Printable View
I can't be the only one, but has anyone else noticed that some backsights except the Mk2 flip-over variants have 2 different size battle sight apertures. The two sizes are .1" and .2". The differences are apparent on the Mk1's, Mk3's and 4's including the Canadian variants too.
Have a look if you have a box full to rummage through.......... I've never noticed before and can't find any reference to two different sized battle aperture holes in my paperwork
I've got a couple...I'll try to dig them out tonight and give them a measure.
Yes, I've got several here with different ones. At a guess the small ones are earlier.
Anyone else got them? Look for different hole sizes. I'm not sure about the late and ealy notion because I have a big box of sights with big and small hole Mk1's and big and small hole Mk4's PLUS big and small hole LB Mk4's too...................... What's going on?
A quick survey of my No.4s with other than Mk2 backsights...a Mk4 w/big hole, a Mk3 w/little hole, two Canadian MkIs with small hole, a British MkI (on a No4 Mk2) with big hole. Also, FWIW, 2 No.5s with milled backsights... big hole.
DPL,
There's a bucketful of them stripped into component parts in my garage...................how much time have you got?!?
ATBDRP
...................... er........ so much to do and soooooo little time DRP! Have you any ideas about the size of the hole? Not medically speaking I hasten to add! I'll have another look through all the old ACI's and stuff today but it's strange that hole size doesn't feature
Anyone that's a dab hand with a camera care to illustrate the point...............
If there's nothing by friday, I'll try and get some photos. Other dramas have dominated this week. Haven't even had a chance to measure any sights, yet.
Greetings All
Sorry for the delay. As a collector of No. 4 sights, the battle aperture hole size has always been a bit of a mystery. The smaller hole size is found on all early made examples of milled and stamped No. 4 and No. 5 sights. It appears around mid-war they increased the hole size, but this theory does not hold true for the Canadian CMk3's as their hole size remains small through the Canadian Arsenals transition, changing to the larger hole around 1950.
If anyone needs a detailed pic of a specific sight drop me a note, if anyone has a SM42, SM43, N67 singer style milled sight and can part with it please let me know!
Photo #1 (sorry slightly out of focus)
Small hole: SM41, LB, S,
Large hole: B
Photo #2
Large hole: B, F, F, P cirle, F CR403, P CR403
Photo #3
Stamped: Mk II small hole unmarked; Mk3 large hole Faz; Mk 3 large hole unmarked; Mk 3 large hole M47
Photo #4 (No. 5 sights)
N67 small hole, N67 large hole, B, F, P
Photo #5 (No. 5 sights)
B, F, P, B, RFI, stamped small hole unmarked
Photo #6
Mk III small hole LB, Mk III small hole CA, CMk3 small hole CA, CMk3 large hole unmarked
Thanks to Lance for a wide range of combinations of models and sizes!
As nobody seems to have noticed this before, this suggests that for our kind of shooting, the battle sight aperture is totally irrelevant. No great surprise there.
So an intersting source of information would be ... those who actually used the No. 4 in conflict.
Did they actually use the battle-sight aperture?
Was there some kind of "user feedback" that led to a (partial) change?
Or, knowing how the real world operates, did some desk-driver think it was A Good Idea?
:wave:
I knoiw that shooting in half light and the jungle, you always use a large aperture - like the battle sight because you need the light and ranges are usually short. So why we also have a No5 rifle sight with a small aperture as well as the large diameter is another mystery. I have to say that of all the hundreds and hundreds of No4's that I have ever seen and worked on, I have never noticed that there were two different aperture sizes.
The change, whenever it was, wouldn't have taken place without some extensive trials. But I can't find anything, even in the detailed EMER's!
No first hand experience but I would think the larger aperture would work to advantage in quick target acquisition on moving targets.
Did a quick inventory and came up with the following:
Small Hole
MkI S - 1
Mk3 - 2
Big Hole
MkI F - 10
MkI F CR403 - 10
MkI (P) - 5
MkI P - 1
CMK3 - 2
MkI CR313 EFD - 1
MkI F (No5 MkI) - 2
The larger aperature is useful in low light situations, but I'm not sure what the best front reference would be. Maybe the sight protector ears? Bracket the "close in" target and let fly...
The same enlargement of the GP aperature also occured on the M16 (The old two position sights- the M16a2 uses a slightly smaller aperature)- Quite useful in the dark, but even better combined w/ a tritium illuminated front post. (From my limited experience at Ft Benning night shoots.)
