No. 5 Accuracy

We're probably all familiar with the inherent accuracy problems the No. 5 displays. Thought it might be interesting to hear what No. 5 owner/ shooters have found- does your zero wander?

I only own one No. 5 and it's a well used old girl. The draws area completely fell apart when I disassembled it (old vertically dowelled Indian armourers patches) so I was forced to repair it. You can see the transverse dowels I installed to help hold the walnut replacement piece in place. Eventually I had it fully floated forward of the barrel reinforce and the attached targets show my first test of the repairs for accuracy (about 100 rounds through it by the time I shot these). I was getting groups like the right hand target over a sandbag and, for fun, finished my ammo off with 5 shots in a "lead sled". Much to my surprise it made quite a difference with 4 shots 1.5 inch center to center. Appears to have some real potential!

I've concluded that, for me, the sights on the No.5 limit accuracy (short sight radius, coarse aperture, sight picture crowded by protector wings). It's only natural that accuracy will be less than with No. 4 (and No. 1) rifles. But my zero doesn't wander.

What have you found with your "Jungle Carbines"? Best wishes for a Merry Christmas to everyone.

Ridolpho

I never had any problems, but I never saw them as a match rifle. I always shot from the shoulder, standing...to also help reduce felt recoil. I could hit and that was fine. I've had a pile of them too.

BAR: I enjoy firing mine prone and standing and am thinking about giving it a try in my clubs "3-Gun" weekly meeting this season. Obviously very maneuverable but also a mag capacity advantage over the semi-autos. If your club allows it it's fun to try out older milsurps in this kind of competition. Regards.

Ridolpho

Mine´s still more accurate than I am, so there´s no reason to quibble. AND it´s more fun to shoot than anything else I´ve tried. AND it´s about the only rifle I can comfortably transport on my motorbike. Christmas present to myself this year was an Israeli FAB Defense LRC-2 conversion for my Arsenal Strike One 9mm which is ok for up to 100m, but the No. 5 is still my first choice for a morning at the range.

I have no accuracy trouble with my No5. It seems to shoot 5 good surplus or equivalent reloads into 3 to 4 inches at 100yds without too much effort. I know it would do better if I was better... i have occasionally shot 2"

Very happy that your resurrection has been successful. Nothing more satisfying than getting the results to confirm a job well done.

but... the "wandering zero" was a supposed problem of the in service rifle. If your rifle isn't in it's standard bedding in a good condition foreend and shooting MkVII ball or reloads that replicate MkVII ball, I don't think you can look to replicate or rule on the condition (real or imagined) without all those elements present.

A couple of other points, the sight radius, even though it seems short at 23.25 inches, it is a whopping 4 1/4 inches longer than the No1 MkIII at 19 inches. Why would the No5 accuracy be any less?

If you are seeing the aperture and the sight protector when you are shooting, then you are not letting your eye control your sight picture. Granted, the aperture is big, but if you trust your eye- concentrate on putting the tip of the blade on the target without acknowledging the aperture or the sight protector and your eye will center the tip of the blade in the aperture. It may well tighten your groups a little further.

Cheers,

Son

I had a No5 that I had bought really cheap. It was very rusted and badly pitted. The timber was terrible. I guessed it had been in the QLD floods but I thought, what the heck. Cheap enough. So seeing as the bore was shot (looked like the rifling was cross threaded.lol.) I used it in a service competition and as I had run out of 303 projectiles I loaded HJBC 308 target projectiles. Not expecting to hit the target but have fun anyway. Well blow me down it scored well at 300yds and in the 50yd rapid I was the only shooter to get all 20 shots on the target.
What more can I say. Ces't la Vie!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Son

A couple of other points, the sight radius, even though it seems short at 23.25 inches, it is a whopping 4 1/4 inches longer than the No1 MkIII at 19 inches.
Cheers,
Son

---

Son: Thanks for the comments. After reading your post I pulled out an SMLE and was surprised to see how much longer the sight radius is on the No. 5! I was doing some safe shifting this morning and I decided to take a shot of a few different rifles with rear sight lined up with a No. 4. The Pattern 14 is the winner with SMLE MkV runner up. It's an eye opener how short the radius is on a "Long Lee"- only slightly longer than the SMLE.

