Printable View
I just glommed this sight on fleabay and am looking for any information that I can find about it
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...t7QH_121-1.jpg
It was described as follows..
A set of original Australian Central sights for fitment as rear sight to fullbore rifle
3 clicks to the minute in vertical and horizontal plane, no backlash
Very good condition, little use. Has large threaded hole to accept fitment of Centra or Gehmann irises
I'm not sure which Enfield this was made for, No4 or No1
You're in luck, this top arm fits both depending on the mounting plate. The mounting plates come made for no1mk3, no4mk1 and also there's a universal plate that fits both.
Go to enfield resource.com for photos and stuff about sights.
Central sights are good ones, yours has been devalued slightly because of the eyepiece modification, however there are adaptors that allow the original and parker hale eyepieces to fit, and Centrals are one of the longest production run time aperture sight made and they're a very good piece of equipment. The plates come for sale on ebay regularly.
It's also got the large thread for gehmann rear aperture fancy dealy: Geh-1.5Mag/Diop-5 Filter Iris - New South Wales Rifle Association
Other cheaper iris's will fit too, thankfully.
... Derr, just read all of first post...
Best target sights made. Eventually that fact will penetrate the public mind outside Australia and the fullbore fraternity.
In the meantime, get 'em for 1/3 the price of a Twin Zero.
Interested in your comment that they were the best target sight made Surp. Can you elaborate. Better than the PH and AGP twin zeroes? Surely they'd have to go some to beat those.
Peter, while I've owned and used a few of both, I'm mostly relying on the comments of some very experienced full bore shooters now well past retirement age who used all the main types heavily for some decades.
One gent in particular who is a most expert machinist and gunsmith and who repairs a lot of sights is quite emphatic about the mechanical advantages of the Centrals, principally their anti-backlash design, which he feels eliminates almost all slop.
His take on this, as best I can describe it, is that the two main tensioning springs in the Central keep the windage arm absolutely tight against the elevation "post", while the spring holding the aperture block on the windage arm keeps that also under constant tension. The same springs also keep the respective adjustment screw "nuts" constantly tensioned on the screws. The only planes slop can occur in are the rectangular openings which the windage arm and the aperture block move in. These can be easily tweaked in a press if any slop develops from metal to metal wear.
I'm holding a very well used Central now and a Parker Hale 5A made pre-war and I can wiggle and wrestle with the Central all I want and cannot feel the slightest slop. The same is not true for the 5A, althougth this is one of the really nicely made older examples.
The 5A has the advantage of a dovetail configuration on the elevation post, so that is or should be somewhat self aligning, but unfortunately the tensioning spring only pulls against the elevation screw in the direction of the muzzle, not against the post at all and not in the direction that would force the two "Vees" of the post and its slot together so as to self-align them. Someone has actually silver plated the male dovetail in days of yore to try and tighten it up.
The AJP TZ apparently tried to get around the PH patents by having that odd rectangular section elevation post that resembles a plinth in cross section, and the spring at least pushes against the elevation screw at right angles to the side wall of the rifle body, rather than toward the muzzle, but of course the funny rectangular section is not self aligning like a dovetail would be, and like the PH, there is no means of eliminating slop, as the bearing surfaces cannot be "tweaked" or squeezed in slightly as they can on the Central.
As for the aperture block on the windage arm of the PH 5A, it is quite tight now, but the discreet hammer marks on the underside of the block show how it was made so! There is no spring tension on the block or the windage screw at all.
The same is true for the AJP TZ if I remember correctly.
The Central could be made better by using a dovetail configuration to aid in self-alignment, but perhaps the PH patents restricted them too.
Could be just different technology and techniques too I suppose, as the Centrals look like they were hollowed out with a planer rather than a mill, which may not have been available originally.
The repeatable dismountability of the Central is another great advantage of course.
