Mk1 Leaf Sights for No. 4 Mk 1's... "Singers"???

Curious about these sights as I don't have one - my Long Branch came with a CMk3.

I assume "Singer" refers to Singer the company as a maker of these sights. I also assume that numerous companies other than Singer also supplied these sights.

1. Why is this variant of the leaf sights generically (it seems to me) referred to as "Singer sights"? Because Singer made the majority of them? Something like that?

2. As a click adjustable military sight for the No. 4, what distance does one click subtend at 100 yards? I suspect it won't be anything close to an inch (1.047") or a half of an inch.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rick

Curious about these sights as I don't have one - my Long Branch came with a CMk3.

I assume "Singer" refers to Singer the company as a maker of these sights. I also assume that numerous companies other than Singer also supplied these sights.

1. Why is this variant of the leaf sights generically (it seems to me) referred to as "Singer sights"? Because Singer made the majority of them? Something like that?

2. As a click adjustable military sight for the No. 4, what distance does one click subtend at 100 yards? I suspect it won't be anything close to an inch (1.047") or a half of an inch.

---

Why are all vacuums called 'Hoovers" ?

No4 sights mounted on a No4 are ~1MOA
Put the No4 sight on a No5 and it gives ~0.5MOA

You may find this old post by Parashooter interesting (comparing the 'Singer' No4 sight with the Singer No5 sight) I have fitted No5 sights to my No4 and the differnece is outstanding.




Parashooter – No4 Vs No5 Rear sight Threads

At least on these two examples (original sights), there appears to be a difference in screw diameter and pitch. Given the slightly coarser thread on the 800-yard sight, the "click value" would be some 10% greater than the 1300-yard sight if both were mounted on rifles with the same sight radius - except for the fact that the 1300-yard elevation screw is double-threaded, giving it an effective pitch approximately double that of the single-thread 800-yard screw.

On measuring the two sights shown, each click of the No.4's sight moves the slide .008" - vs. .0043" on the No.5's sight. Consequently, the 1300-yard sight gives very close to 1.0 MOA per click with the No.4 rifle's 28" sight radius while the 800-yard sight has a click value of ~0.66 MOA with the No.5's 23" sight radius and would yield ~0.55 MOA on a No.4 rifle.

Would the shorter brl on the No.5 account for a different trajectory of MkVII ball hence a coarser thread as it is only graduated to 800Yds probably what the builders envisaged as a long shot in the jungle. After watching a reasonable amount of N.G footage with our troops in the jungle a 20 yard shot would be a long one! Guess that goes for most jungle situations.
My nephew did a 12 month tour with the AFP to the Solomons where his gig was a chopper ride into the middle of the jungle alone to a 1 room shack and a beat of a few villages he said without a guide he would have been lost as he said you go off the track 2-3M and you cannot see which way is the track so dense is the shrubbery.
He also said there is enough UXB's there to keep the ordnence disposal teams there going for the next 100 years such is the detritous of WWII.

Thank you Alan. Although, at least on this side of the pond in North America, I haven't heard vacuum cleaners generically referred to as "Hoovers". And now that I think of it, vacuum cleaner salesman jokes disappeared sometime in the last 30 years. I'm old enough to remember them actually coming to the door - what a dismal way to attempt to make a living.

I can see the point of preferring the No. 5's leaf sight when it delivers ~ half MOA corrections versus one MOA corrections. I don't think there's too much of a percentage of Lee Enfield shooters today that are going to be shooting beyond 800 yards with one of the issue sights.

I will file that info away and see about finding a No. 4 rear sight at one of the gun shows. I'll stick with the PH4 I have mounted now, but if for some reason I need something different, the No. 5's leaf sight looks far more appealing to me for target use versus the CMk3 leaf sight that came on the rifle.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CINDERS

After watching a reasonable amount of N.G footage with our troops in the jungle a 20 yard shot would be a long one! Guess that goes for most jungle situations.

---

I wonder how many troops familiar with shotguns back then thought the poor bugger walking point should have actually been armed with a pump shotgun and buckshot at those ranges?

