John Rigby & Sons No. 1 Mk.III Sniper

Rob no, please read what I had written:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Promo

Rob, for you I checked in detail the front ring yesterday. What I originally also had thought would be remnants of silver solder turned out to be scratches in the blueing.

---

*Click me, I'm a link to the detail shot showing there are only scratches*

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by henry r

in the last post he mentions "no" silver solder, so the removable scope is still feasable.
looking at the set up I'd say the scope is dropped into the rear mount while rotated anti clockwise 30-50°, slid forward into the front ring, then rotated back to verticle.
it must have taken a lot of work to keep the rings collumated when made. that being said i like it better than the A5 mounts that mount to the sight protectors.

---

Thank you, that was exactly what I had meant to say. NO silver solder, so NO fixing at the front. And my personal believe is that the scope is removeable in exactly the manner you described. Sorry, I'm not a native speaker and therefore might not had explained it technically correct.


*Edit*

Rifle is a 1914 dating Enfield made No. 1 Mk.III (non *) rifle with all matching serial number (L780) on stock, nose cap, rear sight, bolt, receiver and barrel. It carries a painted Museum number ("P7") on bottom of the butt stock.

Georg,

You are correct regarding the use of what I've always thought of as a transition Rigby/Feuss - Periscopic Prism Co scope. I've only ever seen two examples but the scope is effectively straight tubed as per the Rigby but is equipped with the lateral adjustment capstans of the PP Co.

Regarding my comments about the Rubber inserts. These were used simple to take up any "slop" between the rear ring and the scope to prevent movement without crushing the tube. The original drawings clearly show a ".05 thickness of Rubber" to be fitted to the dovetails.

I'd be very interested to hear what Roger Payne can tell us.

Roger liked it and was also painfully waiting for me to finally get it, but he's currently not at home and sure he will jump in when he gets back! I've however satisfied his curiosity by sending him a few pics to his mobile :) .

Had just did some more pics showing the rifle in general. Please find them attached (and if I can manage to, I'll edit the starting post to also add them there).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Promo

Rob no, please read what I had written:

*Click me, I'm a link to the detail shot showing there are only scratches*

Thank you, that was exactly what I had meant to say. NO silver solder, so NO fixing at the front. And my personal believe is that the scope is removeable in exactly the manner you described. Sorry, I'm not a native speaker and therefore might not had explained it technically correct.

*Edit*

Rifle is a 1914 dating Enfield made No. 1 Mk.III (non *) rifle with all matching serial number (L780) on stock, nose cap, rear sight, bolt, receiver and barrel. It carries a painted Museum number ("P7") on bottom of the butt stock.

---

Thanks Georg, I got your comment about the solder. Looking at the closeup you posted those scratches look more like hacksaw blade marks, but I can't see why that would have been necessary.

I'll have to disagree about solder though: it is entirely typical of a soldered surface and the residue of solder no doubt present has prevented rust etc. Notice the scratches inside the ring: often seen where solder has been scraped off.

If the scope just slid into the front ring one would expect the inside to be finished similar to the inside of the rear ring. Logically there would also be some way of taking up slack similar to the rubber pads in the rear ring, would there not?

You could try a lead testing kit to see if there is or was solder inside the front ring.

Anyway, a remarkable survivor thanks to Mr. Robert Faris who took an interest in these things when hardly anyone else did, and now in your safe keeping. Thanks for sharing it with us.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by henry r

I'd take a guess at 0 degrees .2 minutes. though measuring .2 minutes is another thing.

in the last post he mentions "no" silver solder, so the removable scope is still feasable.

looking at the set up I'd say the scope is dropped into the rear mount while rotated anti clockwise 30-50°, slid forward into the front ring, then rotated back to verticle.

it must have taken a lot of work to keep the rings collumated when made. that being said i like it better than the A5 mounts that mount to the sight protectors.

---

A common built-in declination these days is 20 minutes of angle, albeit for longer ranges, but considering the trajectory of .303 MkVII, I doubt two minutes would be of much use and .2 minutes so little as to be pointless.

Still, they may have thought differently then!

As you say, the collimation in setup must have been troublesome.

Hello everyone. Just got back from the latest trip over to the battlefields, visiting the Red Baron crash site & Manchester Hill, amongst other places. Until I heard about this rifle I thought there were none left on the planet, although like Georg & Simon I do have the partial set of drawings. It looks to me, & bearing in mind this is an early conversion, that the scope would have been a Fuess Helios 3/PPco transitional type. I have seen more than one variation (they usually bear no maker's mark though may have 'fitted by Fred Bloggs & Co' engraved on them). (Presumed) earlier transitional models lack the capstans for lateral adjustment, but those made a little later do have them, & look to all intents & purposes like PPCo scopes, save for the objective lens housing, which is flush with the outside diameter of the tube, rather than wider as in a 'definitive' PPCo scope. Of course, being parallel would allow a 'transitional' scope to be slid out of the mount arrangement backwards, if the wing clamp at the rear were to be undone.

I must say though, that I'm not sure about the recesses in the rear 'ring'. I've always tended to agree with Simon, & certainly recesses for rubber inserts is quite plausible, but I'm really not sure why they are not machined equally spaced (say three of them at 120 degree intervals, or four of them at ninety degrees), so as to cushion the scope all round. If collimation was in some way intrinsically a bit out, then some form of adjustment method would have to be found - perhaps differential thicknesses of rubber in the bushings??? Further, one recess is quite different to the other two. I did wonder if this might be for some sort of projecting stud or screw head on the scope tube. I have a similar type of scope fitted by Gibbs that bristles with small projecting screw heads that I must dig out for a closer look. A bit of an odd one I admit, & I don't pretend to have all of the answers......

My two cents... If the upper milled recessions on the rear ring are for rubber inserts as indicated on the drawing, perhaps the scope had a soldered sleeve with that provided the appropriate colomation via sleeve thickness. The sleeve may have had a protrusion that fit inside the recessed portion on the right side of the lower and upper rear (when clamped shut) so as to secure the scope in position so no rearward or forward movement would occur as I cannot see why that feature is present on the rear ring. Once the scope was inserted I guess the rubber inserts were probably to ensure that the clamping action of the rear ring did not crush the scope once locked in place.

Andrew, already the drawing shows the stud added to the scope tube to lock the scope in place! I think the rubber shims are only there to additionally lock the scope in place, not only by the locking stud. When the rear scope ring is fully "closed" (meaning the fixture screw has been tightened to the maximum) the rear scope ring has an approx. diameter of 25mm, so 0,4mm less than it should have. So the scope is really held in place by the rubber shims.

And Roger, it is quite clear why there are only TWO of them and BOTH at the top. If you would make three of them and all three equally spaced at 120°, you can be sure that every removal results in the need of zeroing the scope again because it would depend upon how much you tighten the screw if there was an additional shim at the bottom. So the way it is designed is the only proper way this would work.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Promo

Andrew, already the drawing shows the stud added to the scope tube to lock the scope in place!

---

Ah, well there was a detail I missed in the drawing! Thanks for the clarification.

You make a good point Georg. And I would expect the scope tube to be 25mm diameter, not 25.4mm as it is a plagiarised German scope, remember! Even definitive PPCo scopes are not a full one inch in diameter, they're marginally under. I've always taken this to be a reflection of the scope's German origins.......