Made in England

#6
jonwilly said:
Myth Legend has it that the No 5 rifle had a tendency for the 'Sights' to wander in service use.
john
Not something I have observed in the three I've owned. But I try not to get them too hot. My guess is that in a steamy jungle the shortened fore end wood might warp and press the barrel in a bad way. Just a guess as it gets right steamy here and I've never had any wandering zero.

they are excellent, sturdy arms that make quick kills on game.
 
#7
What's the kick like as compared to SMLE and No 4?
 
#8
Bizarre, we were talking of this very rifle in the pub last night. Curiously I was a big fan but another, more knowledgable, chap suggested they were less accurate. However he is a big fan of the MLE and SMLE Mk III so might be biased!
 

ugly

LE
Moderator
#9
Give yourself 10 pressups for leaning a rifle up against anything!
And another 100 as I have just sold my service rifles and I'm tetchy!
 
#10
It's not a bad kicker at all. It has a distinctive report which is sort of a "CHOOM", but the actual recoil is only a tad more than a NO.4. Not really noticeable. If you have a heavy shirt on and some ear plugs you can fire it all day quite happily.

This is my only Brit arm at the moment, but I do have a nice Hi Power on lay-away down at the gunshop, which has British "FTR 1963" markings. Should have it to show off in a few weeks.

These WW2 era (the J.C. is actually a 1946 Fazakerly) guns are still available and fairly affordable over here. At the current exchange rate you guys could clean up on these guns.

The J.C. is my very favorite excepting a few handed down from my Pop. You folks should be proud; I am dam proud for you for certain.

When my brother and I get together for shooting or hunting we are basically awestruck over our Lee-Enfields. And proud of the hand James Paris Lee had in it as well! LOL!
 
#11
Point taken over leaning the J.C. up against the barn wall. No Septics were harmed in the making of these photographs! Regarding accuracy vs. the No.4 or SMLE, of course with the shorter tube the velocity is less (around 2200 fps vs. 2440 w/ the full length barrel). Correspondingly the trajectory is a bit steeper which makes hits at any distance more difficult. But the basic accuracy is just as good. One trades trajectory and sighting radius for ease of handling/less weight to tote. Which is not a bad trade for 99% of use.
 

Attachments

#12
My understanding of the "wandering zero" is that the lightening of the receiver
was the chief culprit. The unbalanced of milling the receiver coupled with the
rear locking bolt led to the accuracy problems. Why they bothered I don't know as the weight reduction acheived seems minimal.

I haven't shot mine much past 200 yards but at that distance it is definitely on a par with my No.4s and the SMLE.

Nice one, by the way, and if not import marked, quite valuable too.
 

ugly

LE
Moderator
#13
The wandering zero was started as a myth by the WD who didnt want to replace the No4 with the No5. Seeing how we had 2 million No4 rifles and we really didnt need to rearm and the troops returning from the Far East thought the No5 to be a better rifle. The distance issues would have been cleared up by recalibrating the rear sight but it was a typical UK compromise, shortern the service rifle instead of issuing a new one or buying US made carbines and adding to supply issues.
This was all done early on in the war when the No4 was already accepted for service, it does show forward thinking. The real problem was the .303 cartridge which was by then already out of date but wars dictate what you fight with rather than the other way around.
 
#14
ROF(F)? Would that be Fazackerly?
 

ugly

LE
Moderator
#15
Cuddles said:
ROF(F)? Would that be Fazackerly?
Yes, you can also tell the year from the serial no prefix.
 
#16
ugly said:
The wandering zero was started as a myth by the WD who didnt want to replace the No4 with the No5. Seeing how we had 2 million No4 rifles and we really didnt need to rearm and the troops returning from the Far East thought the No5 to be a better rifle. The distance issues would have been cleared up by recalibrating the rear sight but it was a typical UK compromise, shortern the service rifle instead of issuing a new one or buying US made carbines and adding to supply issues.
This was all done early on in the war when the No4 was already accepted for service, it does show forward thinking. The real problem was the .303 cartridge which was by then already out of date but wars dictate what you fight with rather than the other way around.
The Rearsight for the No.5 is differently calibrated and only goes up to 800.
 

ugly

LE
Moderator
#17
There you go then, I also suspect that not all ammo available is to the same spec as Mk7z which is what it should be, Winchester 180 soft points for instance will not print correctly but after 200 yards a scope is an easier option even on Whitetail which are similar in size to our Fallow.
 
#18
A lot of Sterlings were made at Fazackerly. Then they closed it. :D
 

ugly

LE
Moderator
#19
Apparently it had poor industrial relations!
 
#20
Apparently it was deemed that a new NSAF should be built at Nottingham!

Oh and Scousers were being narky about T&Cs, while Enfield workers were unwilling to change and were too expensive!
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top