.303 Lee Enfield Rifle No.5: "Jungle Carbine"
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 26 ส.ค. 2024
- Patreon: / blokeontherange
Teespring: teespring.com/...
Facebook: / blokeontherange
Range: www.kudutir.ch
Bloke gets to blather on about the .303 Rifle No.5, aka "Jungle Carbine", thanks to the kindness of a friend of the channel. What's the deal with this "wandering zero" thing that appears so frequently in the literature but seems to be rarely seen in real life?
![[Watch Party] RoV Pro League 2024 Winter | with Moowan ( Bacon Time Vs Talon )](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/CCEDhu6dPN8/mqdefault.jpg)
I have a No 4 that was hacked up to resemble a No 5 at some point in it's life. As it was only $100 (back in 1999) I bought it anyway. The shop selling it had it listed as an English Mauser. I couldn't keep a straight face. :)
Using the term "English Mauser" to refer to something other than a P14 rifle or related design... so wrong.
josephgioielli How does your “English Mauser” (better named: 4+1=5🤪) shoot?
harumph!!!
SMLEK - Short Mauser Lee Enfield Karabiner.
You mean a tabby cat?
My first center fire rifle was /is a number 5 that i got for 32 dollars back in 1968. to this day it has never showed signs of 'wandering zero'. In fact I once took a bull moose at a measured 265 yards. My two shots entered one and a half inches apart on one side of the ribs, and the two bullets were fused together in the skin on the far side.i hope to pass this rifle on to one of my grandsons one day.
Good man!
You win jackpot 😜even 🦁 Rhino and bear's Elephants can be bring down by this wonderful weapon
💕 From Mumbai India
I bought my N05 from an elderly gentleman who bought it in the mid 60"s and he said it wasn't more than 50 dollars.
"something going right that should have gone wrong,...... is also going wrong...." Life lesson No 47 brought to you by BotR...
Hah! Isn’t that truth. Hello BML.
@Maz Robinson
He just shot one...checker.
Yeah, they are the redheaded stepchildren of my Enfield collection, but I still like them :p
Our friend British Muzzle loaders did an excellent video comparing the No. 5 to the No. 4 a few years back. Despite owning dozens of other Lee Enfields I've only ever owned one No. 5. It had average accuracy but I took it in a Carbine Match one day competing against full race AR 15's and I actually beat a few of them which is a testament to the handiness of this rifle.
I have two that must not be one of the good ones, because my shots wander all the time. I also have this problem on every other rifle I shoot. It's definitely a problem with the rifles.
Ur Mum Wow, I have the same problem! It’s why I got into rifle grenades.....
I keep having a problem with crooked bullets...
Same problem here, I got some expert help from the other blokes at the range, they tell me it's the nut behind the trigger.
"".I'm going to approach this from two different angles that seem plausible.." Still thinking about the ramifications of this throwaway phrase..
Wandering zero was the main reasons the rifle wasn't in service for very long.
One of my dreams is to walk into a gunshop and see one of these, priced as if it were just a No4 that'd been sporterized.
I found mine in a small town gunshop on consignment, I paid $300 CAD for it. Only issue was the rear sight was seized up, otherwise all matching and great shape. Picked up a new still in grease rear sight, and good as new.
Be careful though as there are counterfeit No5's do to its rarity.
Honest to God I have seen 5 or 6 like this and all of them were priced cheaper than normal enfields they had. I figured that the normal Enfields were worth more because everyone wants one.
alfred...some people just like Vega and pintos also
Bought mine a couple years ago think I paid maybe 200 bucks for it… The rear stock Had been changed and had a Monte Carlo type on it...Actually looked pretty good but I have since put the original type on
I have one that when I purchased it would not hold a group under 6 inches even though the rifle was is beautiful shape. I took it to my gun smith and he determined that locking lugs were unevenly bearing on the receiver. Since the bolt head was a 0, we agreed to lap the lugs which fixed all accuracy issues. The bolt head is now a 2, but the gun shoots consistently 2moa with greek hxp 303 and even better with good handloads.
Shooting tip: when shooting from a rest for testing purposes, place the forend on the rest and move your left hand to the buttstock at your shoulder. Squeezing or relaxing your left hand can give you fine adjustments to the elevation of your point of aim. Safe shooting!
Good technique. I use it all the time.
"Close enough for government work." Up until now, I have never heard anyone else use that phrase. I paid my way through university by working at a government liquor store (Canada). Working a till, at the end of shift you counted the cash and balanced the receipts. If I was only out by a few cents, I would say, "Close enough for government work".
Stephen Land Are you familiar with the expression “ A govie job” ?
Common in straya 🇭🇲
Ladies and Gentlemen, this is Rifle number 5 **loud pop beat starts playing**
A little bit of cordite in my life, a little bit of rim jam by my side.
🤣🤣🤣
Generally from my experience they shoot around 4 MOA (8inches out to 200m). You can get - 3MOA (3 inches) at 100m. (I used 180 grain FMJ's from S&B containing 11.7grains of powder). The longest distance i've shot this rifle out too is 300m and yes it still hits a 20x40cm target (of course with some effort). It is certainly a handy target and bush gun.
I find the wandering zero really helps when shooting moving targets....
Excellent topic and I’m really glad you hit on the “every rifle is an individual” point. So few people understand this. They shoot one example of these old rifles with an oftentimes dubious past and think they are experts on the rifle model as a whole. Just today I was reminded of this fact when shooting somebody else’s 91/30. The trigger pull was so unlike my own rifles , so foreign despite being the exact same model that it actually gave me pause. Of course there is most definitely more variance there due to shoddy Soviet refurbishment but the point stands.
My dad had a Canadian Tire store here in Canada back in the 1970s. He bought a ton of these rifles from the Canadian government. They were all Refurbished even damage to the stalks would be repaired neatly with wood. They were greased up and wrapped in wax paper. He sold them for $30. Each.
Thank you for the video. I’ve been in the market but have admired it for some time. I have seen them all over the map regarding condition so I wouldn’t order one; in person only.
I do have a appointment with a older gentleman selling his collection in the beginning of the week, hoping for the best. Thank you for the comprehensive video from across the pond, it helped!
I have one of these, and the rear peep sight is soooooooooooooooo big, no wonder people claim it has a wandering zero. But at close range in the jungle, a wide open peep sight was quick to use.
Nothing wrong with the ghost ring ;) th-cam.com/video/zgq5H5bVBSs/w-d-xo.html
4t is a top bloke and a true gent with superlative knowledge of all things Enfield.
Inspired me to haul my No. 5 out for a test spin. Hasn't been out of the closet in years. Wasn't sure what to expect as mine had clearly had the lower stock replaced at some time in its life but it was right on target. It'll definitely be getting some more range time soon.
My grandad shot the Jungle Carbine during his military service in Korea, but usually used a Sten gun as he worked in comms and just needed a weapon for self defence, but I can’t remember the years he was in the army, I just know that the L1A1 was just becoming established, as he used them right at the end of his service.
I love mine , I have a 1942 mk 3 and a 1945 jungle carbine both are fantastic weapons and I love the history behind them
Trigger guard is the biggest culprit for most Lee Enfield shifting point of impact and poor groupings. The No. 4 Mk 2 (1949) addressed this and is the rifle to get if you want this problem fixed.
No it isn't - the reason for the No.4 Mk.2 was to improve the trigger pull by not pivoting it on the trigger guard. The trigger guard / bedding relationship is entirely unchanged.
I'm glad I bought one of these in the mid 90's along with a couple of other Enfields. They were a bargain.
I bought a cheap nast looking carbine for $50 in 1991. I simply saw it never looked just paid at a gun show. Total surprise. It wasnt a No 5. It was actually a civvie conversion with a No 5 flash suppressor on a 7.62 NATO barrel sprtorised front stock. As there was about 8 different No 5 prototypes trialled by Lithgow Small arms, and I am in Australia, it was $50 buy it before anyone say I'll take that lol. It was a damn good rifle. I always thought a good Lee Enfield conversion would be in 5.56 running on M16 mags.
Every time you bring up Frankenrifle, you make me sad I can't get one in the States, even if they aren't the greatest rifles out of the box
Got my 100% matching #5 for $250 bucks, only issue was the rear sight was removed to make way for a scope. Ive gotten it back to original configuration minus the rear sight which im waiting on to arrive from across the pond. By far my favorite to shoot, and to be honest I really love holding it with love and just looking at it for that matter. Next on the list is a M1 Garand and M1 Carbine.
