Lee Enfield #5 "Wandering Zero?"

[bushwhacker]

Is the wandering zero an actual phenomenon or a military myth? I have read about this in various publications, but no one here is crying about their Jungle Carbine not shooting consistently. I can think of no logical reason this should occur, other than improper bedding. Bill

 

[ColdOne]

I had read that it hasn't been duplicated and may have been soldiers trying to find a reason to be reissued a No. 4 instead as the 5 had a little more backwards thump..

 

[recce]

I have heard that the Brits were considering issuing the No 5 as the main rifle instead of adopting the FN, troops wanted the FN and the myth was born.

Don't know if its true, but it sounds possible.

 

[muh-muh-muh-mauser]

I heard that it was a myth spawned by the soldiers because they didn't want to be stuck with another bolt gun, not while everyone else was being issued with semi autos.

 

[ColdOne]

So we consistantly agree that it was a myth because they wanted something else! As to what they wanted, well that remains to be decided!

 

[303carbine]

no 5

Like I always said, the only "wandering zero" is the guy who made up this myth.

 

[maple_leaf_eh]

The accuracy of a .303 No.4 is a function of barrel harmonics and pressures imparted all along the long foreend. Just because there is one less point of contact in the complicated recipe of accuracy, doesn't necessarily mean one more opportunity for improvement.

The DCRA target shooters found that for a while a free-floated long-barreled Lee Enfield was the king at long range (800, 900, 1000 yds), better than all the competition. Something about barrel whip and flipping the action at the right vibration node to hammer the 147gr FMJ into the target. This situation disappeared when they switched to shooter-supplied 155gr ammunition and purpose built tubular receiver target rifles.

When testing across a broad sample of No.5's it is entirely possible that the short wood introduced an unexpected and unacceptible whip on a significant enough percentage of rifles. When 5% (or whatever it was) of trained soldiers can't hit their target due to rifle performance, that is reason for concern.

My 2 pence for what its worth.

 

[slicknick]

Or it could be that by the time the No.5 was issued, the Commonwealth was getting a little low on man power and training time. Thus maybe the latest batch of soldiers couldn't hit jack-#### anyway?

 

[longbranch*]

No.5

Another myth is the "vicious recoil" of a No.5 which is no more than any cutdown No.4 or MKIII.
Geoff

 

[Ripstop]

They did lighten the receiver and the bolt on my #5. I suspect that would not aid in soaking up the recoil.

 

[Calum]

Another myth is the "vicious recoil" of a No.5 which is no more than any cutdown No.4 or MKIII.
Geoff

Well compare it to non sportsterized Enfield and you will see that the Number 5 does have quite abit more recoil then the others, and it's wedged shape hockey puck butt stock doesn't help much.

 

[reccman]

I was just out shooting my No5 and found no hint of the sight wandering after 3 days of shhoting maybe 100rds thru it. I was constantly hitting a 4" stump at about 75 +-10 yards. Recoil is not as bad as I thought it would be, my 12 ga with the AR slider was a lot worse.

 

[Unsub]

I heard that it was the lightening cuts in the receiver that was responsible for the wandering zero.

 

[stencollector]

I heard that it was the lightening cuts in the receiver that was responsible for the wandering zero.

That was Skennerton's theory in the "Lee Enfield Story". The flexing of the lightened receiver caused an unsquare breech condition while firing. The problem was corrected by replacing the #5 receiver with an un-lightened #4 receiver.
The #4 receivers are generally regarded as having marginal strength,( which is why they make a poor frame for rebarreling to larger/more powerful calibers) so the lightening of the frame certainly wouldn't help this weakness any. I'm certain this statement will endure me the wrath of Enfield lovers everywhere, but I'm only repeating what the older weapons gurus have told me.

I've had quite a number of guys claim there #5s are consistently accurate.

 

[Skippy]

^^^
Edit: Let me just remove my foot from my mouth.

 

[John Sukey]

The No4 has marginal strength? So all those converted to 7.62 NATO are dangerous? I don't think so.

However H.M. government has always been noted for doing things "on the cheap" where the army is concerned. Every other major power and a lot of minor ones were switching to Self Loading rifles, and I would guess the Army didn't want to be left behind.

 

[stencollector]

The No4 has marginal strength? So all those converted to 7.62 NATO are dangerous? I don't think so.

As I said earlier:

I'm certain this statement will endure me the wrath of Enfield lovers everywhere, but I'm only repeating what the older weapons gurus have told me.

Don't get me wrong here, I love Enfields as much as anyone. But placing the load towards the back of the receiver instead of at the breech like a mauser, means any flexing of the receiver during firing may effect the headspacing and also can cause the "out of square" breech problem which Skenerton talks about.
I never said that the .308 conversion was dangerous, but if you start converting to much stronger cartridges it may be. And if you really want to live on the edge, why not use a no5 receiver where much of the left side of the receiver has been removed.

 

[John Sukey]

Lets put it this way, the No4 action, and for that matter the SMLE action were quite strong enough for the cartridges they were designed for.

For that matter, you will turn one of those wonderful 98 mausers into scrap metal with loads that won't even bother a 6.5 Arisaka. (proven in actual destructive testing)

 

[stencollector]

Lets put it this way, the No4 action, and for that matter the SMLE action were quite strong enough for the cartridges they were designed for.

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.

 

[woodchopper]

I'll stick with the theory that everyone was getting self loading rifles so the story was cooked up and fed to the politicians sothe army could get the FN (or EM2 as the trials were ongoing)