A big peep rear sight (folding small peep in addition) was also used on some L1a1's, yes? Can't recall exactly what front sight was used...Anybody shoot one of these in poor lighting conditions and care to report?
Probably best to do so on the FAL forum, but it seems a logical continuation.
I was involved in some of the twilight shooting trials using the double aperture L1A1 sights in 1968. Ideally the LARGE rearsight aperture was used with a quarter rotatable foresight blade that contained a tritium vail that acted as a luminous foresight. It was during a series of Company shoots at Ashan ranges at figure 11 man targets (supposed to represent hoard attacks by advancing VC). I think the results were abysmal but better than the normal sights. The big Whites/International and Bedford trucks taking us all to and from the firing points weren't using headlight to preserve our natural night vision and one of the trucks ran over a whole line of standard rifles from C Company smashing them to shreds. It was just one of those accident losses during training on active service and that was that. But, the sight, later known as the HYTHE sight was kept until we got some US night vision.
That's the end of the history lesson chaps...........
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Laidler
....Er, Peter,... does that mean that you now have time to dig around to find out if there really is an EMER that specifies fore-end bedding for a No.8 ?:D:D:D
(My No. 8s vote 2:0 for "No, never seen such a thing")
Patrick
:wave:
Oofah! Missed page 2 before replying!
If not in the EMERs, would there have been manufacturing revision drawings circulated? It wouldn't affect maintenance unless there was a decision to officially supercede use of the small peep. Aircraft parts do the same- we just have to know which "dash" number is applicable to what, sometimes older and newer components intermingle upon assembly if there's no functional issues. (Which is decided by a higher authority beforehand, obviously!)
Perhaps, since there is no giant functional difference, the higher-ups never bothered to address the issue on the maintenance end??? (Curtiss Wright was horrible about drawing updates on A/C for a contemporary parallel.)
I've held fire on the question of fore-end muzzle bearing bedding on the No8 because I don't want to disagree with a fellow Armourer openly. (We'll do it by PM). I haven't had time to rummage through the old EMER's yet but will do next week. So much to do, sooooo little time and all that.
I set up all of my sons ex school No8's not long ago and they were are ALL fully floating. Our local Base Workshop allow allow a degree of 'touch' but only if to alter this would entail fitting a new fore-end. Otherwise it abides by the free muzzle rule. But I'll quote the book when I can get around to it.
However, the rear is bedded exactly as per the No4 except for the draws at the rear
All the No8 sights seem to have a big hole by the way! I have had a look at the technical inspection standards and Page 3, issue 1 of Oct 1955 states that the No4,5 and 8 rifle: Aperture for battlesight diameter .020" Aperture of slide .010". Must not exceed .104" There it is. From this, the EMER being the first issue and not an updated issue, you'd never imagine that there was a manufactured smaller hole diameter.
There seems to have only ever been one part number for each of the Mk's of backsight. But to be really honest, while it's interesting (?), I'm not losing any sleep about it!
Here is another oddity for all you No. 5 owners to check, another weight saving mod.
I can honestly say that of all the No5's I've ever seen, I've never seen that before and that is the sort of thing you'd definately notice. But never say never as they say. But that bring the next obvious question, How does the leaf sit down onto the bridge charger guide when what we call the 'landing platform' part of the sight (alongside the knob.....) has been machined away
In case anyone hasn't picked it out due to the dark pics, the rear of the leaf has been dovetailed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Laidler
It's a wonderful world! Battle sights for a No. 8. Sounds daft, but if you take the point of view that the purpose was to get used to the sight picture through a battle sight, then the observation that all (???) No. 8s have a large hole would suggest that this was the standard, and small holes were the anomaly.
(Sorry Peter, didn't want to spoil your sleep too much!)
Patrick
:wave:
While on the subject, I remember being told to be on the range at a particular time when one of the Company were shooting No8's. This was in order to zero a rifle to a particular chap............... And being the dedicated snipers Armourer and all that....., anyway.....
The shots were in a horizontal line along the bottom of the target. To be honest, the bloke was useless. HE couldn't in all probability hit a cows arse with a cricket bat. Anyway, I got down to have a go and it seemed to be OK, given the hopeless case that I am...... At the time, I thought that he was using the battle sight, but NO!
It turned out that this clown was using the foresight protector as the foresight.......... I mean....., not just, say, the left one, but both of them, whichever he saw first! He was the Company Commanders driver but must have been totally blind the dozy half wit!
He married an absolutely stunningly beautiful and rich German girl from Dusseldorf and now lives in Germany. He's probably causing mayhem on the autobahn as we speak Pat!