I had one of these that I picked up at a gun show many years ago. This thing must have been issued because it had all sorts of personalized markings on the stock and it was absolutely beat up. Despite some light pitting in the rifling, it shot relatively accurately.
We had one of these in the shop; I of course slobbered over it every time I thought the boss wasn't looking, but never got sold because anyone who would be interested in the thing thought that it would be a bastard to shoot due to the recoil and flash, plus the whole wandering zero myth. One wonders if a downloaded cartidge would make this an excellent hundred yard rifle and make it a bit nicer to shoot.
BadlanderOutsider q
Thank you very much for your 2 rifle comparisons. I am looking to buy a No.5, just not got to it yet.
It would be interesting to see a comparison between the No. 5 and the Russian M38 or M44. I bet they will both shoot roughly the same sized groups.
Damn Bloke, you seemed all choked up and nervous the whole video. 😄 Was your boss there or a hot woman? Not your usual perky, smooth, confident self.
Tired, mostly! And desperately trying to get it as right as possible! Those days in Sion start early and are very long. We keep filming until I can't keep it together any more! :D
Bloke on the Range Not all hero’s wear capes.
When confronted with SS troops, recoil Is the least of your concerns.
The perfect Bloke post- debunk a myth and have things take an unexpected turn. (Personally I think the wandering zero is due to improper grounding)
I got a 1/1947 Just love having one. Sweet and in really good condition.
Mine was made in Dec '47. It's my favourite rifle. It fires good groups out to 300 (my range doesn't go any further).
Bloke, the explanation version I have read is slightly different to your 'not wanting to make millions of No4s obsolete', it was 'the Army didn't want a new bolt-action, they wanted a semi-auto (like everyone else), so there was no way the No 5 was NOT going to have a problem'. The two aren't mutually exclusive, of course :) I can readily imagine both views being held by different groups.
“Their lively girls”. I am so stealing this lol.
Most of the examples of wondering zero or "I put x number of boxes of shells through it and it still won't zero" are generally attributable to shooters who only "think" that they know how to zero the rifle. Or they forget to check screws, mounts, rings, etc. for things that have worked loose.
Sorry, wandering not wondering.
I acquired my No. 5 back in the 1980s. I have never really shot the rifle from a bench and other than maybe one box of factory loads all my shooting with the rifle have been with hand-loaded cast bullets at approximately 2,000 ft/sec. It has always shot satisfactorily.
I bought one 30+ years ($100), searched and found an original Bayonet.
I wanted Jungle Carbine to round out a Firearms Display with a #4 & # 4T
I only fired the Jungle Carbine once, BRUTAL RECOIL, compared to Standard, #4 or 1903 Springfield.l
Sold it for $200 and was happy to get rid of it.
I like the way it looks with the Short Barrel and Flash Hider,.....still like the looks.
If only could find Re Barreled in a lighter Cartridge...maybe .308
Watching him and seeing the Recoil and the Barrel rising reminds why I sold it, it was not a fun day the Range.
I often wondered about the Cut Down 1903 Springfield used in Panama Canal Zone, they use to be cheap at Gun Show, like $250....I don't see anymore
6:35 Hear that? I bet a German did.
Ur Mum ze Amerikan is empty! Rush zem now!!!
"Erschieß der Englander! Hast du gehört das "ping"?!" :O
what about all that shooting without earplugs?..........how are they gonna hear a little jingle?
I saw it in a video game once, dumby. I know more than you.
Lol
I never had a problem with wandering zero on mine, its accuracy was perfectly acceptable for a service rifle and placed groups only a little larger than my M1903A3 Springfield out to 200 yards. Wish I still had it, but tight times during college saw it sold off. I still remember the serial number & manufacturing date/arsenal, if I ever come across it again I won't hesitate to buy it back. (Btw, that recoil is no joke lol!)
I have a no5 mk1 on the way. But...I also have a no1 mk3. That rifle is intensely accurate. I am glad I have my no1. I don't like the aesthetics of the no4. Even though it is technically better. I look forward to my jungle carbine.
After initially “zeroing “ my mark five I’ve never touched it since… Mostly shoot steel plates at 100 yards. Seems like it’s always on definitely good enough for government work.This week I’ll try some paper see how it actually groups... I have a short video shooting steel at 100 yards… I reload mostly for the 303 and one thing when you shoot the shoulder gets blown forward about 30 to 40 thousandths... when I resize I just set the shoulder back about 2 thousandths ...Fits the loose chambers much better and improves accuracy quite a bit.