There's obviously much more to it than sight radius as I don't think the No. 4 is that much more accurate than the No. 1- or is it? I presume the aperture sight was introduced to improve infantry marksmanship and it would be interesting to know if there are documents that indicate that it did (ie organized testing with average shots).

I understand what you're saying about using the aperture sight and I wonder if part of my problem is shooting different rifles with slightly different sight pictures on the same outing. I just checked a few and the sight protectors are asymmetrical on many which must help to confuse my aging brain when the sun is bright and from the rear!

Still hoping to get some comments from No. 5 owners who have experienced accuracy problems (or not) with unmodified rifles and, as Son suggests, MkVII ball.

Ridolpho

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ridolpho

Still hoping to get some comments from No. 5 owners who have experienced accuracy problems (or not) with unmodified rifles and, as Son suggests, MkVII ball.

---

Haven't fired mine enough to comment on accuracy. My grandsons commandeered it on the last range trip, and burned up all my ammo.:)

Attachment 68197 Attachment 68198

Just took some new photos, today...

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...4b1941_c-1.jpg

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...25546c_c-1.jpg

These No. 5's are cool rifles. I was lucky to get this one at a very good price.:dancingbanana:

Attachment 68202
No.5 Mk.1. ROF(F), excellent original condition without alterations.
100 yards, 30 shots in five minutes, no cooling time.

10 shots, A80 Mk.7, upper target.
15 shots, 180 grain Rem. JRN handloads, lower target.
5 shots, A80 Mk.7, upper target.

X = point of aim for Mk.7.

Even a center mass hold on an enemy in the jungle would have put a Mk VII round into them and slowed them up for the Coup De Gras

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.:thup:

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

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!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by villiers

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

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. :thup:

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..........

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.
.

---

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

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ridolpho

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.)

https://www.milsurps.com/attachment....2&d=1451092064100 yards

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

Parashooter- My mistake. There appeared to be two distinct "clusters" in your MKVII target and I assumed the final 5 shots were the smaller grouping to the left and slightly down.

Ridolpho

I've often wondered that had we adopted the British .280, (EM-2) and re barreled the No.5's what the result might have been?

I'd like to think it was a success!

As a competitive shooter I have often wondered how different the competitive shooting world would have been if the EM2 had actually been adopted in 1951 and the US had seen the light, adopting some kind of 7mm rifle, firing a 139~140 gr bullet with a muzzle velocity in the 2,415 to 2,450 range.

Such a rifle would have forced a change in the entire direction of competitive shooting, to a course of fire more in line with the second half of the 20th century, instead of the long range totally impractical course of fire based on the requirements of the Boer war that continue to dominate US and commonwealth competition to this day.

As such traditional competitive shooting are pretty much dying a slow lingering death.

The NATO 5.56 is not a very practical military round for country use because of the distances involved. Long range sniping with big calibres is very much in use.
I use a 7mm rifle with a higher muzzle velocity than 2500fps with heavier pills than 140gns for F class. Range shooting has separated from the Military and become a accuracy over distance sport not a means of keeping rifleman skills.
As a personal thought I think the 7.62x39 and the 7.62x51 the better choice for infantry use.
Yes traditional shooting is dying. F class maybe the next evolution as TR is in its self an evolution from Military style.

Sadly the 5.56mm change brought into UK Forces, was so that we could allign with the United States after the Vietnam War.
IMHO the one biggest military mistake we have made since WW2.
We should have stood our ground, and told others to conform to our more effective 7.62mm round.
Due primarily to this change in my view, we now see a proliferary of several weapons in UK sub units such as a Platoon size, all carrying a variety of rounds.............ludicrous and one where it will see soldiers travelling a dangerous path in major conflicts of the future!
I am sure there are those who have greater experience in this "misjudgement" over the years and seen it first hand.

In REAL life, the mechanical complexity of the 7mm EM rifle took it out of the hands of the normal soldier. Just the bolt alone was a masterpiece of total complex confusion.

