Jungle carbine shoots low

[Dolt]

Gemmuns:

I have a legitimate No. 5 Jungle Carbine that shoots very low with Greek Mark 7 ammo. I have filed the front sight to a nubin and it is still shooting 8 to 10 inches low at 100 yards with the battle sights. Any suggestions on how I can get the bullet strike up using battle sights and standard ammo? Do they make a shorter front sight for the carbine that might make a difference?

[dave]

I have always read/heard that these carbines are notorious for not holding a zero, not that they shoot low. Have you tried another make ammo, like Birt stuff? I would have tried that before fileing anything. What is 'battle sight' set for?
I doubt there is a front sight shorter then "nubin"!

[Alan De Enfield]

An article by Peter Laidler - read on it does cover the No5 :

Sights and the No4 rifle.
A bit of heavy weekend reading for you.......................

There has recently been some too-ing and fro-ing correspondence about the sights used on the No4 rifles. Maybe it’s time to open up a few little previously unknown or certainly not fully understood points.

Let’s take the foresights first. For the No4 rifle, there were 4 distinct TYPES of foresight blade. The very FIRST was, naturally enough, designated the
BLADE, foresight. It came in eight sizes, from -.030”, -.015, 0, +.015”, +.030”, +.045”, +.060” and +.075”. These sizes (and I’m sure you all know this by heart…..) indicate the tip of the blade height below or above 1” of the exact centerline of the bore while the blade size ‘0’ is exactly 1” above the centre line of the bore ……, phew! Now for another misunderstood point. All of the actual BLADE heights are the same of approx .140” but it’s the .38” wide blade BASE (or stool) height that differs to make up the sizes. I know that some of you will say that this isn’t correct because ……… I know this and that’s because some of the commercial companies, including Parker Hale made their own variants including thinner widths, blow-up tyres and wind-up windows etc. BUT I’m talking about the Ministry of Supply/Army issue blades

This blade was followed by a later blade style so as a result, the first original blade was redesignated the BLADE, foresight, Mk1. The Mk1 blade is easily identifiable by having a SOLID base. This is because it was retained firmly in position, gripped by the split BLOCK, band, foresight. The split foresight block is closed, to grip the solid blade, by a reverse headed screwdriver. It is the REAR of the Mk1 blade that we ought to be aware of now, where the undercut/inward sloping blade part meets up with the block, which then slopes outwards towards the base of the block. So, the side elevation of the blade forms a side-on ‘V’ shape.

This rearwards and upwards sloping base could and did allow a line of reflected light to shine straight back into the shooters eye. Maybe not on the manicured ranges at Bisley but it certainly did in the bleak sunshine of Tunisia and Italy from where the complaints came

The next foresight blade was introduced as a result of efforts to cheapen the cost of the No4 rifle in 1941. This time, instead of using a split block, band, foresight and the reverse headed 4BAscrew, the block, band was left solid. But in accordance with good engineering practice and to maintain the required friction to hold the blade secure within the block band foresight, the BLADE base was manufactured with a split block. This split block blade was called the BLADE, foresight, Mk1*

The sizes remained the same as did the zeroing procedure, as did the side-on ‘V’ side elevation of the rear of the blade. It’s just that the block was easier and cheaper to manufacture. The new slot made very little difference to the cost of the blades because a), they were manufactured ‘biscuit-block (some call it chocolate block) fashion anyway and b), the addition of a simple slitting saw operation along the base was an almost academic addition and c), the original blades were still being produced anyway!

So there you have the earliest Mk1and Mk1* blades.

Now here is where we get a little more complicated. The Mk2 blade…………. The Mk2 blade was very similar to the Mk1 blade with its 8 sizes and its solid block base only this time, where the undercut/outward sloping blade part meets the base part, the base extends rearwards a small amount, then the BASE takes on an undercut inward sloping angle too. This immediately solved the reflected light problem because now, both the blade and the base reflected downwards. This blade was introduced as the BLADE, foresight, Mk2

If things were simple, the next blade would be designated the Mk2* but we don’t do simple…., we do complicated! So, the next blade became the BLADE, foresight, Mk3. As you might expect, the Mk3 blade was identical to the double undercut Mk2 but this time came with a split base to use in the solid block band foresight.

The earlier Mk1 and Mk1* blades were thereafter, obsolescent. Obsolescent but not obsolete so there are thousands of thousands still in service……………

THE No5 RIFLE
If you have a No5 rifle, then a similar situation arose there too but the situation was even more dire as the reflected line of shine certainly DID cause problems. So while the No5 blades were all split blocks, the;
Mk1 split block blade for the No5 equates to the Mk1* blade for a No4 rifle
and the
Mk 2 split block blade for the No5 equates to the Mk3 blade for a No4 rifle.
There were different part numbers for the blades indicating that there were subtle differences between the No4 and No5 types. Quite what the differences between the blades were on paper didn’t manifest its way to us as young Armourers in Malaya! We used split block ‘double undercut’ blades on every No5 we zeroed of course, but they all came from the same tubs, regardless of whether it was a No4 or 5 blade. They all looked the same to us and we treated them the same too!

But back to No4 rifles and the BLOCK band, foresight. Are you in for the long haul? Soon after the large late 40’s FTR programmes, it was established at Fazakerley that a large percentage of fully refurbished rifles were impossible to zero due to them shooting too high. Fazakerley sought to obtain a relaxation in order to use the +.090” and +.105” STEN gun foresight blades but already there were problems relating to the final inspection standards that I won’t go into. But the same problems were apparent outside the factories and Base Workshops, in service too so while the factories, FTR programme contractors and the large REME Base workshops were NOT permitted to use the higher Sten foresight blades, a relaxation was sought that they could be used at unit level (both high sizes) and Field workshop level (just the .090 size). But this was palliative and not a cure by any means. The answer was that where a rifle was perfect in every other way, then a Mk2 BLOCK Band foresight was available.