I have one of these and I LOVE it.
I cut down the barrel of a Mark 4 #2 with a questionable barrel. After shortening the barrel to 20" I discovered that the worn rifling was at tge end of the barrel. The heavy barrel stiffened consiserably by cutting off 5.5" which greatly improved the accuracy. My "Jungle Carbine is not lightened except for cutting tge barrel and the front stock.
I have a Gibbs Rifle company reworked Jungle Carbine and it shoots well. Iron sites and kicks like a mule but decent groups out to 100 yards... fun gun to shoot
I owned a No5 MkI years ago and sold it before I knew any better. It was in unissued condition and, as I recall, was reasonably accurate at 100 yards. I would really like to get another some day.
I watched another YT video recently that discussed the wandering zero. This fellow had an interesting take on this notion. Her noted the substantially stiffer recoil the No5 produces compared to the No4 and suggested that this "problem" had more to do with the shooter developing a flinch after shooting it for a while. This seems very plausible to me because I still remember a heavily bruised right shoulder after an extended outing with that gun. So, one more theory to add to the pile, as good as any, I suppose.
I have just got one ,looking forward to getting on the range
I always thought the No.5 would be something Jeff Cooper would like.
Only if he could claim that he'd invented the entire concept of it :p
a problem that can affect the no5 is that the flash guard is a casting / forging that is often not true to the bore axcess . although this is not as big a problem as the crowning on the barrel , it is still an influence on the trajectory of the projectile .
it has to be a tight fit on the barrel & machined true to the bore .
I'd suggest shooting it through a rifle vise to put the rumour to bed. Rifle defect or shooter movement due to power and rifle length.
Ahh, yes. The rifle #5, the first full powered rifle I ever fired. I graduated from an M1 carbine to this and nearly knocked myself to the ground trying to shoot it standing up. The fun times a 13 year old kid can have with a really light .303 rifle. That rifle is what got me started on my enjoyment of recoil. When people I know complain about the kick from a Mosin or something similar, I tend to simply laugh at them for not knowing how to handle the recoil. Since that first standing shot almost knocked me over, I've learned quite a bit about how to handle the recoil from stuff like this. What will really get my goat is when I hear people complaining about how much 5.56 kicks, they just don't understand what recoil is. Also, that little #5 held the 100 yard group record in the collection until an AR 15 in 6.8 spc usurped it a couple of years back (must be one of the 'good ones'), but at least the #5 is still more reliable, that 6.8 is very picky about feeding and we have yet to remedy that. It's not really the rifle's fault either, it's simply an issue of us (my dad and I) trying to build something semi-'unique', we are the only people I know of crazy enough to build a 6.8 spc using an upper with a fixed carry handle (a C-7 type upper, AKA an A2 with A1 sights). If we could get that reliability to something like 90% in stead of 65-75%, we'd be happy. It's all down to finding a magazine/cartridge length combo that will feed properly.
The recoil is half the fun of firing large bore rifles. You might as well shoot .22 and save yourself some money if you don't like recoil.
Nice I got mine 2 year ago for $400 Australian dollars it's a ROF 9/45 in the R200 serial number range
terrence johnson wow that's a deal!
don macdonald thanks it been bubba up when i got it had to put it in a ATI stock but it shoots 1 moa at 100 yards
bravo bloke and chap.
very informative, well done.
just a thought , when all the stocking issues have been seen to , you might want to check that the flash hider is machined true to the bore access . Although this will not have as profound as a incorrect crowning of the barrel , it will still have a negative affect
There are No1's and No4's that shoot better or worse than others - no different to No5's. Follow the Armourers bedding and stocking up advice for the No5, you should have better results - I did mine years ago. Cheers!
I have a No5 mk 1 (f) 1/47 ZXXXX in real nice condition
My No. 5 is the loudest rifle I own by far and close to the loudest I've ever heard. The muzzle report is so bad I don't like taking it to ranges to shoot. Mine does, however, seem to shoot nice and square.
Try a Egyptian "Hakim" rifle. 8mm Mauser version of the Swedish AG42. The muzzle brake is so effective there is practically no recoil, but it works by blowing the gasses back towards the shooter. Absolutely deafening!
