bullfrog99
New member
Which would you get and why, I am thinking of picking up either an original No5 Mk I jungle carbine(.303) or a Spanish FR8 rifle for a conversion to a scout rifle. Given the choice between the two, which would you go for?
FR-8 or No 5 MK I, which would you get?
- Thread starter bullfrog99
- Start date
Marko Kloos
Inactive
The FR-8 would make one hell of a scout rifle without any modifications, unless you absolutely need a scope. It's a fun shooter, and very handy...chambered in a very common caliber to boot.
An Enfield No.5 would make a good scout as well, although the original Jungle Carbines had "wandering zero" problems due to the lightening cuts in the receiver which caused the action to torque. The Gibbs replicas don't have the lightening cuts, so they might be a better choice if you're looking for a shooter rather than a collector.
An Enfield No.5 would make a good scout as well, although the original Jungle Carbines had "wandering zero" problems due to the lightening cuts in the receiver which caused the action to torque. The Gibbs replicas don't have the lightening cuts, so they might be a better choice if you're looking for a shooter rather than a collector.
Gino, it's not an accuracy problem, per se...
It was a case of what's called "Wandering Zero".
The guns will group just fine, if you use good quality ammo. (Isn't that always the case, folks get some surplus offloaded on purpose by a foreign government and try to shoot sub-MOA?)
Supposedly, the weight reduction efforts that differentiate the No4Mk1 from the No5Mk1 Lee-Enfield removed so much metal that the gun couldn't maintain it's zero between shooting sessions.
Depending on who you ask, it's either a problem or a non-issue.
My own No5Mk1 had a horrible action/forend/handguard fit, it fairly rattled. I glass-bedded it, clearanced the forend and handguard, and have been quite pleased with the gun's performance, and zero-holding ability, ever since.
Now, another thing that may indeed influence the gun's "zero" is the fact that the shooter develops quite a flinch from running a full battle cartridge in such a lightweight carbine. This ain't an M1 carbine round, or a 7.62x39. It's a .303 British, running a 174-180gr bullet well over 2400 fps. Newton's laws still apply, boys and girls!
It was a case of what's called "Wandering Zero".
The guns will group just fine, if you use good quality ammo. (Isn't that always the case, folks get some surplus offloaded on purpose by a foreign government and try to shoot sub-MOA?)
Supposedly, the weight reduction efforts that differentiate the No4Mk1 from the No5Mk1 Lee-Enfield removed so much metal that the gun couldn't maintain it's zero between shooting sessions.
Depending on who you ask, it's either a problem or a non-issue.
My own No5Mk1 had a horrible action/forend/handguard fit, it fairly rattled. I glass-bedded it, clearanced the forend and handguard, and have been quite pleased with the gun's performance, and zero-holding ability, ever since.
Now, another thing that may indeed influence the gun's "zero" is the fact that the shooter develops quite a flinch from running a full battle cartridge in such a lightweight carbine. This ain't an M1 carbine round, or a 7.62x39. It's a .303 British, running a 174-180gr bullet well over 2400 fps. Newton's laws still apply, boys and girls!
sleeping dog
New member
I like my FR8.
I didn't care for the open rear sight, so I set it to the lowest aperture setting, then unscrewed the front post about five complete turns to zero it at 100 yds. Note that turning the post adjusts the windage, so that's why I turned it a complete 360 at a time once I got the windage where I wanted it.
I have seen a picture of one with a scope. The poster of that one said it was a "no gunsmithing" scope mount with a notch ground out to clear the rear sight pedestal. Then he used high mounted rings for the same reason. Then he got another bolt and had the handle turned down to clear the sight.
I don't intend to put a scope on mine. It looks like tough job on an FR8. There's no rear blade sight to replace with a scout mount, and the receiver has the sight wheel pedestal and the bolt has a straight handle.
As for the Enfield, I think the Gibbs "no 7" jungly carbine in .308 looks interesting.
I didn't care for the open rear sight, so I set it to the lowest aperture setting, then unscrewed the front post about five complete turns to zero it at 100 yds. Note that turning the post adjusts the windage, so that's why I turned it a complete 360 at a time once I got the windage where I wanted it.
I have seen a picture of one with a scope. The poster of that one said it was a "no gunsmithing" scope mount with a notch ground out to clear the rear sight pedestal. Then he used high mounted rings for the same reason. Then he got another bolt and had the handle turned down to clear the sight.
I don't intend to put a scope on mine. It looks like tough job on an FR8. There's no rear blade sight to replace with a scout mount, and the receiver has the sight wheel pedestal and the bolt has a straight handle.
As for the Enfield, I think the Gibbs "no 7" jungly carbine in .308 looks interesting.
I have both and I am partial to my Enfields . If you want to sporterize one though, don't get a real Jungle Carbine. Get yourself a good Gibbs replica. It would be a crime to permantly alter an original #5.
You can check out my Enfield scout rifle here.
http://www3.sympatico.ca/shooters/JC1.htm
You can check out my Enfield scout rifle here.
http://www3.sympatico.ca/shooters/JC1.htm
ohen cepel
New member
I love the enfields and they are nicer to shoot.
However, in this case I would go with the FR, I just like the .308 better and wouldn't mind working one of them over as much. I like the more modern look of them better also.
Of course you could look at the newly redone Enfields by (Century) I think. They would give you basically a new rifle in .308 on the enfield action. Food for thought.
Or else buy an Ishapore in .308 to work on as a start.
My 2 cents.
However, in this case I would go with the FR, I just like the .308 better and wouldn't mind working one of them over as much. I like the more modern look of them better also.
Of course you could look at the newly redone Enfields by (Century) I think. They would give you basically a new rifle in .308 on the enfield action. Food for thought.
Or else buy an Ishapore in .308 to work on as a start.
My 2 cents.
Johnny Guest
Moderator in Memoriam
I think I'd choose the Mauser - - -
- - - As long as you're sure you're getting the FR-8, rather than the FR-7. The -8s were made on the later, 1898 Mauser action, sronger than the -7. I understand the -7 was proofed only for the Sapanish CETME ammunition, loaded to lower pressures than the .308/7.62X51 NATO round.
All hearsay to me--I have scant personal experience along these lines.
Good luck - -
Johnny
- - - As long as you're sure you're getting the FR-8, rather than the FR-7. The -8s were made on the later, 1898 Mauser action, sronger than the -7. I understand the -7 was proofed only for the Sapanish CETME ammunition, loaded to lower pressures than the .308/7.62X51 NATO round.
All hearsay to me--I have scant personal experience along these lines.
Good luck - -
Johnny
Lord Grey Boots
New member
While FR8 is cool, if you want .308/7.62x51 you could go with the Gibbs Quest Extreme II. Its an updated version of the Indian Police Lee Enfield No.2 that was chambered in 7.62