There, that's quite a mess of words that a few pictures would have replaced I suppose!;)
I've used a number of centrals and T-macs on fullbore and service rifles and love them, and have always found them absolutely adequate. One big benefit for me is their interchangability on the bases. ie you put a(very cheap)central sight base on any rifle you feel like ever using a central on and when you want to use one you just screw on the sight. Want to shoot standard rifle, leave it off. Most of the bases fit without modification of the rifle and without necessitating removal of the original sight. One notable exception being the SMLE which often requires removal of some timber to fit the sight base(but not always).
Mind you, I'd like a very good 5C or a TZ as well, if anyone wants to do some swapping or trading...
Thanks guys. Still cruising for a mounting plate. While doing so, I ran across another sight which looks a lot like the Central..an A E Clarke sight?
Are these worthwhile?
I can help you out with a mounting plate. Pm me your details and ill. Sendd one tomorrow.
Just returned from a short vacation and the Central and the A.E. Clarke sight both arrived in my absence.
Here is the Central;
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...ghts0031-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...ghts0011-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...ghts0021-1.jpg
Here is the Clarke:
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...ghts0061-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...ghts0071-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...ghts0091-1.jpg
Amazingly similar. The Clarke came with a mounting plate. Anyone recognize what this plate would fit?
Probably a Mauser.
Been reading the thread with great interest. I don't think anyone who has tried them would ever say a bad word about the Central sights. I've used quite a lot of different sights over the past several years, but only for short periods, some only for a single match.
One I have found that I prefer over the Central is the Lane. They are very similar in operation except that instead of the windage arm going up and down the elevation slide, the arm and slide are one piece raising and lowering at the mount point. This allows the sight to sit much lower overall on the rifle unless shooting at extreme ranges- making it in my opinion a littler more robust and less exposed to accidental damage.
I currently have a PH5a on a vintage range rifle, a Central on my Lithgow SS Target rifle, and another loose Central. On my Omark is a Lane. 5 Lanes total with the one I'm waiting on...
The Lane SMLE side plate has a grubscrew at the base for squaring it on the action. This can also be used to square it after putting a packing washer under the side plate to take away the need to cut the woodwork. I had one on my Lithgow Slazenger Mod24 Hornet for a while but my daughter preferred open sights, so it came off again.
The Lane I have coming looks to have been made to fit the Central mounting plate. A few others over time have made both their own mount plates and set their sights up to fit Central plates as well. Rawson springs to mind here. This is a strong indicator as to how much of the market Central had!
I have seen a Clark sight before, but It's one I don't have a pic of on file.
It looks like a decent bit of gear, and I would be interested in hearing your opinion once you've used it.
Here's a couple of pics.
Complicated or what Son...................... Compared to a simple PH 5 type
perhaps parker hale TX 1200, they mount on top like that.
That looks to me like it has had an overhaul by the people who make the T'mac sights. I noted that most of the guys at the range have had their central sights rebuilt with new springs and a modified block, usually running gehmann eye pieces and shade tubes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Calfed
I had spoke to a couple of guys about using the adaptors to fit gehmann iris's to mine, but was told that the adaptors are often not quite concentric and you end up with a rear peep that is slightly ovular once you screw the gehmann iris into the Parker hale adaptor which is screwed into the central.
http://www.shootingindustriesaustralia.com/page003.html
Perhaps they have original eye piece mounting blocks from the conversions you could have it rebuilt to original spec?
---------- Post added at 07:35 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:31 PM ----------
I havn't seen any parker hale sights hanging off any custom RPA or barnard rifles, seen plenty of centrals though :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Peter Laidler
Thanks for all the good information, guys.
These sights are fascinating...a whole new aspect to military surplus collecting
Got that Bushy. I expect that the real shooters are using the Central sights for the opening rounds of the competitions and then when the REAL competition starts, they switch and use their Pommy Parker Hale or AG Parker sights................. A bit like using your best car for Sundays!
Regards, Pete the Pom!
I've got a good friend who's a retired Gov't Armorer and a former U.S. Palma team member who also swears by the Centrals. I've got a couple here someplace and a base plate. I'll have to give one a try.
But don't forget to change it for a P-H or AGParker when the real competition starts Brian. Us Poms have just got to keep these whippersnapper antipodeans in their place............. I think it's time to send a gunboat down there to sort them out!
