message board home
Next
12/21/2021 10:44:06 AM
 
Reply
or ReplyNewSubject
Section 9: Military Weapons Subject: Jungle Carbine Sporter Msg# 1145414
|
||||||
|
In my experience, a wandering zero that cannot be traced to loose sights, optic mount, etc is a bedding problem. The way those stocks parts attach, plus the wrap around barrel wood is far from optimal for accuracy. Back then “free floated barrel” meant someone’s keg of salt pork had fallen overboard. |
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
For reference, the above message is a reply to a message where: Pardon me for jumping in, but the Lee-Enfield happens to be one of my favorite rifles, and my very first one was a No.5. The British had accepted over 50,000 into service by the end of 1944, where they mostly saw service in the Far East, but the No. 5 was declared obsolete by 1947. There were likely several reasons but the "wandering zero" persists as one likely reason. According to our NRA this was one reason and also one that the British attempted to solve, without doing so. The British, according to NRA, decided it was an inherent problem and not one that could be fixed. I've read a number of things since these decades-old comments from our NRA addressing possibilities. It is possible that the lightening cuts in the receiver were the reason the rifle wouldn't hold zero. Other authorities question this as the "wandering zero" was not universal, it didn't affect every single rifle. For what it's worth, the surplus No.5 I owned did not exhibit this problem. Interestingly enough, this was a rifle the troops really liked--not a surprise as it was a lot more comfortable to carry and maneuver in the jungles of Burma, for example, than the much longer and heavier No.4. To me, that suggests the wandering zero issue has been over-stated and played up over the years into a larger issue than it really was. But that's just my opinion. |
