Jungle carbine wandering zero?
- Thread starter Power Pill
- Start date
I'm quoting Mr. Peter Laidler:
Re: No.5 Wandering Zero: Peter Laidler opinion?
Posted By: Peter Laidler <Send E-Mail>
Date: Sat 26 Jul 2008 6:13 am
In Response To: No.5 Wandering Zero: Peter Laidler opinion? (milprileb)
Hi Milpreb and others. Yes, the little No5 rifle. As I said, we still had some in Malaya in the mid 60’s plus I’d say, a thousand or so+ that came through our huge Base Workshops in Singapore where from Australia, New Zealand, Malaya, Hong Kong Vietnam and occasionally Fiji Armourers would regularly congregate for various reasons. And a week or so exploring the bustling sights and sounds of night-time Singapore was probably top of the list. But being a young, celibate, church-going, teetotal young lad, I stayed in and knitted scarves and darned socks for the needy. But I digress.
I have to confess that until I was in New Zealand in 1967, I didn’t know that in early 1949 the No5 was on the cusp of being introduced as the standard service rifle to replace the No4. I read this while reading an old, little document in the workshop bosses office, ASM Leo Francis ( ….remember him Kim?). The document was about the sale of and introduction into New Zealand of the .22” No8 rifle. The document was aimed at Australia too but I never saw a No8 when I was there, except for an odd-ball owned by ASM Clive Connors at Bandiana. He was another RAEME Armourer …., who’d probably ‘liberated’ it when he was somewhere. I did get him some spares sent over in the freight from Malaya, consisting of 1 complete and another all-but complete rifle but I digress again. The document in Leo’s office at Ngaruawahia went on to say that the No5 was introduced into British Army service and will eventually supplant the No2 rifle and various others throughout. ‘Throughout’ probably meant the other odds and sods such as the No7’s and No9’s plus the little ex US lend lease Mossbergs that you could still see occasionally. It was correct because the No8 did replace them eventually although the RAF Cadets at Abingdon did still have a couple of No7’s in 1982. But the No8 was the norm.
Oh, yes. The document said that the No8 rifle had been developed in look, style, feel and weight as a direct result of the forthcoming decision to adopt the No5 rifle as the standard arm throughout the Army. I asked Jock Annandale about it in conversation and he’d obviously heard and read this and commented to me that while it was a laudable idea, the No5 had many problems and while it might be OK in the jungle and as a short range close quarter weapon, it was definitely NOT a rifle for long ranges we’d expect in Europe. This was because once it got hot, its zero went. It was as simple as that. And as you all know, once you start to follow your zero over the target, it’s time to stop for the day. That’s because YOU are following the zero and generally, your eyes are going and you’re tired. But when it’s the RIFLE that’s causing it……………. And the No5 RIFLE did. He also told me, in words that Warrant Officers are apt to use when a silly suggestion is made, that the notion that the whole of the Commonwealth was going to change, when they were knee deep in perfectly good, almost new No4’s was pure , er ….., horse, er ……, manure!
I asked the other Armourers in Malaya, especially the LEP (locally enlisted) Chinese and Malays (known as MOR’s …, Malayan Other Ranks) and they all knew about the rifles going off zero but in the short ranges that they were used, it was academic. So in Malaya they stayed. You could always tell the high mileage rifles, apart from the shot-out barrels because the backsight axis pin retaining pin (longest name of a part on the rifle. The PIN, retaining, pin axis backsight) was always sheared where the bodies had expanded at the rear and sheared it. So, if at the moment of firing/and max pressure/load the body spreads at the rear, especially during a gun battle, I suppose it would upset the balance between the locking lugs, bolt and cartridge seating on the bolt face.
I think I mentioned earlier that when we were doing the big Crown Agents FTR programme, it was priced (so I was told) that if 70 came in, 70 went out and if some were ZF’d (scrap) then they’d be replaced from our ANZUK (I think this was Aust, NZ and UK stockholdings) mobilization stores from the huge …., and I mean HUGE Ordnance stockpiles close by at Johore Bahru. So we would cannibalise No5’s and if necessary, send them out with No4 bodies.