It goes much deeper even than that.
With the cut backs of over 5000 procurement staff from Abbey Wood and Donnington, there seems to be a rash trend to try any new weapon systems that comes on the market from any country, and get it into a trials programme of sorts at Sennybridge with DTU.
This then takes the programme down a different route of flash eliminators "for the use of" each weapon trialled.

To see guys on the firing points with various rounds and systems led me to my conclusion on the mismatch. But the cleaning regime was a sight to behold and absolutely cluster f***.
Very frustrating to watch young sodiers clutching for their old GPMG cleaning kits and as you say Peter the bolt assembly and firing pins were an absolute meccano set and a challenge to any unit Commander.

It takes the simple integration of a different weapon to cause so many serious soldiering issues, and the main one is ensuring ALL in the formation are properly trained on the system. Something due to the continuous campaign changes in various climatic theatres, is rarely properly carried out IMHO.

I have both a No.4 and an No.5. I bedded the forend following instructions I received from this forum. I free floated the barrel. Often, I will shoot 9 of10 shots in 2.5" (100 yards) but one shot will be missing. Either, it is 4 inches away or sometimes completely off the target. This never happens with the No. 4 or any of my other old guns.

Thinking that it had something to do wit the crown, I removed the flash hider and polished the crown. This did not solve the problem. Last time out I shot at 200 yards - had a nice group going and then it moved up and to the right about 5". This gun baffles me.

It baffled the Army too...........

Capt. Laidler.

Looking at the EM2 bolt assembly, it appears to be derived from the G43 bolt with the locking wedge system. Would you say that basic system is too complex for fielding? There certainly are a lot of little parts to be lost and you have to fiddle to get the parts back in the rifle. Was the EM2 more complex to reassemble or were the defects that made it even more complex then the G43/G41 locking system?

I ask as it seems that the EM2 offered a generational improvement on infantry weapons. Again, just based on specs, it seem to offer the use of a rifle to 600 meters, a compact arm suitable for close combat, a 1x day optic which seems to be the rage now , 6 decades on and finally a round in a straight recoil system that is more controllable on automatic mode than any of the comparable rifles of its era. Truly revolutionary, or so it seems to somebody who has never handled one.

Just curious as to your take on this, if you have the time.

You have it in one. In my opinion - and it is only an opinion, the system was too complex and totally too closely toleranced for field use. The notion that even well trained Infantry soldiers would be sitting at the back of the range, say, between range details, stripping the bolt into its parts, several of which were spring loaded and user strippable to clean and maintain the rifle ready for the next detail is as laughable as it is laudable.

Given that the actual round is the weapon and the rifle part is just the means of accurate delivery, then the EM was over the top in complexity compared with the other offerings, Plenty of good ideas in the EM idea but totally outclassed by the FN and the L1A1. We did try a 7mm FN too and 2(?) examples exist at Warminster.

Some weapons enter the pages of folklore as great could-have-beens. Like the DeLisle and the EM's. But strip away the glitz and shiny paper and they're mediocre could-have-beens.

As for the brilliant 7mm round, then time and time again, the 7.62mm NATO round has proved itself a great, reliable and capable all-rounder. All my own opinion of course

7.62 everytime agree totally your last paragraph. The stopping power of a high speed train, leaving you in no doubt, that if you took the shot, the person at the other end wasn't going to be a threat to you again, regardless of where he was hit. Surely that is what warfare is all about..........ensuring you inflict more casualties on your assailants than you take yourself, and winning the firefight at all costs.

The issue with the 5.56 was, it was great in CQB Jungle Warfare type scenarios, because it was light and could chuck something into the foliage quickly, but beyond that, and certainly as proved in Afghanistan and Iraq it took more rounds to the do the same job, as one solitary 7.62mm would.

Politicians and Scientists through cuts in finance and practicial reasoning, arrogance and sheer doggedness, took away the common sense of pure science, which was, the force of power used in a round is everything in the battlefield to defeat your enemy, and it was this attitude that lost us the EM series of weapons, way ahead of its time!

