CMkIII No4 Sight Question.

[Stevo]

I'm 99% sure I'm right but I want to double check. The battle sight aperture on the CMkIII is a 300yd sight, correct?

Information

Warning: This is a relatively older thread This discussion is older than 360 days. Some information contained in it may no longer be current.

[Warren]

Yup, except on the EAL...it is 200 yds.

[Stevo]

Thanks, I wanted to be sure before I made this statement.

I, Stevo, do consider the CMkIII rear sight for the Lee Enfield No4 rifle to be the worst sight, with the 2nd worst quality control (next to a Norinco M305 rear sight that I owned) ever to be put on a Canadian service rifle.

While shooting at our last Ranger meeting, I've found another two of our rifles where the 300 yd battle sight does not hit the same spot as the 300 yd peep. As a matter of fact, not even close. Over 12 inches difference in POI on both these rifles. Out of 18 rifles issued to our Patrol, 5 have had CMkIII's where the battle sight was either off laterally or vertically. My first rear sight has a 8 inch left/right difference in POI between the peep and battle.

Junk, junk, junk.

I've got a Mk1 to zero next week, hope it's better.

[sdh1911]

Was the ammo being used the same type the rifle was designed for? I have found with the US weapons we loss Zero very fast using commercial ammo. In the case of the AR-15 the difference is profound, HTH-SDH

[Stevo]

I understand that the calibration of the sight may not be the same with our issue ammo as it was for the original Mk7z ball. That's not the problem though.

POI should be the same with the battle sight and the 300yd peep sight setting. That's not the case with 5 out of 18 sights.

[sdh1911]

Strange, sounds like the sighting holes out of location, it really stumps me. Keep us posted with anything else that may come to light. I've been working on guns for many years and this one really does not make sense.-SDH

[Stevo]

Strange, sounds like the sighting holes out of location, it really stumps me. Keep us posted with anything else that may come to light. I've been working on guns for many years and this one really does not make sense.-SDH

That's what's wrong with them all right, hence my comments about quailty control. On a couple it's visible with the naked eye, on the rest it's apparent when you sandbag the rifle and flip back and forth between the battle and peep.

[Stevo]

Man, I just can't buy a break. Put the MkI sight on my No4 last night and headed to the range. It's fubar too.

The 300yd peep and battle sight hit about 8 inches apart. This is getting frustrating. If I had a sight with the small battle sight aperture I'd just sight it in with that and forget about the adjustable part. Plus, the sight pusher won't fit over my front sight ears.

I think I'm going to put the L flip sight on call it a day. Zero it to hit 2 inches high with the short aperture and leave it alone. I think I've got a Savage and the one from my AIA to chose from. Good thing I've got every front sight height known to man in the Ranger spares box.

[sdh1911]

I took measurements on the 3 I have in the locker using the base of the sight to the bottom of the battle sight hole using a faily close set of dial calipers and there is a 0.015" deviation between the three. two are only 0.002" apart and the third was a stretch the two close ones were a Savage and Frazackerly and the stretch was another Savage-HTH-SDH

[Claven2]

Interesting. Frankly, I always shoot with the adjustable sight aperture, not the battle sight, so I don't know if any of mine are off or not?