WW1 'Periscope Prism company' sniper scope???

First to start with, I re-read the whole thread to try to understand as much as possible - not easy with so many technical words for being a non native speaker, but I think I now got most of the discussion and would want to throw in a few aspects from my side:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lmg15

That brings us to the question of whether the PPCo system was the best in practicality and execution, but without some objective evidence, it is hard to say whether the Patt.18 system of mounts was a practical improvement over the German shallow claw mounts. That would probably come down to things like no wandering zero and repeatability (ability to keep MPI after when the scope is mounted/dismounted from the rifle over and over), when compared with its German counterparts.

---

It is a bit simple to reduce the Germans to a "single claw mount". The Germans I think at least have had 10 different scope manufacturers who then had at least one or more scope models each that were officially introduced with then again each at least one or even more different scope mounts. A simple sample - you can find the Goerz on the Single Claw mount additionally in Bavarian or Prussian configuration (one with a different front scope ring that have had a provision to hold the leather eyecup, additional difference was the elevation adjustment where the Bavarians thought 6(00) was enough), and Goerz supplied two scope mount themselves with different magnification powered scopes! The variety is basically never ending and it would not be fully correct to reduce the claw mount system to one manufacturer only. Hensoldt scopes were brought into war rather late. The earlier German sniper rifles were set up by gunsmiths; those have screw heads fully aligned with the barrel/90° to the barrel, numbered to the base and with very early sniper rifles even the full scope base was engraved. You could find them with one or two claws, both at the front or at the rear (and combinations between these two), sometimes even with pivot pins at the rear, sometimes with spring held buttons at the rear, sometimes with levers in the opposite direction. So to not make it too complicated I'm simply trying to make it as clear as possible that a direct comparison with the wording "German Claw Mount" is way too general.

An aspect that has not been mentioned in this thread: the Aldis scopes that were mounted to the P.14 rifles with the PPCo overbore mount to my knowledge ALL carry "MOUNTED BY THE PPCo" engravings on the scope tube. So it is clear that PPCo did the conversion of rifles to sniper rifles themselves, as well as that they must had considered the P.14 overbore mount as "their own" sniper mount. I am however a bit wondering why they did this with the P.14 scope mount, but not with their own dovetail mount when using Aldis scopes? On the other hand, it is consistent on the P.14 PPCo mount as well as the SMLE PPCo dovetail mount that the scopes always have the rifle number (only! No additional "Rifle. No.") on them, either on the rings or on the scope tube itself.

The big advantage of the P.14 scope mount is the overbore configuration. Not only because you don't have to consider the small offset of the scope when shooting, but also because it is much more comfortable. And additionally the P.14 rifle shoots really great. And whoever handles a SMLE and then a P.14 (or vica versa) would surely agree that the SMLE is rattling and some parts are not "that tight" whereas the P.14 simply is handsome and even the bolt closes tight.

PS: when speaking of the P.14 .. remember that handful Irish sniper rifles that were made around 1940? I've always wondered how in hell it could had made sense to BSA to manufacture scopes? Or why would someone source them parts and let them put their name on the scope? Was PPCo already non-existing at that time, or why else would they allow someone else copy "their" mount and scope?

Hi Promo. I wondered when you would chip in! I'm not going to dwell on the many different types of claw mounts that existed in Germany in the WW1 era - you know far more about the numerous variations than I do, although I know that there always seemed to me (when I collected German as well as British & Commonwealth kit) that there was almost as many different German mount designs as there was gunsmiths!

Aldis scopes with prism modification certainly do exist with the 'Fitted by the PPC London' (or something very similar) engraved on the scope tube, although as PPCo also fitted the claw mounts to the SMLE at about the same time I suspect that scopes destined for the SMLE would also have been so engraved. It would be nice if someone could categorically confirm this. I am not sure if I understand your following point about PPCo not using Aldis scopes in their own dovetail design mounts - if I have understood you correctly, they did, & it would seem like quite a few, although more often than not when they turn up these days the rings are missing. Indeed only last year surpmil very kindly put me on to a nice complete example in the US that I was able to buy - I had been trying to find one with the rings intact for years.