I don’t think it was the kick that made them wander off because we would fire hundreds every day in just shorts and boots. No shirts, hats or ear defenders. During this shooting the boss of the Ordnance Stores depot, a nice bloke called WO1 Arnold, (we all called him ‘Sir’ to be polite), used to bring his son down for days during the school holidays, especially on Bren days and son, age about 15 or so used to load the magazines and shoot the rifles/Brens for function testing first then we got him used to shooting the accuracy tests at the special Armourers target screen. He was quite good too and always mixed in. But we were only a couple of years older than him anyway. His mum was always nice to us, so was dad really, and used to bring a load of bottles of cold Frazer and Neave orange juice and home made things to scoff for break. We had some Brens with front grips that you could use as heavy SMG’s, fired from well tucked back in the waist during jungle patrolling and we’d let him fire these at the targets from very close range. God, I shudder at the thought now. If I saw someone doing it now I’d go ballistic …., let alone allow a young lad to do it! The Small Arms shop 2i/c S/Sgt Beady and the AQMS #### Shepherd used to think it was a bit of a punishment to be sent on the range for the day because the No5’s used to jump about a bit and crack but when there were a few of us there, we were out of the way
Oh, yes. Back to No5’s. Some of them just wouldn’t zero so they’d be examined and if necessary, re-barreled or just stripped for spares or scrapped. some were as good as gold. I never did get to the bottom of why they had a wandering zero problem. Just theories but they certainly did. Whether YOURS has or not is a bit academic but while I don’t think it had a bad name, it certainly wasn’t a myth.
Re: No.5 Wandering Zero: Peter Laidler opinion?
Posted By: Peter Laidler <Send E-Mail>
Date: Sat 26 Jul 2008 6:13 am
In Response To: No.5 Wandering Zero: Peter Laidler opinion? (milprileb)
Hi Milpreb and others. Yes, the little No5 rifle. As I said, we still had some in Malaya in the mid 60’s plus I’d say, a thousand or so+ that came through our huge Base Workshops in Singapore where from Australia, New Zealand, Malaya, Hong Kong Vietnam and occasionally Fiji Armourers would regularly congregate for various reasons. And a week or so exploring the bustling sights and sounds of night-time Singapore was probably top of the list. But being a young, celibate, church-going, teetotal young lad, I stayed in and knitted scarves and darned socks for the needy. But I digress.
I have to confess that until I was in New Zealand in 1967, I didn’t know that in early 1949 the No5 was on the cusp of being introduced as the standard service rifle to replace the No4. I read this while reading an old, little document in the workshop bosses office, ASM Leo Francis ( ….remember him Kim?). The document was about the sale of and introduction into New Zealand of the .22” No8 rifle. The document was aimed at Australia too but I never saw a No8 when I was there, except for an odd-ball owned by ASM Clive Connors at Bandiana. He was another RAEME Armourer …., who’d probably ‘liberated’ it when he was somewhere. I did get him some spares sent over in the freight from Malaya, consisting of 1 complete and another all-but complete rifle but I digress again. The document in Leo’s office at Ngaruawahia went on to say that the No5 was introduced into British Army service and will eventually supplant the No2 rifle and various others throughout. ‘Throughout’ probably meant the other odds and sods such as the No7’s and No9’s plus the little ex US lend lease Mossbergs that you could still see occasionally. It was correct because the No8 did replace them eventually although the RAF Cadets at Abingdon did still have a couple of No7’s in 1982. But the No8 was the norm.
Oh, yes. The document said that the No8 rifle had been developed in look, style, feel and weight as a direct result of the forthcoming decision to adopt the No5 rifle as the standard arm throughout the Army. I asked Jock Annandale about it in conversation and he’d obviously heard and read this and commented to me that while it was a laudable idea, the No5 had many problems and while it might be OK in the jungle and as a short range close quarter weapon, it was definitely NOT a rifle for long ranges we’d expect in Europe. This was because once it got hot, its zero went. It was as simple as that. And as you all know, once you start to follow your zero over the target, it’s time to stop for the day. That’s because YOU are following the zero and generally, your eyes are going and you’re tired. But when it’s the RIFLE that’s causing it……………. And the No5 RIFLE did. He also told me, in words that Warrant Officers are apt to use when a silly suggestion is made, that the notion that the whole of the Commonwealth was going to change, when they were knee deep in perfectly good, almost new No4’s was pure , er ….., horse, er ……, manure!
