No 5 Jungle Carbine

[newfoundlander]

The "Wardering Zero" of the No5 MkI is once of the most repeated "factual" statements " in the milsurp collecting world. Most who see a No5 think to themseleves..."that's a Jungle carbine which has a wandering zero". The No 5 is just that: a No 5 MkI. The label "Jungle Carbine" was applied by commercial vendors in the US who wanted to hype up the batches of No5's than being declared surplus. The rifles did see use in Malayan and Indian conflicts but it was intended to be a replacement for the No4MkI rather than act as a "special forces" type of weapon. The No5 wasn't liked by the brass as they were keen to get their hands on an SLR that had been in development for sometime. There were reports from the field that the gun did have difficulty maintaining a predetermined zero but this was largely the result of the affect temperature and humidity had on the rifle's bedding. No5MkII versions alleviated this somewhat but there were other factors at play. The shape of the butt stock which caused the heel to rise ever so slightly on the shoulder when fired. The aforementioned lightening cuts in the rear of the receiver did cause some flexing. There was no real concerted attempt or interest to save the No5 as organizational momentum had already began to realize the adoption of the SLR. Any limitation or problem with the No5 could only be beneficial to those pushing for the adoption of an all new weapons platform not based on the Lee Enfield.

I've owned and fired a number of No5's over the years and they are fine reifles with cast or jacketed rounds. Any accuracy problems that arose were due to the condition of the bore, loose actions or were technique related. I personally dislike the over sized aperture on the standard No5 sight and find it difficult to maintain a repeatable sight picture. The aperture on the leaf is better but I prefer to use a Parker Hale 5C with interchangeable aperture. Once set to my preference my No5's have always achieved very good accuracy comparable with the No4 out as far as 300 yards. I shoot prone with a sling from a consistent position. IMO bench fired No5's with standard sights produced acceptable accuracy but the flinch inducing recoil and vague open sight picture don't induce confidence in the shooter. When it comes to accuracy in No5's you have to have a clean bore, tight action and stock, a good sight picture and a repeatable shooting position.

[BruceB]

To this day, forty-four years after the event, I still believe a #5 Mk I either saved my life or spared me from serious injury. I killed an oncoming black bear at essentially zero range, so close that there may not have been ROOM for a full-length #4 rifle in the gap between the bear and my tender hide. The "accuracy" was ample, and the action speed was superb...I SWEAR that I had at least three empties in the air at the same time. I was fresh from extensive Army training with the #4, and in those days I could REALLY run the rifle at high speed.

The recoil of the #5 is easily reduced for range sessions by the simple addition of an inexpensive slip-on recoil pad.

Major E. G. B. Reynolds, widely accepted as an eminent authority on the Lee-Enfield rifles, wrote in "The Lee-Enfield Rifle" (1962): "The No. 5 Rifle performed admirably in the role for which it was designed, and despite its rather unpleasant recoil, was popular with the troops as a jungle-fighting weapon."

"...it was not easy to keep correctly sighted, and suffered from what was known as a "wandering zero". This was a serious defect and many attempts were made to eradicate it. Trials were performed with different forms of stocking-up, and a Mark II pattern was eventually developed, with which further trials were carried out in 1945 and 1946. In the new pattern, the stock fore-end and handguard were extended to within about 1/2" of the rear of the flash eliminator, and the rear end of the fore-end was strengthened by a stout screw and nut. The Mark II never went into production, and it was eventually decided that the cause of the "wandering zero" was inherent in the design of the weapon and not the result of movement of unseasoned woodwork as had been suspected. The decision not to retain the No. 5 Rifle in the British Service was made in July, 1947, and it was declared obsolescent."


The rear sight of the #5 is different from that of a #4, being calibrated to "only" 800 yards instead of the 1300 of the more-elaborate of the #4 sights. The large "battle sight" aperture is intended for fast, close-range work, and as such it is just about perfect, in my experience. The plan was that if time permitted, the leaf would be raised and a sight adjustment applied. I have used the battle sight extensively in bush country, and it works just fine. One's eye will automatically center the front sight in the aperture IF the aperture is ignored in favor of concentrating on the front sight.

I've owned Garands and M-14/M1A rifles for at least thirty years, and the first modification I make on a new-to-me rifle is enlarging that damned tiny aperture in the rear sight. The #4/#5 sights spoiled me, and also taught me a good bit about using such sights. That teensy aperture is the single greatest failing in the entire as-issued M1/M-14 design, in my not-very-humble opinion. It's fine on the range, but a PITA in any sort of cover or poor light. I have taken them up as large as 3/16", and still got good accuracy.....but, I'm accustomed to shooting with the #4 battle sight.

The Parker-Hale sights are great, and I even used one of them on a sporterized #4 for hunting, with the addition of an iris aperture which was set as wide as it would go....a BIG hole. No moose ever complained. I still have a P-H 5C with iris mounted on my as-new #4 MkII.

[quasi]

I have run a few #5's, still have 2 in the family. The zero's don't wander here in Alberta! I find them the perfect truck , utility, predator defense, camping gun.

[HABCAN]

Quasi, that's my experience exactly. Maybe it's the (lack of) humidity here?
And no, they don't kick hard.

[newfoundlander]

"The Wandering Zero" was really only a concern of The Crown's Armourer's in parts of the Commonwealth and those with an interest, vested or not, in killing the gun. It's a fine gun with built in limiiations. The gun was as a lighter version of the No4 without any unconventional materials in its design like bakelite or aluminum as were being tried in Canada. The No 5 was meant to be portable and light above all else. It was NOT a spec-ops spook gun as many would like to think. The No 5 was in ever sense a "No4 Lee Enfeidl lite"

[quasi]

I agree Habcan, anyone who thinks a #5 "kicks" should try a Marlin 1895 GG with heavy loads, they "kick" to me!

[DaveInFloweryBranchGA]

Don't know if it's ok to post here, but I have an excellent condition buttstock for a #5, it's had most of the filth, oil grease, etc cleaned off and is about ready for refinishing. Wood is excellent piece of walnut, but very plain.

If anyone needs a stock that isn't rotted out for their
#5, this is a good one. $35.00 plus shipping to your local.

Regards,

Dave

[Russell James]

These rifles served well in the Australian army in the jungles of Malaya and the like.
My father carried one and loved it as after carrying the No 4 in Korea believed the No 5 was much better suited to the confines of jungle warfare...............
Just the opinion of an old Digger.........
Lest we forget.
Russell James.

[robertbank]

Just another gotta buy one. Now I have the SKS I shuold get on the buy wagon again!

Take care

Bob

[longbow]

I've got a No. 5 and got one for my son.

I always kinda liked them and never got around to buying one when they were $25.00 at the Army and Navy Store in Vancouver.

Neither of these are in particularly great shape but they shoot okay. I have been working up cast boolit loads with a Lyman 314299 lapped and Beagled to get a 0.305" nose and 0.315" body. So far that is working not bad over IMR 4227 or 4198 with filler.

I have also been getting some pretty good results with paper patched boolits too but testing for both PP and plain cast continues. I'm thinking I need a scope to sort out shooter error from load issues at this point (old eyes and issue sites).

Haven't shot enough to note a wandering zero but I have read that it exists and that it doesn't. Seems to be opinions both ways. When I get time to do a little more shooting maybe I will find out.

All in all I like it.

Longbow

[dukenukum]

my #5 rocks using about any bullet and powder , the wandering zero is not that bad on mine 3inches at 50 yards all in minute of game animal .

[swabbie]

I woudn't trade my 1946 #5 for anything.Light years superior to my Mosin M44,and accurate enuff for my 200 yard range