Concerning the later involvement of BSA during the mid to late 1930's with the Irish contract rifles & scopes, I have always assumed that as the Model 1918 design was carried out at Enfield then Enfield retained what I suppose we would now call the 'intellectual property rights' (!), so could contract with whomsoever they wished to produce this equipment. But again, this is only my supposition. I honestly don't know in which year the PPCo became defunct, but I think it may well have been only shortly after the end of the Great War. I would gladly welcome clarification on this....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Roger Payne

Meantime surpmil, you've given me the impetus to dig out my copy of Sambrook's 'The Optical Munitions Industry in Great Britain, 1888 - 1923', & there is some interesting stuff therein, although it does not answer anywhere near all of the gaps in our knowledge. For instance, he describes an attempt in 1914 by Barr & Stroud, to lure away skilled workers from the Periscopic Prism Company, with whom B&S had dealt since 1911, which if nothing else shows PPCo were not specifically set up at the outset of the Great War, but had already been in existence for a few years at least. He says that the attempt was not successful, by the way!

---

Roger; Stephen Sambrook gave a very interesting lecture to the HBSA on Mr Barr and Mr Stroud and how these two academics became involved in rangefinder production.
Stephen and I both worked for the same photographic retailer in the 1970's so I was keen to see what research he had been up to since our parting of the ways.

Hello Mick. Well, your old pal Mr Sambrook has produced quite an impressive book, if not one that is light reading! There is not a great deal about rifle scopes, but there is some, & some information with which I was not familiar. There is much more on 'bigger' (both physically & in terms of contract size) optical stores items, & quite a lot on Messrs Barr & Stroud. Interestingly, both the Periscopic Prism Co & Aldis Brothers had had supplied optical glassware to B&S either just before or at the beginning of the war & had had them rejected on quality grounds. However, it looks as though Aldis was rather better at putting its house in order than the PPCo.. the latter ultimately being taken into government ownership (which probably explains why they were chosen to produce the Model 1918 scope).

Incidentally, I secured a copy of the book though Amazon.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Promo

First to start with, I re-read the whole thread to try to understand as much as possible - not easy with so many technical words for being a non native speaker, but I think I now got most of the discussion and would want to throw in a few aspects from my side:

It is a bit simple to reduce the Germans to a "single claw mount". The Germans I think at least have had 10 different scope manufacturers who then had at least one or more scope models each that were officially introduced with then again each at least one or even more different scope mounts. A simple sample - you can find the Goerz on the Single Claw mount additionally in Bavarian or Prussian configuration (one with a different front scope ring that have had a provision to hold the leather eyecup, additional difference was the elevation adjustment where the Bavarians thought 6(00) was enough), and Goerz supplied two scope mount themselves with different magnification powered scopes! The variety is basically never ending and it would not be fully correct to reduce the claw mount system to one manufacturer only. Hensoldt scopes were brought into war rather late. The earlier German sniper rifles were set up by gunsmiths; those have screw heads fully aligned with the barrel/90° to the barrel, numbered to the base and with very early sniper rifles even the full scope base was engraved. You could find them with one or two claws, both at the front or at the rear (and combinations between these two), sometimes even with pivot pins at the rear, sometimes with spring held buttons at the rear, sometimes with levers in the opposite direction. So to not make it too complicated I'm simply trying to make it as clear as possible that a direct comparison with the wording "German Claw Mount" is way too general.

An aspect that has not been mentioned in this thread: the Aldis scopes that were mounted to the P.14 rifles with the PPCo overbore mount to my knowledge ALL carry "MOUNTED BY THE PPCo" engravings on the scope tube. So it is clear that PPCo did the conversion of rifles to sniper rifles themselves, as well as that they must had considered the P.14 overbore mount as "their own" sniper mount. I am however a bit wondering why they did this with the P.14 scope mount, but not with their own dovetail mount when using Aldis scopes? On the other hand, it is consistent on the P.14 PPCo mount as well as the SMLE PPCo dovetail mount that the scopes always have the rifle number (only! No additional "Rifle. No.") on them, either on the rings or on the scope tube itself.

