WW1 'Periscope Prism company' sniper scope???

Many thanks; for a rather dry subject you have put it very well indeed! As you say, sometimes a picture helps. The M prefix serialled scope? Yes, I suspect it is likely indicative of a rifle taken from available stores. I know that most surviving examples of WW1 SMLE snipers are built on EFD rifles, although I know of one, & apparently IDS has seen a few, equipments built around BSA rifles. I suspect LSA variants existed as well, the scarcity/absence of identified examples these days just being a consequence of the much lower LSA production totals & therefore numbers converted in the first place, combined with the negligible survival rate.

lmg15, I cannot tell you whether Busch also mounted the scopes but will ask a friend of mine who is very knowledgeable on WWI German sniper stuff. You even have the early and the late pattern of Busch scopes with these rings. I found this out when buying one of these sniper rifles and happily thinking I could fit the spare scope I've had sitting around. Took me two more years to find the correct later pattern.. That however should be a discussion to be held somewhere else, I promise I stop writing on German WWI scopes by myself now, if not needed to answer someone elses question!

To get back on Topic, and to make it a bit more clearer what I was questioning:
1.) PPCo dovetail mount for the SMLE
a) PPCo made scope. This variant also carries the Patent date and rifle number on the mount and "Periscopic Prism Company Ltd London" on the scope tube between the rings.
b) Aldis made scope. This variant does NOT carry the Patent date NOR the rifle number on the mount. The scope on its tube body carries the rifle number.

2.) "PPCo" overbore mount for the P.14/No. 3 (T)
a) PPCo made scope (based on Hensoldt scope). This scope carries "Periscopic Prism Co Ltd Makers London" as well as "1918 Model" plus the rifle serial on the scope tube. No markings on the ring
b) Aldis made scope. This variant additionally carries the "Fitted by PPCo" on the scope tube.

I'm maybe questioning this detail too much, but why would PPCo see the necessity to mark the Aldis scopes with the P.14/No. 3 rifle, but not with the PPCo dovetail mount for the SMLE, as well as not even putting the patent date on the mount?

Additionally, lmg15 one thing worth mentioning: the rifle number on the PPCo dovetail mounted PPCo scopes is of different size and font than the number of the patent date right next to it. And looking at my scopes I'd even suggest the rifle number was later hand engraved on the PPCo dovetail mount. On the PPCo P.14/No. 3 (T) scopes as well as on the Aldis scopes in either mount the rifle number appears to be machine engraved.

The more we discuss, the less I think I know..

May I humbly make a suggestion? It would not resolve all of the confusion over scopes made by PPCo by any means, but it would help. Perhaps if we referred to the Hensoldt derived PPCo produced scope by its official designation of the Model 1918 scope, it will at least serve to lessen the confusion? It arguably isn't really a PPCo scope anyway, it's an Enfield plagiarised German scope produced by not only the PPCo but also AOC & BSA (being charitable in the last case). I'm not normally overly pedantic on nomenclature so long as liberal use of terminology does not cause any confusion, but here use of the official designation might help.

Just a suggestion, but it might help......:thup:

Thanks Roger - good idea!

Promo, I'll try addressing your points directly in Italics:

1.) PPCo dovetail mount for the SMLE
a) PPCo made scope. This variant also carries the Patent date and rifle number on the mount and "Periscopic Prism Company Ltd London" on the scope tube between the rings. Concur. Production markings on the scope and rings are engraved using a rotary burr stylus before final assembly, with patent details fitting comfortably on the 3/4 inch wide ring. Concur your observations regarding the rifle number font - definitely hand engraved using a traditional engraving tool.
b) Aldis made scope. This variant does NOT carry the Patent date NOR the rifle number on the mount. The scope on its tube body carries the rifle number. There is no patent date as there is not enough room on the narrower ring (3/8 inch wide), but a couple of examples are marked with rifle serial in small stamps on the rear ring. Rifle number is also stamped on the more solid sections of the dovetail on most examples. Due to all of the stamping and soldering, the Aldis scopes would have been stripped of internals beforehand to prevent damage. There is no room to fit "Fitted by PPCo" in the usual area on the scope body between the rings due to the larger focus adjustment plate, but there is still plenty of room to engrave that forward of the rings. What is actually on the P14 mounted Aldis tubes is a real mouth full, being FITTED BY / PERISCOPIC PRISM CO.LTD. / LONDON / 1918 engraved on four lines, so a bit of free area is needed for all of that. Why they did not engrave this on the Aldis scopes in dovetail mounts? I do not know, as they had the opportunity if they wanted to. I am thinking there can be only two alternatives:
1. they did not think of it at the time, as maybe the very design sufficiently implied "PPCo", or
2. the one inch dovetail rings were either not made by PPCo and/or not fitted by them. I would probably find the absence of the patent details more odd than the lack of a serial number on these. I have a set of virgin unfitted dovetail rings for the Aldis scope, and it bears no manufacturing marks whatsoever.

