2 replies on “Lee Enfield No.4 vs No.5 accuracy comparison at 100 yards – Jungle Carbine wandering zero a fact?”
The “wandering zero” problem, if it indeed was a problem, was encountered using OEM iron sights, and not telescopic sights. Your use of a scope on the No. IV and No. V models demonstrates the accuracy potential of these rifles, but does not do much to answer whether the “wandering zero” was real or not.
If memory serves, the British specialists assigned to the task did indeed determine that the zero could move under hard use, a defect they blamed upon lightening cuts made in the receiver and in other places on the “jungle carbine” variant of the Lee-Enfield, but not on the full-sized rifles. Their use in the extremely wet and humid equatorial tropics may have had something to do with the problem also; I am referring to the use of the carbines in the Malayan Emergency of the late 1940s and 1950s.
Thanks for the interesting & wise comments about the Jungle Lee-Enfield!
Grumpy
2 replies on “Lee Enfield No.4 vs No.5 accuracy comparison at 100 yards – Jungle Carbine wandering zero a fact?”
The “wandering zero” problem, if it indeed was a problem, was encountered using OEM iron sights, and not telescopic sights. Your use of a scope on the No. IV and No. V models demonstrates the accuracy potential of these rifles, but does not do much to answer whether the “wandering zero” was real or not.
If memory serves, the British specialists assigned to the task did indeed determine that the zero could move under hard use, a defect they blamed upon lightening cuts made in the receiver and in other places on the “jungle carbine” variant of the Lee-Enfield, but not on the full-sized rifles. Their use in the extremely wet and humid equatorial tropics may have had something to do with the problem also; I am referring to the use of the carbines in the Malayan Emergency of the late 1940s and 1950s.
Thanks for the interesting & wise comments about the Jungle Lee-Enfield!
Grumpy