If we hadn't had the 7.62 round right across the board on ALL weapons in the Falklands War, it would have been a completely different outcome.
You can be as brave as you like, but without the right combined weapon system, there is in my opinion only one outcome.......defeat!

Wasn't the EM2 also fantastically expensive too because of it's complex machining requirements.
There's a "forgottern Weapons" vid on youtube of a gorgeous cased 7.62 EM2 with kit, I'm sure you've all seen it, bit violent in that calibre!
Of course I can't watch it anymore cos it p!?#es me off I can't have it in my safe!

But a 7mm variant can be yours without any form of licensing due to its obsolete calibre category. Strange but true! I have fired the 7mm and 7.62mm versions and they're really boingy - boingy things with springs everywhere that you can hear operating. Just glad that I had an L1A1 when the going got tough.

There's a thought....... I wonder how the EM's would have fared in the silt laden, salt-water mangrove swamp areas of Johore or the monsoons at Grik, Kroh and Alor Star. I doubt if the wood laminate of the era would have lasted more than a few weeks. Yep, glad we had L1's

In the discussion of 7.62mm NATO vs 5.56mm I will offer a couple of thinking points, as you may have guessed I am a product of the modern combat era and my experiences have shaped my opinions.

When I first joined, I wished for 7.62mm and the return of the C1, a real rifle firing a real caliber, after being in for awhile I understood that weapons have changed because combat has changed.

5.56mm may not have that knockdown that is claimed by the 7.62 but that is given the "perfect example" of the soldier takes careful aim and fires at another soldier, but that is commonly not the case. In today's battlefield volume of fire is the most important, the concept of individual marksmanship while still very important, is not what wins firefights. Using volume of fire to first fix, then maneuver to destroy an enemy is pretty much rule of the day, fast air, artillery and AFV are a big part of the mix as well. If you don't fix an enemy, he shoots until the tide turns and then will withdraw and disperse, returning hours days or weeks later, when ambush conditions are again in his favour. Volume of fire will help fix the enemy in place.

In short we expend a lot of ammunition, and ammunition is heavy. My frontline ammunition called for 300 rounds of 5.56 ball and 30 rounds of tracer in magazines in my LBV , included in this loadout was 18 rounds of 40mm HE for my M203, 2x M67 Fragmentation grenades, 1x HC Smoke grenade, 1x "9-banger" Distraction Grenade, in my daybag 1x Claymore, and 2x HE rounds for the 60mm mortar and an additional 100 rounds of 5.56 ball. Carrying 400 rounds of 7.62 is much heavier and bulkier than the same amount of 5.56.

The knockdown power of 7.62mm is becoming negated by the proliferation and use of effective plated body armour, it is something you expect to encounter now, our training has adapted as well, center of mass shooting has transitioned to a double tap in the center and then shoot for the upper body and head until the target drops. Great emphasis has now been placed on shoot until the target drops, bodyarmour is saving lives on both sides of the fight. The light recoil of 5.56 rounds and 30 round magazine capacity allows a soldier to rapidly fire a large number of rounds at a target without fighting a lot of recoil.

7.62mm was thought to provide superior barrier penetration over 5.56mm turning cover into concealment as it were, but in Afghanistan, mud is the main building material, usually in 12" thick walls, huts, compounds, and fences. 5.56mm will not penetrate it, neither will 7.62mm, nor would our LAV 3 25mm HEIT rounds, a 25mm Sabot would, but a steel dart isn't the best anti-infantry round. Even a full belt from a GMPG wouldn't usually be enough to chew through a typical wall, and it was just a waste of precious ammunition. This is where indirect weapons like the 40mm grenade launchers and mortars would shine, go over the cover, not through.

I won't say one is better than the other, but each has advantages and drawbacks, and make no mistake, either round will kill, that much I know for certain.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sentryduty

I won't say one is better than the other, but each has advantages and drawbacks, and make no mistake, either round will kill, that much I know for certain.

---

Thanks Darren for your very informative post -- and thank you for your service in Afghanistan. Obviously with all the gear you had to carry, weight is still a very big issue.