I gunboat would be a change of pace i guess, not like you can ship prisoners here anymore :D
All right, all right! Just to spread a little oil over troubled waters, I bought a PH 5A that I located in New Zealand today. :D It should be here soon, but here are some pics that the seller sent me.
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...03/PH5A1-1.jpghttps://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...3/ph5A31-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...3/PH5A21-1.jpg
OK! Is everyone happy now? :lol:
BTW, unfortunately (or maybe fortunately) I also won a micrometer sight that was identified as an "original Svenson rearsight" with a mounting block on fleabay.
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...onsight1-1.jpg
Anyone know anything about these babies? Can't find out much about these, except that they are described by some as the predecessor to the RPA sight. I think George Svenson was one of the founders of RPA Precision Rifles.
Actually, I think it is SWenson, rather than SVenson.
Hearing that name SVenson made me chuckle because I remember from those 60's and 70's 'naughty' films that the main man always seemed to be called 'SVen' due to the fact that they were filmed in SVeden and the 'actors' and 'actresses' always spoke with dubbed SVedish accents.
Not that I ever actually saw or watched one. It's only what the others told me. I was always too busy knitting scarves and socks for the needy and writing out tracts form the bible for my Sunday School lessons.
But back to that PH5A sight - and the SVenson one come to that - isn't the engineering workmanship a sight to behold. No CNC there, just quality manual machining and handwork. What say you JM? Any idea how they knurled (?) the thumbscrews anyone. I notice that later, P-H just used round bar stock with conventional knurling
Hello :surrender:
I'm looking for information about CENTRAL, someone can tell me where they were produced? Information about the company that produced? About Mr. W Dunn (its inventor)?
Thank you
(sorry for google translator) :o
Central is Australian. small arms factory Lithgow.
William Dunn, although not his first foray into sight making, the Central Sight patent 17801/34 was the most successful.
The original sight was available and in use prior to the patent date of 1934, but due to a long running patent infringement suite, it did not become commercially available until 1936.
The CENTRAL brand was to eventually overtake most of the sight manufacturers as the preferred option, diversifying into other related accurising components and continued thru three different models,(1,2,3 and finally 4) and several different Marks well into the year 2000.
It proved so popular, that it was illegally cloned in England, and replica brands were instigated when its patent finally ceased in the late 1970's.
It continues in use today, the TMAC sight is simply a robust copy of the original Central 4, serviceing and parts for these sights are readily available still.
Attachment 70342
and there are several mounting bracket styles to suit in styles for various makes of target rifle.
:wave: thank you all for the valuable information :bow:
Is the mount flat or radiused where it contacts the receiver?
My first "Central" :-)
https://www.milsurps.com/[/url] image hosting[/IMG]
https://www.milsurps.com/[/url] image hosting[/IMG]
https://www.milsurps.com/[/url] hostare immagini[/IMG]
Calfed, I note that your Central has "7.62" just under the elevation scale, as does the one I inherited from my Dad. I was under the impression that this indicated it was set up for 7.62x51. (I know he used his on the 7.62x51 Grunig I also inherited). Is this true, and if so, would there be any issues using it on a .303?
[QUOTE=tappo;356791]My first "Central" :-)
https://www.milsurps.com/[/url] image hosting[/IMG]
https://www.milsurps.com/[/url] image hosting[/IMG]
https://www.milsurps.com/[/url] hostare immagini[/IMG]
George Swenson was an American who worked for John Wilkes in London, a very colourful character who managed to get banned from Bisley for using a sight type that at the time was illegal (or actually not approved by council, although I believe the year after they accepted it!)Quote:
Originally Posted by Calfed
After his suspension he developed the rifle we know as the Swing and called the first model SIN 71, this was in effect sticking two fingers up at the NRA at Bisley by referring to the model as the Sin of 1971, the year they banned him.
Whilst at John Wilkes he invented a rear target sight which carried the Wilkes name and then later his own name. An older friend of mine owns Swing No.98, but thinks it was nearer No.35 as George liked to "up" his production to make it look that he was selling far more than he really was!