I asked the other Armourers in Malaya, especially the LEP (locally enlisted) Chinese and Malays (known as MOR’s …, Malayan Other Ranks) and they all knew about the rifles going off zero but in the short ranges that they were used, it was academic. So in Malaya they stayed. You could always tell the high mileage rifles, apart from the shot-out barrels because the backsight axis pin retaining pin (longest name of a part on the rifle. The PIN, retaining, pin axis backsight) was always sheared where the bodies had expanded at the rear and sheared it. So, if at the moment of firing/and max pressure/load the body spreads at the rear, especially during a gun battle, I suppose it would upset the balance between the locking lugs, bolt and cartridge seating on the bolt face.
I think I mentioned earlier that when we were doing the big Crown Agents FTR programme, it was priced (so I was told) that if 70 came in, 70 went out and if some were ZF’d (scrap) then they’d be replaced from our ANZUK (I think this was Aust, NZ and UK stockholdings) mobilization stores from the huge …., and I mean HUGE Ordnance stockpiles close by at Johore Bahru. So we would cannibalise No5’s and if necessary, send them out with No4 bodies.
I don’t think it was the kick that made them wander off because we would fire hundreds every day in just shorts and boots. No shirts, hats or ear defenders. During this shooting the boss of the Ordnance Stores depot, a nice bloke called WO1 Arnold, (we all called him ‘Sir’ to be polite), used to bring his son down for days during the school holidays, especially on Bren days and son, age about 15 or so used to load the magazines and shoot the rifles/Brens for function testing first then we got him used to shooting the accuracy tests at the special Armourers target screen. He was quite good too and always mixed in. But we were only a couple of years older than him anyway. His mum was always nice to us, so was dad really, and used to bring a load of bottles of cold Frazer and Neave orange juice and home made things to scoff for break. We had some Brens with front grips that you could use as heavy SMG’s, fired from well tucked back in the waist during jungle patrolling and we’d let him fire these at the targets from very close range. God, I shudder at the thought now. If I saw someone doing it now I’d go ballistic …., let alone allow a young lad to do it! The Small Arms shop 2i/c S/Sgt Beady and the AQMS #### Shepherd used to think it was a bit of a punishment to be sent on the range for the day because the No5’s used to jump about a bit and crack but when there were a few of us there, we were out of the way
Oh, yes. Back to No5’s. Some of them just wouldn’t zero so they’d be examined and if necessary, re-barreled or just stripped for spares or scrapped. some were as good as gold. I never did get to the bottom of why they had a wandering zero problem. Just theories but they certainly did. Whether YOURS has or not is a bit academic but while I don’t think it had a bad name, it certainly wasn’t a myth.
I've done a bit of reading about this because i recently aquired a jungle carbine myself. I can't say from experience since I haven't gotten up to the range since I bought it but there seems to be quite a bit of mixed opinion. Some people swear the sights don't hold and you'll never be able to hit a barn and others call bs on them. I have had a few guys tell me that they love their No.5's to death and they are plenty accurate. But I've also had another fellow tell me he had to spend a bit of time getting one of his to shoot, but the other one he had shot well from the beggining. I don't believe there is a solid answer on this one, but i tend to believe most firearms are inherently accurate and would also like to believe I didn't spend my hard earned cash on a junker 
One thing to remember is that Lee Enfields, of any persuassion, except for a sniper, were not designed or built with gilt edged accuaracy in mind.
The army way was to lay down a barrage of fire. Get enough lead flying and somebody will get hit.
About the only complaint I ever heard about the Bren machine gun, was that it was too accurate! They said it was more effective to scatter the bullets than to super blow the center apart.
So, don't expect too much from your military hardware.
The army way was to lay down a barrage of fire. Get enough lead flying and somebody will get hit.
About the only complaint I ever heard about the Bren machine gun, was that it was too accurate! They said it was more effective to scatter the bullets than to super blow the center apart.
