No. 5 Accuracy

[303carbine]

I have a new to me 1946 No5Mk1 that I took for a new years stroll, I did some shooting at a local gravel pit.
I shot at 200 yds , the targets were rocks about the size of a soccer ball, 10 shots, 10 hits shooting prone, no wandering zero.
All that was needed to get it to shoot to point of aim was installing a shorter front sight.

[villiers]

I think the `wandering zero´ people mean that accuracy diminishes when the barrel heats up. So you´d need more than ten rounds.

[Peter Laidler]

I was thinking the same Villiers. 303Carbine......, you weren't involved in a running gun battle either, where it really shows, even at shorter ranges!

[Ridolpho]

I think the `wandering zero´ people mean that accuracy diminishes when the barrel heats up. So you´d need more than ten rounds.

To me "wandering zero" would seem to suggest successive groups with changing "POI" not simply increasing dispersion. And since the barrel is fully floating (forward of the reinforce bearing) why would simply heating it up change anything? My rifle (with restored original bedding but using Remington FMJ) doesn't seem to be affected by 30-40 fairly quick shots while that in an earlier post in this thread (Parashooter using Mk VII) does.

Ridolpho

[Seaspriter]

First, I am NOT an expert on the Wandering Zero problem on the "Jungle Carbines," but I have done extensive research and reading on the issue and own two No.5's.

From what I can gather, the Wandering Zero problem was neither constant nor universal. Apparently no one ever figured out exactly why it happened. But as Captain Laidler says, it happened more with highly heated barrels, but other factors seemed also to be at play.

On YouTube there are a many videos of people shooting No.5s with a high degree of accuracy and no Wandering Zero problems.

If your gun is fine, don't worry about it, just give it TLC.

[Peter Laidler]

I know it's a glib point Ridolpho, but it begs the question why did the Army discover this and why did they seek to rectify the problem? And why did the problem(?) continue for so long afterwards? We knew about and experienced this into the late 60's....., well before it was disclosed to the outside collectors world. The bodies were flexible at the rear.

Just like my Spanish made VW Polo. Never put a foot wrong and flogged mercilessly. My friend wouldn't have another if you gave it to him. Nice little rifle but I wouldn't take one out to use in a competition that involved advance to contact snap and rapid shooting..........

[villiers]

It could also be a problem if (and when) dirt fouled up the space between the barrel and the fore-end (it´d no loger be `free floating´). I run a pice of paper under the barrel as far as it´ll go when I clean it after shooting.

[Ridolpho]

I know it's a glib point Ridolpho, but it begs the question why did the Army discover this and why did they seek to rectify the problem? And why did the problem(?) continue for so long afterwards? We knew about and experienced this into the late 60's....., well before it was disclosed to the outside collectors world. The bodies were flexible at the rear.
.

Thanks Peter. Can you explain to a non-engineering sort, like myself, why the flexibility would lead to the observed accuracy issues? What changes from shot to shot or group to group? It reminds me a bit of a similar historically documented accuracy issue with another fairly light weight, rear-locking rifle- the Tokarev SVT 40. The Soviets documented substantial headspace expansion upon firing due to stretch plus the bolt lockup is asymmetrical. The SVT, supposedly, would put the first shot many inches away from the remaining 9 which might group well. This first shot flyer was, obviously, a big problem for the newly designated sniper rifle. Strangely, I haven't been able to replicate this phenomonon with any of my SVT's using standard military spec ammo. Regrards.

Ridolpho

[Peter Laidler]

In simple non engineering terms, taken straight from the paperwork and the experience of users, it was as though the group, such as it was a group(?) shifted, to a greater or lesser extent to......., well, anywhere. As though the bolt face wasn't square to the mechanical axis of the bore which it MUST be. That's why we have a test for it. That makes the group spread wildly. The fact is that there WAS a problem, much like my friends VW had one - but mine doesn't.

[Parashooter]

To me "wandering zero" would seem to suggest successive groups with changing "POI" not simply increasing dispersion. . . My rifle (with restored original bedding but using Remington FMJ) doesn't seem to be affected by 30-40 fairly quick shots while that in an earlier post in this thread (Parashooter using Mk VII) does.

I apologize for any confusion caused by my post. To me, the placement of shots 26-30 in the same ~4" group as shots 1-10 demonstrated that my No.5 did not show any significant change in POI after 25 quick shots. (Shots 11-25 were fired with a different load at the lower target - just trying to conserve good Mk7 by heating up the rifle with cheap handloads.)

100 yards

Upper target: shots 1-10 and 26-30, Mk7, X=POA (6:00 hold)
Lower target: shots 11-25, handloads, 6:00 hold.