No 5 Rifles used in Europe 1945

#2
I wonder what the advantage would be in the European theatre?

If the soldier in the top photo isn't able to say

'No, stop messing about!'

In true Kenneth Williams manner, there's no justice in the world.
 
#3
I wonder what the advantage would be in the European theatre?

If the soldier in the top photo isn't able to say

'No, stop messing about!'

In true Kenneth Williams manner, there's no justice in the world.
Good point or someone had already sussed that we didn't need weapon or round that could shoot out to distances where you couldn't see anyone?

Personally, i always wondered why we didn't copy the boxheads , and make an intermediate round for the .303

......would have make savings on brass and propellant too.......modify or adapt the mag platform, and crack on
 
Last edited:
#4
I wonder what the advantage would be in the European theatre?

If the soldier in the top photo isn't able to say

'No, stop messing about!'

In true Kenneth Williams manner, there's no justice in the world.
These soldiers appear to be all from Airborne Forces so perhaps it was thought to be easier to parachute with ?
 
#6
These soldiers appear to be all from Airborne Forces so perhaps it was thought to be easier to parachute with ?

Maybe? but people have always known that .plus the No 5 had been in production since March 44 , months before Arnhem - why not issue to them for that Op?
 
#7
Maybe? but people have always known that .plus the No 5 had been in production since March 44 , months before Arnhem - why not issue to them for that Op?
Now that I couldn't say ...perhaps Burma was a higher priority for the No.5 than parachutists ? Or Airborne Forces simply didn't know about it ? Pure speculation on my part .
 
#8
I notice most of the photos appear to be taken away from combat areas. Maybe they were issued to rear echelons.
 
#10
I notice most of the photos appear to be taken away from combat areas. Maybe they were issued to rear echelons.
They seem to mainly show 1st Airborne Div in Norway in 1945.

Which cap badges are the guys in those photos wearing ? I'm afraid I can't really make them out.
 
#11
By the time Norway had to be covered the war was well over, and much of the UK strength that was not required for occupation duties would have been earmarked for the far east ?
 
#18
The no5 was intended to become standard issue,not just an airborne item.(Bit like 44 pattern webbing,but in the end it was pretty much exclusively airborne issue). The recoil was horrendous,and it always lost it's zero.Probably because the full size round was too powerful for an intermediate rifle.
 
#19
The no5 was intended to become standard issue,not just an airborne item.(Bit like 44 pattern webbing,but in the end it was pretty much exclusively airborne issue). The recoil was horrendous,and it always lost it's zero.Probably because the full size round was too powerful for an intermediate rifle.
Myth of the zero problem?

I spoken to shooters of No 5s who have never had a a problem ....with various types of rounds or loads.

Wandering Zero[edit]

The blade bayonet for a Lee–Enfield No 5 Mk I.
One of the complaints leveled against the No. 5 Mk I rifle by soldiers was that it had a "wandering zero" — i.e., the rifle could not be "sighted in" and then relied upon to shoot to the same point of impact later on.[3]

Tests conducted during the mid to late 1940s appeared to confirm that the rifle did have some accuracy issues, most likely relating to the lightening cuts made in the receiver, combined with the presence of a flash suppressoron the end of the barrel,[12] and the British Government officially declared that the Jungle Carbine's faults were "inherent in the design" and discontinued production at the end of 1947.[13]

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,[3] leading to speculation that the No. 5 Mk I may have been phased out largely because the British military did not want a bolt-action rifle when most of the other major militaries were switching over to semi-automatic longarms[3] such as the M1 Garand, SKS, FN Model 1949 and MAS-49. (Anecdotal evidence from shooters of military surplus firearms suggests that the wandering zero problem — if there is one — can be cured by free-floating the barrel and glass-bedding the action.)

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,[14] before finally converting to the L1A1 SLR.[15]
 
#20
Good point or someone had already sussed that we didn't need weapon or round that could shoot out to distances where you couldn't see anyone?

Personally, i always wondered why we didn't copy the boxheads , and make an intermediate round for the .303

......would have make savings on brass and propellant too.......modify or adapt the mag platform, and crack on

cut the case down to 39mm and make it rimless perhaps??....... hey! ak a min....
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top