Ross Straight-Pull Mk.3, Lee-Enfield No. 4 Mk.1, Mosin-Nagant M31 Hex Receiver.

I'm assuming you are from Canada because we don't get a whole lot of Ross's down in the lower 48 and the hex 91/30s are a bit of a rarity in recent months.

all three would be more than enough to kill a deer, but from my meager understanding of the ross, it was a great target rifle but performed poorly under adverse conditions. it may not perform well if you are hunting in extreme cold like I've been doing the last 3 days(-7 farenheit yesterday morning here in the mountains of Idaho). same might be said for if you are hunting sandy or dusty environs. the 91/30 and number 4 MK1 would be much more reliable, I believe that the Canadian Rangers still issue the number 4 in the far north so I'm thinking it would be great in cold weather, though the 91/30 has served in some of the nastiest cold weather combat zones of the early 20th century. you really couldn't go wrong with either, but the number 4 is a much nicer rifle for the job in my opinion. it's shorter, better balanced, less cracks and gaps everywhere, and generally speaking more accurate.
 
I have READ that a fake No 5 will hold its zero because it lacks the lightening cuts of the original. But you will probably have paid too much.

There are a lot of pre-Bubbaed .303s if you don't want to hump an infantry rifle.
 
I personally know of several real No5s. Not one of them has a documented wandering zero.

I think the truth is there for those prepared to look for it. There were some No5's with a wandering zero (however you define it, or not). But they were largely returned to rear echelon armory because of the problem. Armorers there either fixed the problem (usually bad wood, warping or bad bedding) or could not fix them & they were stripped for usable parts.

What this did was to weed out the malfunctioning ones to a large extent, so most of the "survivors" either didn't have the problem in the first place, or had it in a correctable form. The "bad ones" were stripped & destroyed, taking the problem with them.

This is documented in several books on the rifle & borne out in practice by the do they/don't they arguments. Some used to have, but not any more.
 
I'd go enfield

Accurate enough out to a hundred yards with iron sights. Any greater distance and I'd mount a scope.
 
Accurate enough out to a hundred yards with iron sights. Any greater distance and I'd mount a scope.
I get about 5~7" 200yd groups with mine, now a good part of that is my older eyesight.

Thus the scope that is now attached & foresighted, but not yet zeroed.
The mount is ND/NT & seems to be very similar to the Fultons I have on the No4, but its lighter & shorter.

DSCF1316_zps976ef459.jpg
 
Get a Swiss K-31 for deer hunting.

Very accurate, plenty of power, and the VERY BEST workmanship you have ever seen on a battle rifle.

Deaf
 
A noble quest you have undertaken, Wogpotter

Squeezing accuracy out of a jungle carbine would make me take up drinking:D
 
Back
Top