The mf is loud. Had both my ears ringing.
Australia also was making this rifle at the Lithgow factory on the Mk III model using the brass butt plate. It wasn't called the Jungle Carbine. That was an American Importer in the 60's that marketed that name. The original models being made in 1944-1947 was for Paratroopers and other units in the Pacific. If you see a Lithgow MK III made in 1944. It was also part of that rush to make a carbine model.
Lithgow made exactly 200 No.6 rifles (SMLE-based carbines), 100 with No.1 type rearsights, 100 with No.4 type rearsights. A friend in the UK owns one of the latter and I have fired it.
@@BlokeontheRange Lithgow never made a No. 4, many people will mistake the Lithgow model as a Sante Fe known as the Jungle Carbine.
Saw one of these go for 950AUD (540GBP, 700USD). Sad to say I did not get it.
Crazy zero nice looking rifle though
The bell end is not a flash eliminator it is a bell, I have fired a few rounds down a Mk V. I believe that the bell nose was to reduce foliage movement and to have the enemy not know from which direction, because it was a boom not a crack.
atomant451
Classic observation "when something that is supposed go wrong goes right that is wrong"
Great bloke shooting a epic rifle! Picking up my first no5 in a few days, that is if it checks out as legit. Whats a few inches among friends...
Getting mine tomorrow, cant wait to hold that history in my hands.
The good Ole No 4 mk 1 shoots good especially if it's a heap of junk. My No 4 had a pitted 2 groove barrel from muzzle to breach. The barrel rattled in the stock nothing was done to make it more accurate other than screwing it together. I shot it into the highest grade with it but like any 2 groove barrel one day it stopped shooting. One week I got a master grade score next time I got a B grade score the next time I got a D grade score the thing has not been shot since and won't be shot till it gets a new barrel. I've seen a No4 in perfect condition shoot ordinary. It is not so much the condition it's in but the love you give it and then it dies.
From 0 to 10 what grade would you give to this rifle? And would you use it on a hunt or in combat?
I have no idea, but I grew up in northern Canada on moose meat fetched with this rifle by my Dad.
It will kill a moose. Not one of them ever fought back.
That shooting table looks really hard. Old bones ache just looking at it.
I guess you will need to start getting people to send you all the jungle carbines you can get for a wider sample size. Ya know, for science.
Wotcha Cor blimey it's a sawn off No4 innit guv. My groups halved at 100m in my No4 when I went to handloaded 174gr SMK from 180 gr S&B. The lead based bullets are detrimental to accuracy.
Funny. I find the 180gn S&B factory ammo shoots better than anything else - I had 6 consecutive rounds into about 25cm at 300m with it. Supposedly it's flat-based (unlike the bullets they provide for reloading which are boat tail), and we know that cordite-worn barrels like flat base.
Bloke on the Range Can you explain that last statement? Is it a big enough topic to make a video on? Why do they like flat based bullets? Is it just cordite-worn barrels or pitted barrels I general?
I hope I'm not missing a dry joke or something here. :/ Lol
Yeah, it's worth a topic on its own tbh. BTW setup was not only deliberately used with .303, but also with 8x50R Mannlicher (.323" bullets in a .330" barrel). If you look at my TFB vid on the Mannlicher there's a small discussion of it. th-cam.com/video/aNBBS82E0y4/w-d-xo.html
I have heard so many things, I think they just had a larger MOA then people realized, and each rifle was so variable in stock and ammo preferences that frankly each rifle must be tweaked to shoot decently.
the cutout, at the very beginning is for the loading purpose like the k98 ...in german it's called "Daumenloch" freely translated you could call it "thumb hole"
The cutout I indicate at the start of the video is well behind the back of the magazine, is covered by the sights in their folded down position and hence has nothing to do with loading since your thumb isn't anywhere near it. It's simply called a "lightening cut". The equivalent of the Daumenloch is a little scoop on the left side of the receiver just ahead of where the front of the charger is when placed in the guide.
so excuse me, i really thought i've seen it in another angle so it appears to be a Daumenloch. my fault. ;)
Mine starts to shoot allover when it gets really hot. No wood touching anywhere in the forend or hand guard except the Knox form. I know IV8888 had some wondering too when they got theirs hot. It's fine if I just take a few shots with it. But went through almost 30 consecutive rounds and it was all over.