The big advantage of the P.14 scope mount is the overbore configuration. Not only because you don't have to consider the small offset of the scope when shooting, but also because it is much more comfortable. And additionally the P.14 rifle shoots really great. And whoever handles a SMLE and then a P.14 (or vica versa) would surely agree that the SMLE is rattling and some parts are not "that tight" whereas the P.14 simply is handsome and even the bolt closes tight.

PS: when speaking of the P.14 .. remember that handful Irish sniper rifles that were made around 1940? I've always wondered how in hell it could had made sense to BSA to manufacture scopes? Or why would someone source them parts and let them put their name on the scope? Was PPCo already non-existing at that time, or why else would they allow someone else copy "their" mount and scope?

---

Promo, thanks for your insights into the German mounts. I have only just managed to get my own German rig together after 20 years of hunting (1915 Spandau with Gerard B3x), and get your point about the mounting differences from the holistic perspective. What I was referring to was the typical overbore claw mounts often seen on the Gerards & Oigees, but particularly on the Hensoldt Dialyt, being the two widely spaced claws at the front, and the two small claws on the rear leg offset to the left. The main point I was trying to get at is the claws on the front scope mounts are comparatively shallow, and are intended to move slightly in the rifle mount slots to enable windage adjustment. On the other hand, the PPCo overbore mounts of Enfield design are intended to be locked in there as rigidly as possible without any movement whatsoever.

I am always interested to see how particular countries design things to address universal engineering challenges ( BTW, the French are usually the ones on left field). There are many examples where there is incredible focus on theoretical design advantages which absorb huge amounts of machining time and skills to make, but do not actually translate into any practical benefit. These are the sort that could have been done the standard and unimaginative way for a weight penalty of half an ounce, and would be twice as quick to produce etc. There is intrinsically a lot more engineering and manufacturing effort in the Pattern 1918 system than for the equivalent German scopes, but did that translate to tighter groups at 600m? Also how do you separate the rifle's performance from that of the scope mounting system? I would not know from practical experience, but would be keen to know if anyone has done the comparison between P14(T) and German WW1 snipers various. There are comparison trials referred to in the development of the P14(T), but I would have no idea how detailed the surviving records are.

Regarding the 79 Irish contract Patt.18 scoped rifles, as PPCo. became a "ward of the Crown" :D their assets would have been public property and disposed of as such. One guess would be that Aldis Bros. as the related and likely to survive firm were perhaps entrusted with the bits and pieces left over from PPCo. It might well be that Aldis simply purchased what they wanted with the same object on their own initiative, but knowing the generally very conservative approaches taken and the fact there was a great glut of machinery, workers and surplus materiel, how much would anyone have paid for the stuff in 1919/20?

It's equally possible that the finished and unfinished Patt. 18 scopes and mounts were as you say Roger, taken into store at Enfield for use in the maintaining of the rifles and scopes still in service, as it was to be the standard sniping rifle of the Regular Army as we all know.

Considering both recent history and possible future history from the standpoint of the mid-1930s, it does seem more than a bit odd for a government factory to be supplying sniper rifles, or at least just the scopes, to the Irish Free State, so-called! But, odder things have happened, and not long after that... However, would it have been possible for Enfield (that is the WD) to release 79 scopes of the service pattern to BSA for fitting to those rifles? Or if not, did Aldis supply them, and if they did, what if any are the implications of that?

The fact that presumably at least six Patt.18 scopes were found a little later in the decade for fitting to the Ainley rifle prototypes, does suggest there were some on hand "in the system".

One almost has to wonder where those thousands of WWI scopes really ended up, considering how few we see around today and how unlikely it is that such things are destroyed once out of government hands.

I can't help wondering if a good number were actually scrapped post-WWI as not finding any buyers? Who in the generally parsimonious gun trade was likely to buy such stuff in any quantity at that time, considering, as they no doubt did, how many of their past and future clients were either dead or unlikely to ever need or want to buy another gun or rifle, particularly one with a telescopic sight?

One also wonders if the Alex Martin fittings of WWII did not meet a similar fate to the Ross MkIII sniper rifles and scopes, being withdrawn from service during the war, when scrap reclamation policies were followed quite rigorously? How many of that 421 survive, even bearing in mind that some were clearly lost in service as early as Crete in 1941.