The dialogue is vaguely familiar -- just the dates and places have changed. In WWII the debates would have been about the value of a .303 or .30-06 versus a German STG versus a M1 Carbine, etc. Each has its pros and cons, and each has trade-offs.

To this day there are still many members of Milsurps that contend, with good reason, the M1 Carbine is the best "universal" gun for under 200 yds. At 5 1/2 lbs. (with sling) it still amazes me how it's only 1/4 lb heavier than my .22 Marlin carbine (with sling).

The M16/5.56 mm was, essentially, a next generation M1 carbine. It's a good design for what it is. While it still didn't have the stopping power of the 308/NATO, it is easy to handle and more powerful than a .30 carbine, which was reputed to have penetration problems in Korea. But all weaponry is a tradeoff -- perfection, even when close at hand, can quickly become obsolete with the march of technology.

During my officer training in the mid 1960s I was trained on the M14 -- a great gun, but I wouldn't want to tread through a jungle with one -- a No.5 "jungle carbine" or M16 would be preferable. The No.5 fires a potent .303 and is nothing to scoff at. But Wandering Zero wasn't its biggest evolutionary drawback -- by the Korean War, semi/full automatics would be destined to reign.

But long range in war -- I'd still take my M1 308 National Match or 303 with a scope.

As for the best "compromise" rifle, I would vote for the HK G-3 full automatic. (I have the PTR-91 semi-auto version). It's chambered for 308/NATO, weighs in at 9 lbs, takes a 20 round magazine, and with an 18 inch barrel it's accurate, powerful, reliable, simple, and very easy to handle with the built in hand grip. It's a gem to fast to field strip -- the butt stock and trigger assembly can be removed in just over 5 seconds. And parts are both available and cheap (a mag today can be had for less than $5 USD).

Guess all these will become obsolete with star-wars weaponry on the way! The future ain't what it used to be!

Well......... as likely the person with the least amount of real military time in the room, having never fired a round in anger, with nothing more than basic BRM, and familiarization exercises on various weapons now obsolete, the opinion below has no real world merit, but I cannot resist putting it down in print.


My respect for the 7mm EM2 round comes from firing downloaded 7.62 NATO rounds in competition. Specifically 135 gr Sierra Matchkings @ 2500 fps...which pretty much matches the recoil of the 7mm EM2 loading. Quite effective out to 600 yards. While on paper the recoil is only about 78 percent of the 7.62 NATO, (compared to the M855 53 percent) it seems that the lower recoil really makes the cartridge much easier to shoot well, especially from a rifle with a straight stock. Of course that load is not all that effective past 600 M, due to the low BC, the actual EM2 round is a lot more impressive due to the better bullet BC.

True the 7mm EM2 load goes subsonic at around 780 M vs. the 875 for the L2A2, but the lower recoil just seems to offer a much better overall fit for the battlefield of the 1950s. Combined with the straight stock and short bursts AKA assault rifle style becomes practical.

The cartridge operated at a lower peak pressure, so the rifle construction and demands made upon the action much less.

Now had that load been adopted in 1951/52 and been the NATO round post Korean war, I very much doubt the 5.56 would have gotten its start, the need for such a cartridge being drastically less apparent. After all the 5.56 was really developed in the late 1950s, right after the 7.62 NATO was adopted.

I am also of the opinion had the .276 Peterson been adopted in 1932 US small arms would have gone a different path as well.

We don't go into a Rugby match with a flat ball, nor do we go into battle with an under performing weapons system like the SA80.
It has been modified that many times it is basically laughable. The same comparison as the AWAC Nimrod or two aircraft carriers with no aircraft. We seem to throw good money after bad, instead of buying the correct item for the job in hand.
I used 5.56 in the jungle, and can vouch for it's hopeless performance, if it saw simple undergrowth or foliage on its way to the target, it did in your view as the shooter, deflect badly.
So in short as I said earlier, line of sight in jungle scenario's, no problem, as it was the rate of fire from the Armalite that did the trick. Many of us would simply revert to the L2A1 Sterling for fire power and comfort, or the L4 7.62 Bren for sheer brute force and ACCURACY and ALWAYS win the fire fight with those two babies by your side.

However, I do think and sorry to say it again, the decision makers of the day, made a big mistake kicking the EM programme into touch. Yes it had its bad points initially but it needed refining, no different to every weapons system since the bow and arrow was invented. They all need fine tuning before delivery as a finished product IMHO.

If you are carrying a No5, why would you need a Gras? :madsmile:

At a different time, the No5 excelled in the Jungle, which it was designed for afterall, and did the lads proud.

As a No. 5 owner here in Germany, and after following the H&K G36 saga, it somehow does look as if the powers that be don´t really have a clue as to what a present day infantryman needs and what the future battlefield might be.

If we're going to fight in European urban situations, the soldier wants short range, hard hitting close combat weaponry. In the Middle east, we've got to learn long range warfare again with larger calibre go-further weapons. Those are the virtual words of the Infantry Commanders following a week of discussions with FORMER Infantry Commanders and platoon commanders who fought in Aden/Radfan '68 (the last time we fought in the desert), Libya and Egypt in the earlier 60's. Following on from that knock-heads-together meeting, the first of the LMT 7.62mm rifles came on stream as an urgent operational requirement. We could have issued L1A1's on the same basis - as used in Aden. But we didn't have any!

Now proudly issued to every Indian Soldier who has the very latest technology at his fingertips, at cut down prices....ie Free Gratis courtesy of HMG. He has become the real winner, having taken on board ALL our out of service L1A1 rifles. Tragic!

I know this thread started out as one on No.5 accuracy, and I take responsibility for steering it towards the .280 British.

Is there a consensus of thought out there that thinks we had the right calibre with the .280 but the rifle required further development?

Looking the "coles notes" of the cartridge and it's development it seemed like it was a good performer, my only reservations are purely speculative based on feeding:

1. The size of a magazine required to hold 30 rounds in a rifle might be a little on the thick side to accommodate the "fat" case.

2. I am curious about feeding this round to a belt-fed machine gun, the short case with might not give the best setup for disintegrating links and the steep bottle neck may be under a lot of feeding stress in a LMG. If the solution was to have only a box magazine fed LMG, that would have been a serious firepower compromise. I suppose at that time the FN series LMG was magazine based, but the belt fed capability of the FN Minimi series is a huge step up in firepower. I am professionally very glad that weapon system exists.

If those feeding concerns were non-issue or could be resolved on an engineering level I am sure it would have been a good service cartridge.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sentryduty

serious firepower compromise

---

As Darren has alluded, virtually all weapon design is a series of compromises and the .280/7mm would have qualified as a compromise -- a bit too large a cartridge and weapon to supplant the M1 Carbine, and a bit too small to compete with the 308/NATO. Like all compromises, everyone walks away with something, but still dissatisfied and often the compromiser gets whacked by both sides. And, as you alluded in your earlier post, with all the paraphernalia a combat soldier has to carry, the weight factor of all the equipment has plagued the infantryman for years. I recall the stories of men who sank with all their gear as they jumped off the LCVP Higgins boats during D-Day -- upwards of 80 lbs of gear IIRC.

As Captain Laidler has observed:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter Laidler

in European urban situations, the soldier wants short range, hard hitting close combat weaponry. In the Middle east, we've got to learn long range warfare again with larger calibre go-further weapons.

---

This is just one part of the compromise. Add tank warfare and today's IUDs, RPGs, etc. and we find the combat soldier in the middle trying to be equipped for anything and everything.

A couple of months ago as I was watching "Saving Private Ryan" on TV again, I was impressed with the armament a small platoon carried -- bolt action sniper, BAR, M1s, Colt 1911, and more. But when it came to fighting the Panzer Tiger Tank, imagination and surprise were the best weapon as they used a grenade or bomb inside a greasy sock on the tread. Perhaps in the end the best weaponry really is more human than mechanical: trust, teamwork, mutual imagination, belief in a cause, and deep understanding of the opponent's mind.

Because of the superior BC of the .280/30, the 7mm entered the transonic region (1226 fps) at around 780 yards, vs. 875~885 yards for the 7.62 NATO cartridge. 7.62 NATO out of a G3 is more like ~830 yards.

Once in the transonic region US M80 ball is horrible (fan shaped groups), whereas the L2A2 and Australian F4 seem to do quite well, so how well the .280 did in this region would depend on the bullet shape, specifically the boattail angel and the twist rate. But if it did not show the instability some bullets show to side winds, then the superior BC would mean final velocity at 1100 yards between the 7.62 and .280 would not be all that far apart.

As I said my regard came when playing with low recoil 7.62 NATO, the recoil level of the .280/30 just seems to be sort of a sweet spot. Along with the lower peak pressures it seems to me that this cartridge had some real potential, lost because the US just could not drop the 30-06 ballistics and so had to redesign the 1904 7.62 Mauser cartridge.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seaspriter

And, as you alluded in your earlier post, with all the paraphernalia a combat soldier has to carry, the weight factor of all the equipment has plagued the infantryman for years. I recall the stories of men who sank with all their gear as they jumped off the LCVP Higgins boats during D-Day -- upwards of 80 lbs of gear IIRC.

---

Very true, and the issue of combat weight of a fighting soldier has not improved, we have lots of jammy gear but carrying it is a problem. There is a video circulating on the internet of a soldier I know personally on one of the later tours doing a scale check with and without gear. I can't remember the exact specifics, but essentially a 170 lbs solider with weapon and equipment to do a day patrol (no rucksack) pegged the scale at over 300 lbs loaded. Basically that is personal protective equipment, weapon, ammo, water and some little misc kit. Food wasn't something we carried a lot of, 1 or 2 stripped down IMP's at most, it was often too hot to eat much and water was far more valuable.

I have always wondered whether No.6s suffered from the accuracy problems reported with No.5s, so I got one to try. I have No.6 Mk1/1 XP278 and it is a very nice rifle to shoot standing, especially snap/rapid - I can get a better score at 100yds standing (85/100) than with my No.4 Mk2 (80/100). But then prone, I can score better with a No.4, which would be expected. The battle aperture on my No.6 is smaller than on a No.5 and maybe this makes a difference? The POA does not move around when it gets hot, and I can drop Fig.11s about 3 times out of 4 out to 375yds on the ETR range at Sennybridge in Wales when standing in a fox hole. As the receiver on a No.6 did not have any metal removed, whereas a No.5 receiver was a No.4 type with metal taken off, I wonder if that is one reason it holds its zero. I've also heard it said that it was over torqueing by unskilled labour of the barrel in the receiver in No.5s that was the cause of the wandering zero - the metal was both under too much compression and tension and didn't 'twang' correctly when fired. Any thoughts?

Whatever - if I was in the tropics, in jungle, with a dose of malaria and dysentery, and I'd just clambered up a muddy track, I'd much prefer a No.5 or 6 to a No.1 or 4!

Ian

Your test with a No6 v the No5 really isn't comparing like with like Ian! The lighter weight of the rifle was MORE than made up for with extra ammo, water and rations. Your only re-supply is from the air.......

Peter,
Absolutely, but I wasn't comparing a 5 with a 6, except to say that with a limited n=1 experiment my 6 doesn't seem to suffer from the No5's problem. Granted "... extra ammo, water and rations. Your only re-supply is from the air..." so the point I was making was that having a rifle with some weight shaved off, a No5 or 6, would be preferable to a No1 or 4. Every little helps, as they say. And the bayonet was that bit lighter than the 1907 pattern too.
Regards
Ian

What will happen if you overtighten a barrel into the No4 body is that it will quickly bulge the chamber and cause hard extraction - or no extraction! This is because the 'draw'; allows the chamber part of the barrel to exceed the limits of its elasticity. That's the recipe for a bulged barrel!

Well Gil bit like Oz we have a tactical aircraft designed for aircraft carriers but no aircraft carriers perhaps our Govt's are in league!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by villiers

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

---

I know the ten targets wouldn't be "discussing" my accuracy, by then I can let'er cool of and reload for the next ten lucky buggers who wish to have a word about the 303 round.:D