Thanks for sharing interesting topic and gun,great video.
Oh what a Lovely Vid Sir :-D Now i had to test my own No5 Mk1. Have not shoot it in a long Time (6 to 12 months or so).
Thank you kindly!
You are very welcome :-D Since last week i now know mine shoot good ^^ must be one of the "good ones" right haha :-D
I wonder how well the Gibbs jungle carbine shoots.
Wieder ein sehr interessantes Video. Danke :-)
I use a 25 yard pistol target at 100 m to shoot at. It looks about the same width as the front sight.
I dont think the diggers in the Pacific theater gave a toss at shooting anything past 25 m to 50 m in jungles, considering combat was those distances or less same in Malaysia.
They are damn good pigging rifle I never even heard of the wondering zero problem.
Yes actually! I have a No.4 mk2 conversation here in the states, barrel dated 42, I’ll have to look but if I’m not mistaken it is marked as a mk1*2. I’ll try to remember to bring it out of the safe and snap photo’s of her markings... she’s definitely “one of the good ones” hahaha
This video is about the No.5, not the No.4 ;)
Bloke on the Range my mistake, I thought you were talking about the mk2 conversions in general.
Nope. Those are well-known and uncontroversial.
Proper bloke this one innit
If the stock is touching the barrel I would imagine that the draws of the stock are crushed. I own a No.5 like that and I still need to do some woodworking to get it fixed so I can shoot it. I think with the No.5's shorter stock is even easier to damage the draws when you remove the stock. If anyone owns an Enfield, please don't grab the muzzle end of the stock and pull down; push the stock away from the action.
Crushed draws would, if anything, tend to pivot the barrel away from the stock though, since the rear of the receiver will tend to sit deeper in the stock. I think this is why shagged No.4 stocks tend to not have enough (or even any) muzzle pressure (or even worse, bear on the front handguard).
I have a general hate for taking stocks off unnecessarily - it's a "No Good Can Come Of It" operation.
Mine with the crushed draws actually pivots to the side as one side is more crushed than the other.
I agree with you on taking stocks off. Some people really think that you must check all the time to see if there is any rust, but in general the stock protects the metal. I still have some Japanese Type 99s that the screws are still factory staked in place. They will stay that way.
Mine had draws that were right screwed. The whole stock moved forward-back a little bit. I rebuilt the draws and it is tight. Last I shot it a few years ago it gave me a minute of paper plate at 100yards. Good enough for me.
Inch and a half group at 50m is not a minute and a half, its 3 MOA isn't it ?
Yep!
Im glad i bought mine in Australia back before they got stupidly expensive!
Good job loving dear
Do you think ammo quality could have been an issue?
Walking as it warms up? Tell me about it. The SLR was notorious for it.
My mk5 will not group with 150grn but with 180grn 15cm group
At 100mtrs
Hi, Was there ever a variation tested & introduced into service, such as the Model 5, Mk - T, an equivalent of the Model 4, Mk 1 - T, snipers-rifle version? I have seen an SMLE, Model 5, Mk 1 with a small x4 Telescopic-sight mounted in place of the regular metallic-sights. So ever since, I’ve. always wondered if this had been either an owner’s individual, custom-made modification, previously made to their own preference or else it was a proper factory-made variant? I wondered if you might know, as BritishMuzzleLoaders wasn’t aware that such an official Royal Small Arms model had ever been manufactured & issued for UK or Commonwealth Forces’ specialist/sniper use! Thanks 🙏🏼
Sorry, but it's impossible to answer the question since you've made up your own designations that don't make sense. Can you try again using the official designations please? I can't work out what you mean by "SMLE, Model 5, Mk 1", in particular. And what is "Royal Small Arms"? Never heard of them.
But I'll try: the only scoped .303" Lee-Enfield variants used in service were based around:
SMLE Mk.III / Mk.III*;
No.4 Mk.1
No.4 Mk.1*
@@BlokeontheRange : Sorry my mistakes here - That should have actually read as: SMLE (Aka the Jungle Carbine), No. 5, Mk 1 - T (Telescopic); not as I had erroneously written before as: Model 5, Mk 1 - T! Thank you very much for your prompt & helpful reply here!