Reading of the exploits of some of the units fighting in the jungles of the Pacific War back then, the idea of just striking off into dense jungle on a fighting patrol, heading in the general direction of where you think the enemy will be, is a pretty high level of ballsy. Not going to be any indirect fire support, air support, etc if you bite off more than you can chew. And a fighting withdrawal in that same dense jungle... especially if you have wounded? Good luck with that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rick

I will file that info away and see about finding a No. 4 rear sight at one of the gun shows.

---

I see you're in Vancouver, I'm in Victoria...if you want an English made sight I'll send you one because I have a couple. Fazerklay I think like the one on the left in the pics. No cost, just to get rid of it. The #5 sight isn't right for the #4 and it would cost lots...around here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by browningautorifle

I see you're in Vancouver, I'm in Victoria...if you want an English made sight I'll send you one because I have a couple. Fazerklay I think like the one on the left in the pics. No cost, just to get rid of it. The #5 sight isn't right for the #4 and it would cost lots...around here.

---

As a collector I'd agree - the No5 sight isn't 'right' for a No4.
As a shooter I need all the help I can get and the No5 sight is a help.

I have kept the original (to the rifle) No4 sight in a baggie, marked up as to which rifle it belongs.

I currently have a PH5C on my savage No4 Mk1* (4th from the top)


https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo.../IMG8785-1.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CINDERS https://www.milsurps.com/images/tact...post-right.png
Would the shorter brl on the No.5 account for a different trajectory of MkVII ball hence a coarser thread as it is only graduated to 800Yds probably what the builders envisaged as a long shot in the jungle. After watching a reasonable amount of N.G footage with our troops in the jungle a 20 yard shot would be a long one! Guess that goes for most jungle situations.

---

1. The No.5's sight actually has a finer pitch* than the No.4's. Looks coarser because it's a single thread while the No.4's is a double thread.
2. Despite the unfortunate "Jungle Carbine" marketing term, it's worthwhile recognizing that the No.5 was designed and used as a general-purpose rifle for all kinds of terrain. Wartime experience had demonstrated that rifle fire was largely ineffective beyond 800 yards - so why bother with extraneous graduations?

*Wikipedia's "Screw thread" article has some useful clarification on "pitch" -

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...pitchpng-1.jpg
"Lead /ˈliːd/ and pitch are closely related concepts. They can be confused because they are the same for most screws. Lead is the distance along the screw's axis that is covered by one complete rotation of the screw (360°). Pitch is the distance from the crest of one thread to the next. Because the vast majority of screw threadforms are single-start threadforms, their lead and pitch are the same. Single-start means that there is only one "ridge" wrapped around the cylinder of the screw's body. Each time that the screw's body rotates one turn (360°), it has advanced axially by the width of one ridge. "Double-start" means that there are two "ridges" wrapped around the cylinder of the screw's body. Each time that the screw's body rotates one turn (360°), it has advanced axially by the width of two ridges. . ."

The original question # 1 at the start of this thread was “ Why is this variant of the leaf sights generically (it seems to me) referred to as "Singer sights"? Because Singer made the majority of them? Something like that?”

I believe that “Singer sights” is an erroneous term, used by collectors and shooters for the Mark I backsight. Singer was simply one of several manufacturers and was not even the first to make these. The Mark I backsights were first made by Royal Small Arms Factory Enfield in a couple of variations in the early 1930s for the Trials No.4 Mk.I rifles. Then in 1941-1942 they were made by Singer, BSA, Stevens-Savage, Small Arms Limited at Long Branch etc. To speed up production in 1942-1945 the rifle manufacturers switched to simpler backsight designs, though the Mk.I Modified sight continued to be installed on No.4 Mk.I (T) and No. 4 Mk.I* (T) sniper rifles and the unfinished examples, the No.4 Mk. I (T. LESS TELESCOPE). Post-WWII the Mk.I backsight came back into common use as the wartime rush to produce rifles had passed, and precision in shooting was desired. Oddly however Canada produced the C No.4 Mk. I* in 1949-1950 and spare bodies thereafter briefly, fitted with stamped metal backsights.

Peter wrote a brief monograph on the No.1 Mk.VI / No.4 Mk.I trials backsight in 1990 of which I have a copy, pointing out that "Whether by accident or good design, this configuration ALMOST equates to minutes of angle, certainly at the mid-ranges..." He also pointed out that the earlier trials sights had four rather than six indents/clicks per revolution.