No 5 Mk I Wandering Zero, is it true?

slushee

slushee

CGN frequent flyer
Rating - 100%
13   0   0
Location
Ontario
So I have been eyeing the old No 5 Mk I for a few years thinking it would be a nice old carbine to shoot with iron sights. Being a fan of the No 4 Mk I, my only hesitation has been the mythical "Wandering Zero" issue that apparently drummed this old girl out of service.

I was reading this Wiki page regarding the issue:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jungle_Carbine

However, modern collectors and shooters have pointed out that no Jungle Carbine collector/shooter on any of the prominent internet military firearm collecting forums has reported a confirmed "wandering zero" on their No. 5 Mk I rifle,[2]
Click to expand...

Nonetheless, it has also been pointed out by historians and collectors that the No. 5 Mk I must have had some fault not found with the No. 4 Lee-Enfield (from which the Jungle Carbine was derived), as the British military continued with manufacture and issue of the Lee-Enfield No. 4 Mk 2 rifle until 1957,[12] before finally converting to the L1A1 SLR.[13]
Click to expand...

2. ^ a b c d e f g h Wilson (2006)
Click to expand...
13. ^ Skennerton (2001), p.5
Click to expand...

So, I was interested in hearing from any of you owners of the old No 5 rifle to see if anyone has experienced any wandering zero issues. Also, I wonder if some of you could speculate if rough handling might have had something to do with the wandering zero issue?

Any comments, speculation or concern would be appreciated on this matter.
 
I have not shot mine extensively, but have had four or five go through my hands over the years, and shot them all a few times. I have two lightly sporterized (scoped) ones in my safe at this point. I have never seen any wandering zero. To be honest, my luck with getting accurate No5's has been better than getting accurate No4's, actually.
 
Peter Laidler on Milsurps.com, said, yes indeed the wandering zero story is true. Who would know better than him?

slushee said:
So I have been eyeing the old No 5 Mk I for a few years thinking it would be a nice old carbine to shoot with iron sights. Being a fan of the No 4 Mk I, my only hesitation has been the mythical "Wandering Zero" issue that apparently drummed this old girl out of service.

I was reading this Wiki page regarding the issue:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jungle_Carbine








So, I was interested in hearing from any of you owners of the old No 5 rifle to see if anyone has experienced any wandering zero issues. Also, I wonder if some of you could speculate if rough handling might have had something to do with the wandering zero issue?

Any comments, speculation or concern would be appreciated on this matter.
Click to expand...
 
Yes it is true. The #5 is a poor service rifle. Barrel is too short for 30 cal or simular rds. That's one reason you never see barrels that short on #1's or 4's. or 98 Mausers or 1903's etc. etc.
The Jungle Carbine is short, handy, fun etc. ,but mediocre on the accuracy scale.
 
The #5 was introduced at a time when most other militaries were switching over to more modern semi-auto/auto rifles and a reason to reject the #5 had to be found/invented so along came the wandering zero. Thats my conspiracy theory and I'm sticking to it.
 
QM 86 said:
Yes it is true. The #5 is a poor service rifle. Barrel is too short for 30 cal or simular rds. That's one reason you never see barrels that short on #1's or 4's. or 98 Mausers or 1903's etc. etc.
The Jungle Carbine is short, handy, fun etc. ,but mediocre on the accuracy scale.
Click to expand...

Barrel length has no affect on accuracy only velocity. A short barrel is usually stiffer than a long barrel which gives the shorter barrel the potential for better accuracy.
 
In my army days on a sniper course we never saw a barrel of 30 cal types shorter than 26 inches.
A short barrelled #5 carbine was not made to be accurate. Like a #4 I am sure they have been accurized by someone.
As to a Jungle Carbine's wandering zero, I do know that people at the top, want a military rifle to shoot pretty groups. And a rifle's capability on the range, good or bad, will out do it's other qualities.
 
Many of them are accurate enough for hunting. But realising the potential accuracy is somewhat dependent on the rifle fitting the shooter well. E.g a No.5 in original configuration is too short for me, but may be right for many people. And the extra weight of a No.4 may make the difference for some people by absorbing enough recoil to make that rifle more pleasant to shoot so they do better than with a No.5.
 
the #5 is not a range or target gun. It is a carbine, light and short for carrying through thick cover or jungles actually. A previous poster has said that barrel length has nothing to do with accuracy but I would question that, perhaps with a bench setup. Shooting offhand with a #5 a person should get 3 or 4 inch groups at a 100 yards. I think the biggest reason it is hard to shoot groups is because of the recoil which is more than a heavier gun. It is a good dependable bush gun. It was built for rough handling.
 
old hound said:
the #5 is not a range or target gun. It is a carbine, light and short for carrying through thick cover or jungles actually. A previous poster has said that barrel length has nothing to do with accuracy but I would question that, perhaps with a bench setup. Shooting offhand with a #5 a person should get 3 or 4 inch groups at a 100 yards. I think the biggest reason it is hard to shoot groups is because of the recoil which is more than a heavier gun. It is a good dependable bush gun. It was built for rough handling.
Click to expand...

This is a good summary. I have a No5 which I've used for hunting over the past 50 yrs. It's gotten me a few truckloads of deer, incl my best whitetail, a moose and a bear. Most animals were shot @ less than 100yds with a 180gr round nose bullet. It was tops for hunting in the heavy timber in NB when I was stationed there. Best accuracy off the bench with handloads is 2.5". I've had 3 different scopes on this rifle, the last one a Redfield 23/4X, and they all maintained their zero. I used to shoot a stock No5 quite a bit and it too kept it's zero.
 
Just got back from the range, where I shot my "new" Jungle Carbine.

What a fantastic little rifle, very smooth and fast action, lots of fun to shoot and accurate.

I shot 40+ rounds today and didn't encounter any wandering zero whatsoever.
 
I have put maybe 1000 rounds down two different No5Mk1's over all four seasons. I never experienced a wandering zero. Personally, I think these folks just forget to tighten down the action screw periodically. These rifles do kick and it is important to check your screws from time to time. I don't dispute that the wandering zero may exist, along with the unicorns and fairies.
 
Opinion from owning a single Carbine

I have a No5 that I am happy with: maybe I "lucked out" on it because I have never felt I had to do better. It gets with reloads off of a sled (I always use a sled because it takes out human factors) from 1.25 to 1.5 inch groups constistantly.

QM 86 said:
Barrel is too short for 30 cal or simular rds. The Jungle Carbine is short, handy, fun etc. ,but mediocre on the accuracy scale.
Click to expand...

I agree with the short barrel issue: I think it is a heat and humidity issue. The barrel in hot Jungle conditions and the thin stock in humid Jungle conditions could cause accuracy issues: the zero could change from a 50% humidity 20degree night to a 100% humidity 50degree day easily. I disagree with "mediocre accuracy" because it was designed for "minute-of-man" accuracy and not minute-of-angle accuracy. One has to remember the origional purpose of the design: less than 200 yard shots on a 12 - 24" wide target.

Riflechair said:
Personally, I think these folks just forget to tighten down the action screw periodically. These rifles do kick and it is important to check your screws from time to time.
Click to expand...

My opinion is that a lot of mil-surp owners assume it is "just an old rifle" and treat it with less care than their scoped MOA rifle. I feel that military rifles need more care because they would normally have a soldier (and as needed an armorer) asssigned to that gun to clean, lube, grease and overall take excellent care of it. A "Jungle Carbine" needs care like any other: I will do a cleaning and a 2 minute check on mine after every trip to the range/field where shots are made: she is 66 years old and could last forever the way I take care of it.

My biased opinion: buy one it you want one. :stirthepot2:
 
my jungle carbine shoots a lot better after I put about 4or5# pressure under the barrel at the end of the forend. it shoots 1 1/2 to 2" groups at a 100yds and does not wander, and yes short barrels shoot just as good as long barrels. the shorter sight radius on the carbine makes it more difficult to shoot though.
 
I have two that show no signs of it. They both shoot as well as my no.4's & no.1's. The kick leaves an impression though, literally and figuratively.

If I become a hobo, I'm going to call myself "the wandering zero".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom