Sporterized No5 rear sight options

[baconslayer]

Guys, First post. I have a sporterized No5. Someone ground off the rear sight mounts, the bayo lug and put a barrel mounted site in front of the receiver. The barrel mounted site is a williams blade sight, it is very well done - just rather have rear sight farther back for sight radius purposes on such a short rifle.

I am not a gunsmith, but can do basic things.

Wanting an aperture peep style rear site. I see that williams had a 5D-SMLE but that requires a drill/tap which I am not comfortable with mounting myself. Are there any other options out there?

Thanks,

CP

[BVZ24]

They can be hard to find, but I believe the vintage parker hale target sights are no drill, using the existing screws for the safety.

Edit. Looked into it, the No 4 type requires the old sight base.

[Alan de Enfield]

They can be hard to find, but I believe the vintage parker hale target sights are no drill, using the existing screws for the safety.

Edit. Looked into it, the No 4 type requires the old sight base.

Yes - The PH sights require the use of the old rear sight mount to locate the cross-screw. The other screw uses the ejector screw hole.

Peter Laidler wrote about the body of the No5 rifle 'spreading' on firing and that you could always tell a high-mileage one because the sight pivot retaining pin was broken off.

Without the support of the charger-bridge this thing must really flex an alarming amount and must be very inaccurate

Quote :

You could always tell the high mileage rifles, apart from the shot-out barrels because the backsight axis pin retaining pin (longest name of a part on the rifle. The PIN, retaining, pin axis backsight) was always sheared where the bodies had expanded at the rear and sheared it. So, if at the moment of firing/and max pressure/load the body spreads at the rear, especially during a gun battle, I suppose it would upset the balance between the locking lugs, bolt and cartridge seating on the bolt face.

[Daan Kemp]

The fitting of the Williams sight would interfere with working the bolt?

[baconslayer]

Thanks for the feedback. I will look into the Williams a bit more with the help of a gunsmith.

The charger bridge is still very well intact, its the sight mounting ears that were ground off.

As far as accuracy, not bad. I can hit an 8" gong at 65 yards easily. Not tried anything beyond that yet. The barrel is in excellent shape. I had heard the No. 5's were not that great at distances to begin with so no disappointments there.

[Alan de Enfield]

The charger bridge is still very well intact, its the sight mounting ears that were ground off.

Sorry, my bad. The rear sight transverse bolt does take a lot of load - when I fitted my PH5C I overtightened the bolt and it locked the bolt solid, so I had to slacken it off. The side of the body does flex under recoil.

As far as accuracy, not bad. I can hit an 8" gong at 65 yards easily. Not tried anything beyond that yet. The barrel is in excellent shape. I had heard the No. 5's were not that great at distances to begin with so no disappointments there.

You do not say what the grouping was like but if they were scattered across 8" at 65 yards that is pretty poor accuracy, the rifle had to pass the following before 'QA' would reease it.


No 4 RIFLE TESTING
For the No 4 Rifle, the accuracy test was the same at 100ft ten per cent of all rifles were then fired at 200 yds when six of seven shots had to fall in a rectangle 6in x 6in , the point of mean impact having to be within 3 inches of the point of aim in any direction. Ten per cent of rifles fired at 200 yds were again fired at 600 yds when 6 out of seven shots had to be in a rectangle 18 inches x 18 inches the permissible deviation of point of mean impact being 9 inches up or down, or left or right. Two per cent of rifles were fired from the shoulder, ten rounds being fed into the magazine by charger and fired rapid to test “feeding up” and ejection. After these tests the barrel was inspected to ensure that there was no expansion in the bore or chamber and that it shaded correctly from end to end. (Was not bent)
No 5 TESTING
The firing test to which the No 5 rifle was subjected was the same as that for the No 4 at 100ft. It was not tested at 200 yds but 10 per cent were tested at 600 yards when the acceptance was ten out of ten shots contained in a rectangle 36 inches x 36 inches. Two per cent of the No 5 rifles were also submitted to the same functioning test as the No4 rifle.


The 100 feet (33 yards) accuracy requirement was : "Five rounds were then fired, and four of the five shots had to be contained in a rectangle 1 inch broad by 1½ in high".

[baconslayer]

Alan,

Thanks, but at this time I have yet to test beyond 65 yards. I have put a total of 20 rounds through it at this point, it is accurate enough given the crap sight situation. The way the existing sights are configured is difficult to get a good sight picture with my ageing eyes. That is why I am exploring other options for a better sighting solution in this thread. When I get it all resolved, I can better report my distance accuracy testing. - CP

[baconslayer]

With her clothes back on.

[Surpmil]

Good effort, but beyond economic repair.

[Daan Kemp]

Optic sights on the action would work, needs drilling, etc though.