So, don't expect too much from your military hardware.
Johnn Peterson
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Chemainus B.C.
You're quite right but with a little effort they don't do too bad. I presently have my 3rd and 4th Jungle Carbines. It like a number of other firearms I have, have sold, then kicked my butt for doing so then go pick up another
. The first two JC's, I purchased from a local hardware store years ago, for about $50.oo and they still had the original grease in them. One sat year round behind the seat of my '57 Landrover PU and like the old Landrover, the more dents & dings it got, the better it looked and shot.A short while back I was discussing regretting selling them with a friend and he offered me another pair. This first one had belonged to his father and was in near mint condition. I purchased that and later got a bayonet to complete the look. I've posted this info previously, but here goes again.
The second of the two was my friends, was in somewhat rough condition and had an after market buttstock, Bishop I believe but I also have the original. I indicated as rough as it was it wasn't of much interest to me but when he offered it to me for $50.oo as a parts gun, I grabbed that one as well. I thought before I stripped it down for parts I'd first clean it up and see how it shoots. It's not perfect but it cleaned up not too bad so I used an S&K mount, put a scope on it and use it as a shooter and for some load tests.
I've got a couple of other targets, shot at 100 yds with a variety of bullets but I can't put my hands on them at the moment. Here's one of the first targets I shot, using some 174gr FMJ's that had been pulled from military ammo, and again, not bad for an 'old club'.
You're also quite right about the accuracy of the old Bren. Years ago, at a Army Cadet outing, as I recall, we had four of them on the firing line. We had been doing some firing with them and I believe about every fourth round in the mags was a tracer. We proceded to strip a bunch and loaded four mags with tracers only. Then once it got a little dark we cut loose with all four at the same time and the selector was on full auto. Almost felt like we were sitting in a Spitfire
.
TheWharGoul
CGN frequent flyer
- Location
- Thunder Bay, Ontario
Well, I shoot mine at the 300m gong we have set up and I can consistently hit it with open sights.
At 100m I haven't personally seen any proof of a wandering zero.
But that's my rifle.
At 100m I haven't personally seen any proof of a wandering zero.
But that's my rifle.
Roughneck12
Regular
- Location
- Blackfalds AB
I agree about the kick.lol
Not quite given the marksmanship the front line solders where expected to achieve with those rifles.
IIRC from what I have read in History books 600 and even 1200 yard shoots with iron sights where in order.
The problem I see with these rifles like many other Milsurps is the condition of the aging wood supporting the barrel, as swelling and shrinking over time can lead to harmonic issues and reduced accuracy.
Indeed, and I suspect the wandering zero is one of those long running myths to compensate for a flinch developed from a badly pulped shoulder. I'd like to see a modern definitive test on the Jungle carbine...mount several examples in a bench vise, measure groups, etc etc.
It's probable that some (possibly many) No5 rifles had issues with wandering zero, it's also almost certain that it was played up so that the Army could move on to semi-automatic weapons, despite having huge stocks of LE's in excellent condition.
Johnn Peterson
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Chemainus B.C.
To be mentioned as often as it is, obviously it has been a problem to some degree. As I mentioned earlier, I'm now on owning and shooting my 4th Jungle Carbine and I have yet to run into the problem. With a scope, while not 'tack drivers', have shot reasnoably well and I've got 100 yrd groups comparable to what I've posted earlier.
- Location
- Tucson, Arizona
Consider that just about every military post war had gone to self loading rifles. And here the MOD wanted to make the No5 the standard?
I met a fellow who was in the Brit Army in malasia. he said that the rule for Teams going to Bisley was that they ahd to use their issue rifles. So he had to shoot targets with his #5.
I gather some were more accurate than others, so the procedure was to get a good one and then shoot it. Much the same was we send a team to Bisely with their issue rifles.
He was unaware of any zero issue. But they did not shoot long rapid fire strings that might induce the problem, as described above.
I gather some were more accurate than others, so the procedure was to get a good one and then shoot it. Much the same was we send a team to Bisely with their issue rifles.
He was unaware of any zero issue. But they did not shoot long rapid fire strings that might induce the problem, as described above.