Was such a purpose-made snipers’ rifle (Carbine) actually produced at RSAF at Fazakeley, Maltby or wherever? Or had someone, on such a rifle that I’d previously seen, then had perhaps decided much later, to add on a telescope for their own preferred uses?
Despite trying to make my own research & enquiries into this matter, I am unfortunately not able to determine & confirm or reject this notion, as being genuinely the case or otherwise. Thank you 🙏🏼 once again! Best Wishes for Continued Good Luck 🍀👍 with Your Interesting & informative Show!
@@theoraclerules5056 "...... BritishMuzzleLoaders wasn’t aware that such an official Royal Small Arms model had ever been manufactured & issued for UK or Commonwealth Forces’ specialist/sniper use! ",......... I am "unaware", as there is no such thing as a No 5(T). Might I suggest that you find a copy of Skennerton's book on the Lee Enfield. Then, you'll have all the references you'll ever need. Seriously though, if you are at all interested, its a book you should have.
I own one and its a solid 3 MOA gun at 100m (probably 2 MOA in the hands of a better shot). Really happy with it (the trigger pull is amazing) and I dont find the recoil to be all that bad. K98k is much worse IMO even though it is a heavier rifle.
i feel like someone needs to start producing high quality reproductions of the full series of lee-enfield rifles. assuming ther isn't already a company doing this.
There was a attempt with Australian international arms
Surely wandering zero is about the Zero not the Group, in other words a Rifleman gets a group and then zeros the Rifle, but the next time he fires a group the MPI has changed??
And isn’t it the case that the Rifles that survived into Civilian hands would be the ones that didn’t have the issue in Service use hence very few now suffer from the problem whereas those that did suffer from the issue were withdrawn and scrapped, or used for the No8 program seeing as about half the No8 production run used No5 Action Bodies.
Great
Suprised the buttpad is still soft, wonderful rifle and presentation.
Great info. Thanks.
Could a modern bedding help the "bad" rifle? I would hate to have your ammo budget.
Mine shoots well. I non,t believe the wondering zero. I use the battle sight, and 50yds is far to close the lowest sight is set at 200yds. Mine always shoots true, but most no 5 have worn out barrels when sold to the public.
"tis a pity you got a Vindaloo No5... that ruddy wood screw in the foreend and the further hollowed out bolt knob tell that tale. Still, whilst not as pretty as the non-Indian refurbed ones, they are still a No5!
I had at one point in my collecting No5 serial AC6349 - a Fazakerley manufactured late in '47 AFTER the supposed end of production - theory has it this was to fulfil some orders for those pesky colonials (most likely mine came from Fiji). Shot groups every bit as good as a Savage No4, but nowhere near as good as LB's and Faz/Maltby/Shirley No4's.
I also had an RFI refurb like yours, and it shot like a shotgun firing slugs out of a krummlauf barrel :) It was though IMMACULATE, apart from the dreaded wood screw and the Indian reblue over a poor scrub.
I'd say the rifle that dose not group has a worn out barrel. It's something that can afflict a military rifle. The stock won't cause gigantic groups like that.
You'd be surprised...
I admit I am not in possession of primary sources but what secondaries I do have usually suggest that the British military itself considered there to be a wandering zero issue, putting considerable manpower into finding what the issue was. Also, the suggestions I see in such sources is not that the gun wandered zero quickly but rather did so over many firings, making it an issue not for the individual rifleman in the field so much as the armories trying to keep the guns serviceable over the long term.
Thing is, I've never seen any primary sources either..... Which is always suspicious...
Also, talking of secondary sources, Mauser Gew 98's are almost universally described as really accurate. Which is entirely contradicted by the Germans' own dispersion table (a primary source). So I'm always entirely wary of info that's from secondary sources only.
I must agree. It is suspicious. I only court the idea because I know too many defense engineers who think exactly like as described in these silly sources for it not to feel intuitively right somehow. If you value your objectiveness, never be intimate with a defense contractor; they will warp your world-view irrevocably.
You know what would be amazing is to test guns without shooter variables: Multiple samples, braced with sandbags and vice-grips, laser-boresighted, firing a large sample of rounds each against perfectly-measured 100 meter/yard targets in a controlled interior range. It would be nice to bring real scientific data to the debates without the people being able to write everything off merely as Shooter Error somehow.
I simply am too poor for that myself, but maybe you know someone who could take the idea seriously?