2.) "PPCo" overbore mount for the P.14/No. 3 (T)
a) PPCo made scope (based on Hensoldt scope). This scope carries "Periscopic Prism Co Ltd Makers London" as well as "1918 Model" plus the rifle serial on the scope tube. No markings on the ring. Concur.
b) Aldis made scope. This variant additionally carries the "Fitted by PPCo" on the scope tube. The FITTED BY / PERISCOPIC PRISM CO.LTD. / LONDON / 1918 engraving would be a nice touch on the P14 Aldis scopes, but why not do this for the similar overbore Aldis scopes for SMLE? I could only guess. The only thing I can think of is that PPCo or the WO had a sudden flash of inspiration in 1918 to ensure the fitting contractor was identifiable. As I mentioned earlier, there may have been some politics to demonstrate that PPCo was actually producing something.

I have not been able to glean exactly when the Govt took over PPCo, but was during the first half of 1918? The reason I mention it is that PPCo is still trading as a "Company Limited", meaning that the shareholding is limited. Does that mean the previous shareholders various, or did the Government become the single shareholder? IDS indicates that PPCo was under the "management of the Ministry of Munitions", or was it ownership?

I'm maybe questioning this detail too much, but why would PPCo see the necessity to mark the Aldis scopes with the P.14/No. 3 rifle, but not with the PPCo dovetail mount for the SMLE, as well as not even putting the patent date on the mount? There can never be too much detail Promo...

ATB, D.

May I start Thursday with an apology & an explanation? To borrow Madzi's expression, I've just had a 'eureka moment', at least in a minor sense....

I was pretty certain that both the Aldis scopes destined for the P'14 & the SMLE in the claw mounts were attributable to the PPCo, at least to the confirmation of fitting. It was a shock when I looked at my example off a SMLE (one of those illustrated in an earlier posting) to find that there was no 'Fitted by....' on the scope tube. This perplexed me, until the penny dropped this morning. The SMLE/Aldis/Claw Mount scope WAS overtly attributed to the PPCo., but it was marked NOT on the scope tube. (I had not looked at the scope in question for some time & had forgotten about the location of markings). The chapter & verse on the scopes destined for the SMLE was engraved on the leg of the rear mount. I cannot remember from memory if it was in precisely the same format as engraved on the tubes of the scopes destined for the P'14, but I think it was, or it only differed slightly. Significantly, the date engraved on these, at least on the sole example of which I am aware, is 1919. This again, was behind my earlier comment that I believe the two systems were set up approximately contemporaneously, or perhaps the SMLE system immediately after the P'14's.

I have a photograph of an engraved part set of the SMLE claw mounts stored somewhere that the late Bruce Gorton sent to me about twenty five years ago. At this time we discussed this system a lot. I had mentioned my 'three quarters set' as being finished but in the white & devoid of markings, which prompted him to send me the photograph. I am afraid I cannot remember if the marked part set belonged to Bruce, or was simply one that he was aware of, but I'm sure I still have the photograph somewhere & I will endeavour to find it & attempt to reproduce it here for the interest of anyone who might be.....

But first I must go to Birmingham Proof House, & then keep my wife happy by putting the vacuum cleaner round..........so, until later:madsmile:


(I would suspect that I was developing dementia were it not for the fact that my memory has always been terrible! Apologies for not recalling this sooner.......).

lmg15, may I be evil and add an alternative to the SMLE PPCo mounted Aldis scope: The Aldis scope for the PPCo dovetail mount were not equipped with the scope ring at PPCo, but at another company and therefore do not have the same marking on the tube as with the PPCo mount for the P.14/No. 3 (T) rifle. Or do the contracts show something differently?

Strewth, I've read this all three times.....some is sinking in, other bits are just confusing.....but all in all a wealth of knowledge with a bit of supposition.
Just need someone to put it all in a logical sequence.

Promo, this possibility has cropped up in discussion before (though not, I think, on the forum) - it is entirely possible the rings were made by another company, & I too, would be interested to see what lmg15 thinks of this.

Is it possible that the enlarged PPCo. type mounts are in fact the "Bartle" mounts? If they were PPCo. made and fitted, why would they not have marked them as per their other production?

If the design of the basic PPCo. system was licensed while PPCo. were still a private outfit, all that was required was their agreement and a license fee if any. If their patents were company property, then the government got them when it took the company over and could presumably license them to whoever they saw fit, including perhaps Bartle?

Anyway, I'm thinking out loud here without time to go back over the materials, so may be well off target! ;)

Fellow forum member Bindi2 has asked me to post pictures of his Aldis scope in here, along with the scope rings he has. I have already told him these scope rings are Evans scope rings. The focal adjustment of his Aldis scope is something I've never seen before, maybe someone else has?

PS: Rob, finally someone dared to say this! I'll however let others speak on it..

Edit: forgot to address this today:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Roger Payne

I was pretty certain that both the Aldis scopes destined for the P'14 & the SMLE in the claw mounts were attributable to the PPCo, at least to the confirmation of fitting. It was a shock when I looked at my example off a SMLE (one of those illustrated in an earlier posting) to find that there was no 'Fitted by....' on the scope tube. This perplexed me, until the penny dropped this morning. The SMLE/Aldis/Claw Mount scope WAS overtly attributed to the PPCo., but it was marked NOT on the scope tube. (I had not looked at the scope in question for some time & had forgotten about the location of markings).

---

This is GREAT information. IF PPCo also marked the SMLE overbore mount somewhere with their name, it would make it nearly impossible that PPCo also mounted the Aldis scopes to the "PPCo dovetail" mount and NOT put their name on it anywhere. The plot thickens.. And Roger, if you find any picture of this, please do share it. That would be great to see, thanks!