PPCo scope with matching numbers pouch

I recently have had the chance to purchase a near immaculate PPCo scope on the PPCo dovetail mount, complete with the matching numbers scope pouch, which had been a WWI trophy of a German soldier. Aside of very superficial rust pittings where the original scope leather covers respectively the band that connects the two covers had been touching the metal of the scope there are practically zero signs of wear.


Not sure whether this one qualifies as an early or a late PPCo scope, and if the 7 on the front of the mount is a pairing number to the base, but maybe someone can educate me on them?

That's a beautiful scope!! Thanks for sharing and congratulations on your acquisition!!

Brian

Much can be learned from such pristine examples: the white infill which is presumably original, the configuration of the lens caps. Things previously unknown AFAIK.

Nice find Georg.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Surpmil

Much can be learned from such pristine examples: the white infill which is presumably original

---

Actually that is crayon that I used to point out the markings better when taking the pictures. Originally these were "empty". This though is quite helpful, with the better contrast I came to the assumption (hope Roger can confirm) that even the same letters are slighly different, meaning that not only the rifle and patent number was hand engraved, but obviously also the company name. Quite a waste of labor IMHO.


Roger, any way to educate me whether this is an early or a late PPCo? Looking at my other PPCo it turns out both are for rifles in the T block. Maybe they did pick them in certain batches and therefore we are to assume some letters are to be seen more often as sniper rifles as others? Or just a wild thought of mine from looking at a handful scopes?

There is so much we don't know for sure about this Great War kit. That is one of the things that I find fascinating. Enclosed a few pictures of some of my scopes. Note one of them is also a T prefix. I can't remember if it was from TBS or whether it may have been a conversation with IDS but he mentioned that most of the serials on authentic SMLE snipers of the Great War era are all near the beginning or the end of the alphabet. Of course, whilst it is an interesting observation, it may simply be chance, as so few original rifles survive. Of course, rifle serials engraved on scopes give us more data to chew on.

I also no longer believe that only Enfield produced SMLE's were converted to snipers.........the Charnwood Ordnance rifle was I am pretty sure correct, & was built on a BSA receiver. I have an Aldis scope which bears a serial number that was allocated to a 1915 LSA. However, there is no doubt that, of the few genuine surviving examples, most seem to be built on RSAF Enfield production.

Note the scope with the 'wrap around' range drum saddle. I own only this example, but know of one or two more. I have little evidence to back it up, but suspect this is a quite early variant. One way one can get an idea if a scope is early is if its rings bear the 'Patent Applied For'. Clearly this suggests (probably, relatively) early production. This is only from my rather faulty memory, but I cannot recall off hand seeing any of the 'long cone' scopes with 'Patent Applied For' on them, which suggests that they are later than the 'short cone' type. I have often thought that the point at which the cone flattens out to the threaded part at its front is a weak area in the design, & I have seen a couple of scopes where this area had broken away. The 'long cone' type is much stronger here, & so it would make sense that it came later as a design improvement. However, this is just supposition on my part.....

Mine is identical to Promo's - same Patent date 1915 however serial number is "X 5654". SN appears in same locations - top of scope bracket and the back face of the mount. Has original leather scope caps. Ron (Canada)

Very interesting Roger. I also noticed that the one with the "Pat. App. For" of yours has a broad arrow on the scope tube, whereas the scope with the patent number on it has that broad arrow above the rifle number on the mount, whereas mine, being one with patent number on the scope mount too, seems to lack the broad arrow at all?!

Maybe not infinite variations, but quite a few!

I happened to see a photo of a WWII Arisaka scope base recently. The similarity to the PPCo. mount design was rather striking. The difference of course was the adjustable, ie: collimatable and zero-able rings on the Arisaka.

If these PPCo. scopes were in fact truly collimated, presumably they were set up in a jig similar to that used for the No.4(T) conversions and the body sides machined to suit.

Or does that odd reference in your manual cited elsewhere Roger to the impracticality of zeroing for windage beyond 100 yards suggest it was all a bit more vague on the PPCo. setups?

It's funny you mention that Surpmil. I was thinking about this idly.....& I remembered years ago seeing a couple of what appeared to be genuine PPCo rifles that had had their bases removed. When we recreate them these days the rifle body is 'kissed' to turn curves into rightangles so as to facilitate fitting the base & collimating the scope with the rifle bore, yet the couple of originals were very crudely done by what looked like hand scraping, no less. I suspect some of the methods used would surprise us...

IIRC (it was only photo's that I saw) one of the rifles lived in Canada...

A multitude of sins could hide under those bases! :D The drawing in TBS shows some short of groove cut into the body side of the rifle IIRC, but actual collimation of the axis of the rings to the axis of the bore requires much more precision I suspect. Could be any cold chisel work now seen was done on the Continent when scopes and bases were refitted to a second or third rifle? Was it supposed to be done? Not according to TBS I believe, but why send your battalions few rifles or scopes off to England when you might not get them back again until...?

The dovetail permits no tweaking and neither do the rings, and all those screws along the bottom of the base would pull it in tight against the body side, so without bits of shim stuck in here or there under the base, how to adjust when setting up?

Thanks Surpmil. As we know, what was supposed to happen in theory often didn't, or at least, not all of the time! I really do not want to dismantle my sole unadulterated PPCo rifle (for obvious reasons) but I would not be surprised if there were no 'peg' to locate into the body wall at all. The whole system is hardly ideal, relying on one point of contact of not great length. Two well separated mounting points would have been much better..........but that's how they made 'em! The Whitehead mounts could be argued to be even worse a design; granted the front & rear mounts are widely separated, but with the front base anchored to the rear sight protector, which in turn is attached to the wooden forend.:ugh:

Indeed, a horrendous mess; someone trying to sabotage the efforts of our snipers could hardly have done better. :rolleyes:

A.J. Parker actually had the best solution for the A5 scope on the SMLE, but it seems their suggestion was ignored. Or perhaps the powers that be weren't able to deduce that the A5 (and B4) when mounted over-bore could be slid forward in their rings allowing the all-important charger loading?

In a mere ten years it seems Dr. A.A. Common's and Sir Howard Grubb's innovative sights had been forgotten. :rolleyes:

I've never had a chance to examine one, but I'd expect the former at least had some method of collimation built in, given Dr. Common's already extensive work on telescopic sights, principally for the Royal Navy's guns.

Had Dr. Common not died prematurely in 1903 things might have been quite different in this department during WWI, but it seems there was no one with the knowledge and the prestige to push the project from outside the WD. Grubb had moved on to bigger projects and apparently no one thought to ask him.

Zeiss borrowed the Grubb reflex concept for their Glasvisier16 and the rest is history.

Maybe take that PPCo. SMLE body in for a few x-rays? ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Surpmil

The difference of course was the adjustable, ie: collimatable and zero-able rings on the Arisaka.

---

For what I know adjustment on Arisaka is done by setting of the lenses. They came zeroed from factory and lack even lateral adjustment. It though seems that you are referring to the very rare and hardly ever found 4x externally adjustable scope for the Arisaka T99 sniper rifle?

That's the one I was thinking of. Rubber rings under compression played some part IIRC. Not particularly my field of interest though. A very well thought out reticule design which obviated the need for adjustments.

Nah, not really obviated. Just zeroed from factory and then not thought to be swapped again.