Lee Enfield #5 "Wandering Zero?"

stencollector said:
Agreed. But this again leads in to Skennertons theory that the missing metal on the left side of the receiver, as used on the #5, possibly pushed the envelope too far, resulting in the inconsistent accuracy/wandering zero.
Click to expand...

Possibly, but the No5 was meant to kill people, not shoot tight groups on paper. It did that very well.

Both explanations could be correct at the same time, so no argument on either one. I do wonder what possessed the MOD to think of equipping the entire army with No5's when they were literaly swimming in No4's;)
 
Hmm. Well My No5 shoots very accuratly and consistently.
I'm not sure I understand the flexing reciever theory but unless the reciever bent perminently (did not return to its oringnal position) the sights would be in the same spot after every shot, and thus shooting would be consistent.
 
Oh boy, time to get yelled at!

A few years back, right out of the Army, I helped a mate of mine with his Lee-Enfield No. 5 Jungle Carbine. We took it to the range and zeroed it to him. We spent the day messing around with it and had a problem when his zero wandered. I even checked it and had 2" groupings at 100m before and was all over the paper after, having made marksman, I figured it wasn't either of us. So we took a close look at the weapon and saw that there was a crack in the buttstock. The crack was minor, but still a concern considering we were firing .303 British ammo out of such a light carbine. Now, the zero definitely did wander, but the mitigating circumstance of the faulty buttstock may have had something to do with it as it may have changed the dynamics of the recoil absorption. Also, at that time we had no idea of any mention of a wandering zero on the No. 5's but after a bit of research we found a few articles mentioning it. Judging from the commentary from this board I can't help but wonder if it is just a case of a few more duds than normal were passed due to the pressure of production at the time.
 
Greenhorse six said:
what about the 7.62mm Rifle L42A1 or the 7.62mm "Envoy"Match rifle made by Enfield.

The No4 action handles 7.62mm as well as any.
Click to expand...

I think the heavy snakeskin barrel on the L42 series is what makes it as good as it was. They were essentially a heavy barrel with a receiver hanging off one end. Note that the initial .308 #4 conversions (The L8) in the British military were not adequate, and that project was scrapped. So you cannot make the blanket claim that the #4 action handles .308 as well as any. Also, note that the #2A Ishapore rifles, which were .308, used a superior steel in the receivers.
Anyway, I'll say it for the last time. The #4 receivers are fine for the .303 cartridge, and set up properely, will handle the .308. But weakening the action on the #5 by lightening it is what has been blamed for the wandering zero theory.

I knew that by saying anything about an Enfield that could be considered non-positive (or even negative as some would coin it) I would have to endure the emotional arguements that would follow.
 
Has anyone defined "wandering zero" vs. "accuracy"?

I always understood a wandering zero as having a single cause - bedding issues. Flexing of the receiver would (I think) affect accuracy, i.e. contribute to consistently large group sizes, not the location of the centre of the group.

This "JC Wandering Zero" issue can't be resolved without a large batch of representative rifles, in original conditon, tested in a scientific fashion. Won't ever happen, so we need to get used to it. The discussions are worthwhile though.

Yea - people take it personally when someone suggests that their rifle is not the best ever made, faultless, beautiful to the eye and the touch, etc.

I have one - I think it looks cool, and is fun to shoot (maybe I'm not a wuss, but I think it kicks like a small dog, not a mule), but it is not something I will ever take to a milshoot and expect to break the top six.
 
Last edited:
stencollector said:
Agreed. But this again leads in to Skennertons theory that the missing metal on the left side of the receiver, as used on the #5, possibly pushed the envelope too far, resulting in the inconsistent accuracy/wandering zero.
Click to expand...

While I have the greatest respect for Ian, his "hypothesis" is just that, an educated guess for the source of a rumor.

He presents no empirical proof that there even IS a wandering zero, let alone the cause for it. My theory is he mentioned it in his book only because it's is such a gunshow lore mainstay to discuss the fabled zero problem on the No.5 rifle.

I've shot MANY No.5 rifles, all were as accurate as a typical No.4, no more - no less. (maybe slightly less accurate due to the shorter sight radius, but essentially negligible) - certainly the center of the shot groups didn't wander around the targets.

As for action flexing, the No.5 receiver IS STIFFER, better hardened and composed of more homogenous steel alloy than the older Long Lee receivers without a charger bridge re-inforcement and no-one complains about them having a wandering zero ;)

Remember, the .303 is a pussycat round compared to even the 7.62 NATO. IMHO, the No.5 is completely adequate in every way, save that it was not the semi-automatic the troops were expecting/demanding ;)
 
Last edited:
Also to add - the .303 is every bit as effective a man-stopper as the 7.62 Nato ever was. The desire to change to that round had more to do with conforming to the NATO standards than any perceived shortcommings of the rifles and ammunition then in use.

FWIW, as much as I like the EM-2 concept, I think the Brits eventually settled on the best rifle available at the time - the SLR ;)
 
One final comment - it's a little known fact that Longbranch made a small run of rifles in the No.5 genre for consideration as a lightweight rifle for arctic use (not jungle use ;) ) - the originals would have XP prefixed serial numbers and be built on a standard, non-relief cut No.4 receiver, if any survive today(?). As I understand it, the rifles were very well received during troop trials, but the military brass did not see enough of an advantage over the issue No.4 to go to the expense of building a new rifle variant.
 
Originally posted by stencollector
Note that the initial .308 #4 conversions (The L8) in the British military were not adequate, and that project was scrapped. So you cannot make the blanket claim that the #4 action handles .308 as well as any. Also, note that the #2A Ishapore rifles, which were .308, used a superior steel in the receivers.
Click to expand...
By that time the army did'nt need bolt actions and the L8 was intended for police security forces, not general issue.

any bolt action made with poor steel would'nt handle .308 's vary well,but the No4action is sound and vary capable of handling it
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom