No. 5 versus No. 4 - relative accuracy

[Patrick Chadwick]

Is anyone who regularly shoots BOTH a No. 4 AND a No. 5 able to say how they compare for accuracy with individually optimized ammo. I.e. the ultimate accuracy you can achieve from each. Please only those who really shoot both! Comparing the performance of Mr A using a No. 4 with Mr Z using a No 5will not be very meaningful.

Patrick

Information

Warning: This is a relatively older thread This discussion is older than 360 days. Some information contained in it may no longer be current.

[Alan de Enfield]

Is anyone who regularly shoots BOTH a No. 4 AND a No. 5 able to say how they compare for accuracy with individually optimized ammo. I.e. the ultimate accuracy you can achieve from each. Please only those who really shoot both! Comparing the performance of Mr A using a No. 4 with Mr Z using a No 5will not be very meaningful.

Patrick

I dont shoot either / both regularly but have shot both (one after the other) on the same day on a number of occasions.
For some reason I always shoot the No4 first so maybe the results are not totally realistic due to tired eyes, sore shoulder etc.

75 mt outdoor range, only elbow support, Privi 174gr FMJ or Kynoch MkVII FMJ ammo
Fairly consistently around 1" with the No4 and probably 2"+ with the No5

Dont know about this "wandering Zero" thing but the spread with the No5 seems to get worse as it 'hots-up'
Hope that helps.

[#5MK1]

I used to collect #5MK1 and have range tested over fifty, or more over the years.

Also #4MK1 and 2s.

In gen. there are too many variables to give any absolute answers.

I can say from "our" experience in our club of many years of shooting, this is our concensus.

Leave the "Wandering zero" out of it. It is not relevant to this discussion and will cause tons of "I heard" or "mine did this or that" type of responses.

None of our properly bedded and accurized #5s ever had a problem.

It is a subject that can be debated in another thread, it is not pertinent to this discussion.

A properly bedded #4MK2 or 1 with an exc. throat, crown, and lands and bedded properly is capaple of shooting touching holes at 100 yds. off bench rest, to minimize the human factor.

All of our shooters have new or near new barrels and have been accurized. Non altering to the original rifles. I do NOT recomend altering originals.

Our best #5MK1s will shoot about a one inch group at 100 yds. just not quite as good as the #4MK2s.

At two hundred yards it is becomes apparent that the longer barreled #4MK2 is much better.

We shoot the #5MK1s at longer ranges, but at silouhette targets only. Easy to hit a 1' by 2' silouhette at 400 yds five out of five. THe rifles are capable, the shooter may not be.
I personally have installed low power scopes on mine for hunting and longer ranges. Bad eyes.

I should add. All of our rifles are tested by bench rest shooting. Also several of our younger talented shooters have a go at it for opinions, before the rifle is tagged as a "shooter".

All of my #5MK1s have exc. barrels, near new. Same with the #4s. For our purpose the well used barrels just won't hack it. Only for collectors or just plinking rifles.

THe most accurate ammo FWIW that we ever found for our #5MK1s is Winchester ST 180 grain. VERY hard to find nowdays.

We have had our expert re loaders try every combonation imaginable over the years, and they can only be on par with the Winchester ST ammo. From our experince, no re loads after slugging, has surpassed it.


This is just from our experience and I am sure other folks will differ, so its not meant to be written in stone.

It should be obvious that a carbine will not shoot as accurate at longer range.
But at short range they do very well.

If anyone does happen to have a carbine or long rifle that changes POI when heating up, needs to check bedding and other issues.

Also, when comparing rifles, there are issues that need to be addressed. Condition of barrels, trigger pull, bedding and other accurizing issues.

[villiers]

#5Mk1 that sounds a very reasonable assessment.

[Bindi2]

No4s where used as range rifles the No5 did not make the cut for middle long ranges and barely for the short. The ammo used was all Mk7 had no choice.

[Patrick Chadwick]

Thank you #5Mk1 for an excellent answer!

Patrick

[Thunderbox]

I find that the difference between a No4 and No5 of similar condition (barrel, bedding, mechanical wear, etc) is that the No4 will usually - but not always - be about 1/2 to 1 moa more accurate. Thats my observation of about 30x No5s and 200+ No4s in recent years. One of my current 4x No5s is actually up there with the best No4s in being capable of 1 to 1 1/2" @ 100 yds using normal military or commercial ammo.

Although the result for the No5 is unsurprising due to its shorter barrel and sight radius, it is still far from and inaccurate rifle. I have shot No5s out to 1000 yds and managed to keep most shots in the black - which correlates with the above observation, given that a No4 with iron sights will score 4s and 5s at that range. Along with the "wandering zero", I do think that individual shooters tend to shoot to reinforce their preconceptions......

[bradtx]

Patrick, #5MK1 is dead on. When comparing the two, it's best to find a No.4 and a No.5 that are in like/similar condition. My FMP No.5 is in good+ condition and comparing it to a similar No.4 shows that 100 yards can be very competitive between the two. Moving out to 300 yards the No.4 begins to walk away from the No.5 printing about one MOA better using UMC 174 gr ammo. More practice with the No.5 would help.

This is actually typical when comparing a rifile to a carbine. I hunt with a Remington 660 (carbine) and when it's compared to a Remington 700 (rifle) it'll fall behind the 700 as the range increases.

Brad