He went back to the states some years later and an ex buisness partner of his went to see him on hearing of his ill health, asked on his death bed if he had a message for anybody at Bisley he replied, bugger Bisley!
---------- Post added at 05:10 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:03 PM ----------
Just use it in the normal way!Quote:
Originally Posted by stevebc
obviously don't use the yardage scale because that will be out, I usually zero at 200 yards and then use the come ups for whatever the ammunition type gives me for the distances I'm shooting.
The only difference in sights marked .303 & 7.62mm will be the yardage scale. They will still give the same MoA (minute of angle) regardless of what ammunition they were designed for.
Quote:
Originally Posted by muffett.2008
Sorry, a step backwards pleae :rolleyes: Mr. William Dunn was an engineer at the SAF?
:cool:
No, He was an Engineer in Victoria, the next state south.
His Father, William Dunn Snr. was also an engineer and ran a Bicycle Manufacturing Business in Kerang.
Thanks very kind :bow:
I used the central on my Omark years ago and had a T-Mac on my Neilsen with a 6 filter and with diffuser Gehmann that you needed an engineers degree to operate with all the bells and such on it but I preferred the Central one thing not that that there is anything wrong with a T-mac I had mine changed in to both 1/4 Ev and 1/4 Wind instead of the usual 1/2 E ~ 1/4 W.
Probably with the Centrals is to I guess is to ensure you have the correct range plates on them one for the SMLE and the other is for the 7.62mm.
:thup: Nice collection of sights Muffet.
My first TR, a Nielsen MN300, has a Central. Excellent sight. One thing to remember is that the calibrations on the sight plate are all very well, but the length of the sight radius will affect how much the group actually moves with each click.
Instead of using the caliber range plate guide you can use the Minutes guide on the opposite side and keep a record of minutes for different ranges as most modern day full bore shooters do.
Yep guess since I have only been shooting full bore since 1977 I would never have thought of that !!!!!!!!!! Thats why I run an excel spread sheet with 10+ rifles on the go for different types of shooting at the ranges/matches imagine how big my note pad would be having all the dope for all the ranges from 300~1000m and also on the 300yd ~ 800yd ranges we shoot on. I just find out what were shooting prior then open up the computer jot down the figures particular to the rifles to be used and away I go 1 small page to carry around, easy as. Yep and I run an external hard drive with the info and new input if I change a load in case the computer crashes which last week it did so I had to purchase a brand new computer :mad:
I use a second hand note book and pencil. $3.50:lol:
Thanks, Strangely.Quote:
Originally Posted by Strangely Brown
Are these Swenson sights considered to be "good kit"?
---------- Post added at 10:59 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:58 AM ----------
Anyone know where I can get a Central Sight mounting plate for a no1 MKIII or a no4 Rifle?
[QUOTE=Calfed;357187]Thanks, Strangely.
Are these Swenson sights considered to be "good kit"?[COLOR="black"]
---------- Post added at 10:59 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:58 AM ----------
The honest answer is that you don't often see them!
I'm pleased with the sight and it works well; is it as good as a PH 5c? I suspect the P-H 5c is stronger in construction.
Seen here on one of my Whitaker Specials.
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...standard-5.jpg
I've also got a "Clarke" sight which bears a remarkable resemblance to the Central...I'm guessing it was a clone of the Central.Quote:
Originally Posted by muffett.2008
Here is the Central:
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo.../42askms-1.jpg
Here is the Clarke:
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo.../slL6926-1.jpg
Arthur Clarke's sight is still well respected amongest some TR shooters, he died in August 2014.
His obituary:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obit...-obituary.html
Yes, it was a clone, manufactured after Dunn's patent had expired.
Unknown British cloneAttachment 70451Attachment 70452
Clarke.Attachment 70453Attachment 70454
TMAC.Attachment 70455Attachment 70456
Central No.1 Attachment 70457
No.2 Attachment 70458
No.3 Attachment 70459
No.4 Attachment 70460 Compared to No.3 Bisley.