Roger, had to get up with all that ton written in here, a tough read where you really have to find the time to go through it without a disturbing call in between. Plus a lot of the discussion focused on very details where I'm surely not the one who can add something.
Re Aldis in PPCo mounts: I was referring to the fact that PPCo when using Aldis scopes on the P.14 rifles they specifically engraved the scopes first of all to match the rifle, secondly with the "FIITED BY THE PPCo". Now that you have an Aldis that is on the PPCo dovetail mount - does that scope also have that "fitted by PPCo" anywhere on it? If not, I wonder why with one mount they did this, but not with the other mount. Could one then probably assume it wasn't PPCo who mounted the Aldis scope to the PPCo dovetail mount?

To Roger and Rob, thanks for the information re the "end" of PPCo. I didn't knew that. Sounds reasonable where they got the parts from. Still a weird thing to imagine Enfield supplying BSA with leftover parts from PPCo and BSA getting the scope tubes marked with their logo.

lmg15, thanks, now understood what you had wanted to say re comparison of the claw mounts with the overbore mount and lateral adjustment. I got your point with which you surely are correct, but please consider that this does NOT apply to ALL German claw mounts. For example the Busch claw mounts most often have a driftable front plate. But even with those that don't have the driftable front plate, remember that the lateral adjustment when properly mounted is usually something you don't need to touch, as well as the maybe minor adjustments done in the rear scope ring would not require large tolerances within the claws. The more I read in here it to me appears as if the British just happened to copy a single and very specific German sniper design that fell into their hands, not even looking at any other (German) pattern mounts nor scopes.
Since you touched the French: they in fact did have sniper rifles in WWI, as did almost all nations aside of the Russians. They in fact have had three different mount patterns for the M1886 M.93 rifle which all were fitted with French made APX scopes (of two different patterns, since one of the three mounts have had a different eye relief), plus one of the three mounts that can also be encountered with the US Winchester A5/B5 scopes. But let us better not start on this as well. I only want to concur with you with the insight on the Austrian Sniper rifle program: they made huge research to proof that a scope on a military rifle not makes any sense, then in WWI discovered the huge advantage of scopes on rifles, quickly changed their mind and requested scoped rifles and at first wanted to take an overbore mount because it was the only one they had been offered in the recent period (what is btw nonsense with a rifle that needs clip loading, so every reload you'll need to take off the scope), then while already trying to contract noticed a German offset pattern mount where they decided to get licenses for and then took over this mount without much testing.

Thanks Promo, also acknowledge your very valid point re the variety of German designs, and the British concentration on only one of them... The Busch ones are interesting as you say with the front plate being a sliding transverse dovetail arrangement. The push button detent arrangement is also a common Busch feature as far as I can see, so does this infer that Busch provided mounts for their own scopes, or another single gunmaker handled the Busch product? This strays away from the Lee Enfields, but I would be interested in more info on the Busch scopes. Best I find the appropriate place to post...

As I have mentioned before, my collecting of WW1 snipers of any nationality has been a long game, where you pick up what you can when you can afford to, and hope a matching rifle or scope turns up. As a result, lots of scopes, a few cases but few complete rigs.

Regarding the Aldis scopes with PPCo dovetail mounts, I have seen a few but they have never had any PPCo markings on either scopes or mounts as per the later overbore types on the P14. I ramble on a bit below, but the bottom line up front is that practicality got in the way, or they just didn't think of it at the time. The rather arcane practicality argument follows:

The only thing I can think of to explain this is that the original PPC scopes were marked with the company details on the scope tube - most probably before the optics and mounts were fitted. The engraving machine would be best set up to roll the empty scope tube past the stationary stylus to evenly engrave the tight diameter involved.

So here's a question - are the PPC rings soldered onto the PPC and Aldis scopes, or just held on using a tight fit and the two grub screws?

