and a No 4 someone sporterized to the point it's unrestorable, it shoot good though. I have always wanted a jungle carbine to add to my collection of oldie guns.

File: 1297046698672.jpg (512KB, 1117x838px) Image search: [Google]

512KB, 1117x838px

>>33154758
I like them, but I prefer No.1 Mk III*

They aren't common, but they aren't rare either. Last time they were sold in numbers was like 4 years ago around 450-500 bucks at AIM.

I have one, but I don't shoot it often, becuase it actually kicks like a mule.