There were four Marks to the Central No.4
Mk.1 Attachment 70461
Mk.2 Attachment 70462
Mk.3 Attachment 70463
Mk.4 Attachment 70464
.........and several variants, both right and left hand, 1/4,1/3 and 1/2 minute adjustments and combinations on both windage and elevation, changeable iris mounts for both Parker Hale, Gehman and the later large style combination iris........the list goes on.
I have a variant of a Central pattern sight. Designed for BPCR competition, it is much larger, to provide for the increased elevation and windage needed.
Anyone have any ideas on where I might find a mounting plate and hardware for either the Central or Clarke sight?
There is a Central No. 4 sight with its mounting base and quick release clamp screw currently advertised at canadiangunnutz.com. Has the sliding aperture. Price is C$50, plus shipping. That is a remarkable bargain. I was going to buy it, just because, but I really don't need another aperture sight.
Looking for that item now. Is it in the "Exchange" section?Quote:
Originally Posted by tiriaq
I signed up for the forum, but apparently do not have immediate access to the exchange forum.
I takes some time to get EE access.
So do I. Much longer "pillar", but the arm looks standard. Any markings on yours? I was told a gent in Vancouver now deceased made up about 25 for BP long range work.Quote:
Originally Posted by tiriaq
I obtained the sight from Paul Reibin, Range Sports Unlimited, in BC, so I would not be surprised if this is not one from this batch. I do not recall any markings on the sight, will have a look. I made up a .45-70 on a Ruger No. 1 with a Ron Smith barrel. Project has been on the back burner for years, have it ready for test firing this season.
I picked up a PH No 5, a Rawson, AND a central No 4 sight for nothing last week!!!!!! The elderly rifle club member said they were "just old junk" lying around, and were in an ancient modified first aid kit that had been turned into a shooting box, complete with drilled out cross brace that accepts 12 303 cartridges. Obviously 2 sighters, and 10 scoring shots. Also included were old tins full of accessories, swivels, mounting screws, a 1958 scoring and rule book(!) a rim guage, cleaning brushes and jags etc etc.
He refused to accept any money for any of it, so I'm very carefully cleaning everything up, and an soaking all the range sights in penetrating oil before cleaning them up. They all work perfectly by the way, but have not seen oil for over 50 years. He said it would have been tossed out as rubbish soon any way, so it was an amazing coincidence that I happened to drop in when I did. Makes you wonder how much quality gear is thrown out when there are deceased estates or spring cleans.
In case your wondering, I'll put the Central sight on my Lithgow, and the PH on a BSA just to keep things in perspective. Wouldn't want to upset any sensitive poms would I....;)
Central Sights are excellent, the main problem with them is they went out of production in the 90s and sight bases are extremely rare for them.
I have Central Sight bases that will bolt up to Mod 70 and 700 actions and some other actions if the action is drilled and tapped. I had them made up in the 80s by a tool and die maker.
The thing most folks don't realize is the VVVVV grooves on the base of the sights appear to be evenly spaced but they are not. The tool and die maker discovered this when he put 3 of them on a optical comparator and made he discovery thus my bases so he milled mine to match the Vs so the block has to be put on after matching the grooves to get the most mating surfaces. In other words there is a top and a bottom of the block.
I would expect now days if you went to a machine shop you would be looking at four hours labor per block making them one at a time.
I was told the manufacturer stopped making them as he wanted to spend more time with grand daughter. I have about 8 Centrals. They also came in left hand configuration. The 7.62 as 1/3rd minute clicks and the first variation IIRC correctly was 1/2 minute but that may be wrong. I have one of them.
If you have access to old RIFLE magazines back in 70s L F Moore did a sight comparison evaluation and they came out on top. He used my sights for the article.
Where was your tool and die maker located? The fellow I knew who made them up for various rifles, made his own cutter to do the mounting base grooves.
I made my cutter by grinding three of the four flutes off a 3/8 x 16tpi tap and running the tap with the one remaining flute in the milling machine as a side cutter. I also back-cut the trailing edge of the remaining flute.
Seems to work just fine taking light cuts.