If soldered, then the complete Aldis scopes would have had to be stripped out prior to application of heat (it melts the resin cementing the lens couplets together), so it would have been opportune to put the "Mounted by PPCo" engraving on the tube if they had thought of it. If the PPC rings are not soldered on, then I could see it being a pain to do anything more than the bare minimum of removing the objective cell and the range drum turret (a two minute job) and push the new PPC rings on without having to strip out the scope internals.

The smaller diameter rings for the PPC scopes are quite wide and fit the rifle serial number on the front ring and the patent number on the rear ring.

On the other hand, the PPC style rings for the Aldis scopes have a bigger one inch diameter, and the rings are much narrower such that they are difficult to mark (have only ever seen one example with the rifle number in tiny stamps on the rear ring). My theory is that the overall length of the male dovetail / rings is constrained by the length of the female dovetail on the rifle. The narrower width of the rings is then dictated by the amount of room needed by the Aldis's focus adjustment plate to move on its helical slot backwards and forwards, which appears to be more than for the PPC scope. The different position of the Aldis focus plate would also not leave enough room on the scope tube outer surface to fit much engraving between the rings anyway.

Mostly, the rifle serial numbers are neatly engraved on the left side of the PPC mounted Aldis scopes in vicinity of the range drum, and stamped (with some force) on the bottom face of the dovetail. That would indicate the rifle serial on the bottom of the dovetail must have been stamped before the scope was inserted, as otherwise would not be good for delicate optics. One has the rifle number on the rear ring and one has a stamped number on the more solid sections of the male and female dovetails.

Why PPC marked the Aldis scopes in the overbore mounts may have been more of a pride / political move to advertise that PPCo was still relevant in some way, given the Govt takeover. Maybe in the climate of the time, they had more time on their hands to strip down and engrave the Aldis scopes.

All of that said, I have personally only ever seen the P14 Aldis scopes (No.3 and No.4s) marked with the PPC engraving. The SMLE types I have seen (two only)don't appear to have PPC engraving, but the rifle mounts have definitely been soldered to a rifle at some stage. The Aldis No.3 scopes are from the same run, being No70501 and No 70533.


ATB, D.

Gosh, I had to lie down after that! I quite agree with the drift of your deductions above. I suspect the rings were soft soldered with the scopes disassembled. I concur with your points about the markings too, although there is a lot to digest there. I enclose a few photographs that I think may illustrate what you are saying.

Attached are a few photographs showing a 4th Pattern Aldis with 'modified PPCo rings' & showing the neat rifle number that you allude to lmg15. I also enclose a few views of two more similar scopes, but which now lack their rings. They clearly did bear the modified PPCo rings as evidenced by the two small screw holes on the top of the scope where the mount locating screws were positioned. Note these scopes seem to have been engraved 1 to 6 on the range drums & obviously have the prism modification, there being no method of lateral adjustment on the mount system itself. The last scope is another 4th Pattern scope which I believe is one of the ex-SMLE over bore claw mount variety. I may have to rethink my statement above as it does NOT bear the 'Fitted by PPCo London' engraving on the tube, but does bear a neatly engraved rifle serial number on the side of the tube. The number equally clearly is not the serial of a Winchester produced P'14, & I believe this adds supporting evidence to it being an ex-SMLE issue scope. Note the range drum is also engraved 1 to 10 in common with the P'14 issue scopes.

There are also views of the two variations of the dovetail rings to show how necessarily 'slimmed down' those destined for the Aldis were, as well as the thinner wall thickness, necessitated by the Aldis being a one inch diameter tube & the PPCo being just under (understandable if derived from a German 25mm diameter tubed scope).

I hope forummers may find the pictures help illuminate some of what lmg15 is saying. He has expressed himself better than I could, but there is a lot to take in.

Many thanks Roger - a picture tells a thousand words - I should use more of the former and less of the latter! Apologies everyone, but I did warn that it would get arcane. I will post some more photos to illustrate specific points when I can wrangle the technology, but I think you have nailed all of the main points I was trying to make.

Brilliant specimens there. The scope with the M 30xxx series number is interesting. The number would equate to an LSA rifle made mid-ish 1915, or a BSA made in 1940. More likely the former, but may indicate a rifle drawn from stores if built up into an overbore sometime in late 1917 or 1918? ATB, D.