I happened upon this scope mount recently. I have one of those blonde Irish Contract No.4MK2. I shoot Sierra Pro Hunter 150gr, with the iron sights and all bagged up on the bench I can get touching groups. 1/2-3/4 MOA. (AA250, N540, N140 running 2650fps @ 75F.) Now, that is all calm, warm, fed, fat & happy. I've only used the rifle for fair weather recreational iron sight shooting on steel IPSC plates to 400yds. With all that word salad, I am intrigued at the proposition of shooting my rifle scoped and then use it for coyotes and more precision shooting. Constructive criticism here, fire with the forend bagged in a butterfly sandbag, (Bulls Bag) and use a rear bag to steady the shot. Square the chest and shoulders more to the target and I bet one will see these rounds stack in the same ragged hole. Of course this is only to shoot benched and test the rifle's potential, and not the shooter.
The No.5 Mk 1 wandering Zero is caused by the lightening cuts in the reciever. The British discovered that the rifle would wander off zero like a No 4 rifle with bad headspacing and after extensive testing, they determined that the lightening cuts allowed the reciever to flex too much when fired. This caused the chamber and bolt face to not get a perfect alignment.
Fortunately, most of us will never need to fire these in anger, so while it could be an issue for someone shooting an extended course of fire at an event, even the #5 held together for the first three-5 shots in what was a fairly quick test. For hunting purposes, the rifle should do just fine, though it might be worth shooting a few groups of 3-4 shots while watching for any shift to confirm that it won't effect any follow up shots on game.
@@Thermopylae2007 I believe the accuracy was still adequate for jungle combat where you are rarely point shooting over 100 yards. Thus, making it adequate for hunting too.
@shockwave6213 I also suspect the rifle would be adequate for most jungle warfare and was probably the preferred rifle for that role. IIRC, the issue is that the British Army was considering replacing its #4s entirely with the #5, which could have raised issues if the rifles had to be fired for any extended period over longer ranges. If I manage to get back into shooting at our military ranges, I might want to test how the two rifles compare at 2-300 yards to satisfy my curiosity.
Did you ever experience any probleme after shooting a lot of round whit the NDT mount for the #4 I want to set a scope on mine and be accurate at 300 yards
I just got my hands on a #5 finally. I've read reports to support either conclusion but, apparently they have tested #5s from a mechanical rest and the "wandering zero" did not occur. My theory is given the poorly designed butt "pad" the shorter sight radius and the pronounced recoil, the wandering zero was not mechanical but human induced. I have a #1 MK 3 made in 1918 and she shoots as accurately as I could possibly ask for. Not bad for a 105 year old warhorse. Cheers from Canada.
Most likely the "wandering zero" was an excuse for the British government to terminate the contract early because they wanted to focus their resources into developing and procuring semi-automatic rifles - which indeed they did. The EM-2 was a remarkably forward-thinking rifle, unfortunately killed by the US Army Ordnance Board's insistence on 7.62x51 as the standard NATO cartridge. What I can't understand is that, by all accounts, the EM-2 was an excellent, reliable rifle... yet after 30 years of development of the same basic concept, the L85 was a piece of junk. Although the collapse of British manufacturing goes some way to explaining it...
A scope mount for the SMLE No.1 Mk3 would be cool! Greetings
Try holding the front of the Jungle Carbine less weight in the front to hold down the barrel.
I happened upon this scope mount recently. I have one of those blonde Irish Contract No.4MK2. I shoot Sierra Pro Hunter 150gr, with the iron sights and all bagged up on the bench I can get touching groups. 1/2-3/4 MOA. (AA250, N540, N140 running 2650fps @ 75F.) Now, that is all calm, warm, fed, fat & happy. I've only used the rifle for fair weather recreational iron sight shooting on steel IPSC plates to 400yds. With all that word salad, I am intrigued at the proposition of shooting my rifle scoped and then use it for coyotes and more precision shooting. Constructive criticism here, fire with the forend bagged in a butterfly sandbag, (Bulls Bag) and use a rear bag to steady the shot. Square the chest and shoulders more to the target and I bet one will see these rounds stack in the same ragged hole. Of course this is only to shoot benched and test the rifle's potential, and not the shooter.
Where’d you find the mount?
@ BadAce website
@@bfdadventurehow’d you like it? Have good grouping?
@ it’s fantastic! Increased the utility & shootability of the rifle. Touching groups.
@@bfdadventure awesome! Thanks! What would you say is the farthest it can shoot decent groups? I know the battle sights can shoot up to 700 yards.
The No.5 Mk 1 wandering Zero is caused by the lightening cuts in the reciever. The British discovered that the rifle would wander off zero like a No 4 rifle with bad headspacing and after extensive testing, they determined that the lightening cuts allowed the reciever to flex too much when fired. This caused the chamber and bolt face to not get a perfect alignment.
There is simply no evidence of this.
@@glennmagor6325 The evidence was just presented in the vid. The carbine has substantially worse accuracy than the rifle the longer it's shot.
Fortunately, most of us will never need to fire these in anger, so while it could be an issue for someone shooting an extended course of fire at an event, even the #5 held together for the first three-5 shots in what was a fairly quick test. For hunting purposes, the rifle should do just fine, though it might be worth shooting a few groups of 3-4 shots while watching for any shift to confirm that it won't effect any follow up shots on game.
@@Thermopylae2007 I believe the accuracy was still adequate for jungle combat where you are rarely point shooting over 100 yards. Thus, making it adequate for hunting too.
@shockwave6213 I also suspect the rifle would be adequate for most jungle warfare and was probably the preferred rifle for that role. IIRC, the issue is that the British Army was considering replacing its #4s entirely with the #5, which could have raised issues if the rifles had to be fired for any extended period over longer ranges. If I manage to get back into shooting at our military ranges, I might want to test how the two rifles compare at 2-300 yards to satisfy my curiosity.
As a Jungle Carbine user here in New Zealand for over 40 years hunting deer i have yet to see any sign of a "wandering zero". Just saying.
Would it be safe to assume your not firing more than a couple shots in a row though?
I’m with you. I heard about but haven’t seen it. We should be careful about saying what we have heard as opposed to what we know
What part of nz are you in?
@@thejustice7305 Auckland area - hunt mainly central North Island.
@@geoffspitfire5160 you a member of AA? (not the car one but antiques)
Which mm can load in it
That grouping at 100 yards with a scope is atrocious
Well true actually lol
Sadly I watched a shooter pull thru a 2 stage trigger as the we go into the latter shots.
Did you ever experience any probleme after shooting a lot of round whit the NDT mount for the #4
I want to set a scope on mine and be accurate at 300 yards
I have a 4 and a 5. Neither wander. Never seen a 5 with a problem. I’m happy to use either but in all honesty the 4 is better balanced in the hand
I just got my hands on a #5 finally.
I've read reports to support either conclusion but, apparently they have tested #5s from a mechanical rest and the "wandering zero" did not occur.
My theory is given the poorly designed butt "pad" the shorter sight radius and the pronounced recoil, the wandering zero was not mechanical but human induced.
I have a #1 MK 3 made in 1918 and she shoots as accurately as I could possibly ask for.
Not bad for a 105 year old warhorse. Cheers from Canada.
Also remember that many so called civilian bought ' No 5s' are milled out and modified No4s to market as the Jungle Carbine, so quality varies
Most likely the "wandering zero" was an excuse for the British government to terminate the contract early because they wanted to focus their resources into developing and procuring semi-automatic rifles - which indeed they did.
The EM-2 was a remarkably forward-thinking rifle, unfortunately killed by the US Army Ordnance Board's insistence on 7.62x51 as the standard NATO cartridge.
What I can't understand is that, by all accounts, the EM-2 was an excellent, reliable rifle... yet after 30 years of development of the same basic concept, the L85 was a piece of junk. Although the collapse of British manufacturing goes some way to explaining it...
handloads ? which components?
I am also curious, I know this video is 2 years old so idk if they will respond.
watch the #5 jump compared to #4,
Nice
I shoot my no4 upto 1000 yards and have not had a wandering zero
That was a pretty accurate #4! Most of them don't shoot that good.
My No 4 shoots just fine thank you!
I like no4 its better than no5
Links und links und links.😎💤