The ‘new’ BLOCK, band, foresight was .030” taller, at .490” than the original Mk1 block band, at .460” tall. This immediately, but invisibly, allowed for a further 2 increases in blade height (……. think about it!). The new blocks can be identified by the figure 1H for the Mk1 split block or a 2H for the Mk2 solid block, marked on the rear sloping surface. But even these didn’t last long because they only allowed for a further two ‘invisible’ increases of foresight. The problem was more acute than that with thousands otherwise perfect No4 rifles stacking up in Ordnance depots unable to be zeroed So in an act of almost desperation in January 1954, two FURTHER foresight block bands blocks were introduced. These blocks were heightened by a further .030” to .520”. So we have the original block band height of .460”, the 1949 increased height to .490” then the 1954 block band with a height of .520”. At a stroke, we now have a block band foresight that allows the highest blade ( the .075”…., don’t forget that anything higher was for the Sten gun) to be, in effect .135”……… which is 1.135” above the centre line of the bore

So now we have a total of SIX BLOCK, band foresights.
The Mk1 and Mk2 original, the
Mk1H and 2H modified both .030” higher than the original, and the
Mk1 and 2 SECOND modified, now .060” higher than the original!
You’re not quite believing this are you? But help was at hand. The second block was pure duplication so was declared obsolescent. So that after 1954, only the first, original blocks and the third pattern, .060” taller were available from Ordnance stores. While the second pattern was obsolescent, you HAD to have the original, lower block of course in order to cater for those rifles firing LOW!

Jeeeees, we had to learn, know and put into practice all of this rubbish! The most astute of you will now be looking at your ‘original, untouched since the factory’ rifles to see if it has the higher foresight block band fitted. Only a post 1949 made rifle will have a block marked 1H or 2H and only a post 1954 made rifle will have a block marked 1 or 2 on the rear surface as original. Before that, they were bare!

But there’s a little more……………. Our acceptable zeroing standards state after zeroing, the blade of the foresight will overhang or be level with the edge of the foresight block. If the edge is inboard of the edge of the block, then it indicates that something is wrong with the rifle. BUT, it was discovered that while the UK made foresight blade bases were .38” wide, due to a tolerance error, the Canadian bases were .43” wide. Without going into the technicalities, a rifle fitted with a Canadian .43” wide base could fail the zeroing criteria unnecessarily. So these Canadian .43” wide blades were all declared obsolete and withdrawn.

There, a little bit about a previously unknown feature of the No4 rifle! Not a lot of people know that!

[Alan De Enfield]

Just a thought - when you say "Battle Sight" - you do have the 800 yard "Singer" type rear sight and not just the 300/600 yard flip sight ?

[kcw]

Springfield Sporters is offering 10 different blade heights for the #4/5. Your current insert should be stamped with its height designation. As far as I know, the blade portion of the inserts are all of the same height (per my own experience) , it's the thickness of the base upon which the blade sits that is different and determines the overall height of the insert. As already mentioned, it may be wise 1st do a bit of experimentation with at least one other make of quality, GI spec ammo before investigating a lower sight, my experience with the Greek ammo however is that it is of excellent quality. If you are confident that the issue is related to the front sight height, there is a formula floating around which will estimate the required height adjustment needed to bring the rifle into "zero" at the range you desire. As Dave notes, the #5's did tend to have sighting issues. Too that end, it's possible that you might have to still file down the blade even with the lowest insert you can locate. I've done that with at least one U.S. M1917 so that it was useable on my local range. (The British insert pretty much fits every, including the P-14 & M1917)

[Dolt]

Jeez Alan! Thanks for the Enfield info! Funny how I was a lousy college student but I can enjoy the detailed tech explanation when it has to do with something I am interested in.

I do have the ladder type sight on my Jungle Carbine. Not the sheet metal one, but the solid steel one. I have shot all sorts of ammo through the gun and it all shoots low. I was thinking about going to a 220 grain bullet which should raise the strike of the bullet at 100 yards, but velocity is less than that of my 30/40 Krag.

[kcw]

Dolt,
Do you recall how low your #5 was shooting @ 100 before you started filing down the blade? For purposes of simplicity I would use that discrepancy figure in determining how much shorter a replacement insert needs to be in order to bring it into "zero" for your purposes. Using the number on the insert that is already in your gun, and the data provided by Mr. De Enfield as to insert height differences, should help point you in the direction you need to go.

[John Sukey]

On a side note, the complaint about the No5 not holding zero was due to the fact that post war, the government wanted to adopt the No5 as the standard issue rifle while the rest of the world had gone to self loading rifles might have had something to do with that.

[Guamsst]

On a side note, the complaint about the No5 not holding zero was due to the fact that post war, the government wanted to adopt the No5 as the standard issue rifle while the rest of the world had gone to self loading rifles might have had something to do with that.

I have not fired too many No5s but between myself and everyone else I have known who shot No5 rifles I have not heard of any evidence of "wandering zero" outside of some issues apparently with prototypes.....Prototypes naturally having more ODD problems than production rifles as thats sort of the whole point of not going straight from blueprint to production.

[John Sukey]

Guamsst, my point exactly! It was an excuse, rather than a valid reason.