Collectability of drilled and tapped LE No5?

maple_leaf_eh said:
Back away from the keyboard! The internet lore is strong on this. There are many attempted explanations, and none seem to be very truth-y. The No.1 and No.4 depend on careful stocking, screw tensions, foreend up pressure, and other voodoo factors. IMHO, the British just didn't get the answers they needed from the combinations of changes they made.
Click to expand...

And the No. 5 only gets the benefit of 2/3 of the bearing surfaces used in No. 1 and No. 4 rifles. With no forend tip pressure the No. 5 depends totally upon excellent bedding at the rear end. My only No. 5 is a well worn Indian used rifle that came to me with a horribly fitted (but numbered) forend. By carefully patching the draws and plugging/ redrilling the front triggerguard screw hole I was able to turn it from a horrible shooter to one that will rival any of my No. 4's. I suspect it will maintain that ability until the repairs start to loosen up or the wood compact.

I agree with the opinion that the OP should enjoy this rifle as is. No. 5's are not close to scarce enough to justify the "restoration" work and, frankly, they never really look right, even if done by highly experienced professionals. Drilling/tapping certainly affects the collector value but it doesn't ruin any historical value.

milsurpo
 
To be clear I will not do any welding on my rifle. Two screw plugs are perfect. I do appreciate the varied advice and do not see welding as an option I would pursue even though it is a valid approach. The N05 is an original and has all the lightening cuts and lightened knox form barrel. If considering a pricey collectable educate yourself and verify before purchase. Making fake No5s was an industrial endeavour not just Bubba's handiwork.

I am of the belief that wandering zero was a political decision more than anything. However I plan to test this rifle for it this summer. I'll post results here. This will be a range rifle focused on 100 to 300 meters.
 
I've been shooting the same sporterized No 5 for almost 60 years and found that the zero has remained consistent. I've never messed with the stock bedding at all. The only changes were to install a Bishop buttstock and a Weaver T01 scope base. Don't expect accuracy to be better than 2-3 inches @ 100 yds. That said, its gotten me a few truck loads of deer, a moose and a bear. Its an ideal rifle for hunting in the bush.
 
purple said:
I've been shooting the same sporterized No 5 for almost 60 years and found that the zero has remained consistent. I've never messed with the stock bedding at all. The only changes were to install a Bishop buttstock and a Weaver T01 scope base. Don't expect accuracy to be better than 2-3 inches @ 100 yds. That said, its gotten me a few truck loads of deer, a moose and a bear. Its an ideal rifle for hunting in the bush.
Click to expand...

2-3" is better than a sniper no4. those are 2.5"
 
I checked my bookmark and found a post by Peter Laidler, #2 post in the link. Peter is a well known Brit Armourer and a wealth of accurate info. He reports the wandering zero and weak spreading receivers from jungle operations. I now correct my belief the issue was political only.

https://www.milsurps.com/showthread.php?t=8316

In post 7 below he verifies that Jungle Carbine was name Commonwealth Troops used for the No5. If the name was good enough for Commonwealth Vets its good enough for general use.

https://www.milsurps.com/showthread.php?t=32054&

Here is a discussion of Lee Enfield accuracy from an Australian.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vl-iOTX2_WU&t=290s
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom