PPCo Scope

G'Day - one for the Doc?

Here's some pics of a PPCo Scope that I have. I've only really just got around to looking at it and researching it.

It appears to be quite an early one as it has Patent Applied for on the mount not the 1915 no.

It has a rifle number on the mount and the drum is calibrated to .303 with the 1-6 numbers.

It has the normal PPCo male dovetail mount attached. The small screw on the top in front of the turret seems a bit further forward than some of the others I've seen.

The female part of the mount has the 'reverse' dovetail but no clips to hold the scope in. It just seems to work by being narrower at the front and presumably pushed forward by recoil action. It is a basic plate but the curvature perfectly fits the receiver wall of the SMLE and, in particular, the LE1.

Anybody got any opinions on this mount. IS it an early version, a late post-war version (as the regular ones couldn't be found). Or (and I don't know much about them) could it be off a Ross?

Steve

Come on fellas. Don't let this go off the front page, I need help here. Where are the scopies when I need you most?

What about that weird mount?

Cheers

Steve

There was some discussion recently about an unusual scope mount from PH and there was some knowledgable replies, so don't worry, the boys will come ...Uk locals too.

The scope itself looks to be a nice example of an earlyish production PPCo., as you have already surmised. The mount base is the conundrum. I must be honest & admit that I have never seen a base like that before, although one or two things do strike me:

Only two locating screw holes, & are they elongated? Seems odd, as the military usually like everything solid as a rock. The fact that there is no positive lock up also makes me wonder about it; as well as the lack (unless I'm wrong in this assumption) of any markings. The standard pattern PPCo bases either bear an Enfield examiner's mark or the rifle serial number. More detailed photo's would be nice, but I'd lean towards an after market commercial or one-off made mount (albeit that it may be some decades old), rather than an unrecognised original. However, as I said, more pix would be nice. Is there any provenance to the scope & mount? And of course, it's just my .02c as they say! Regardless, it's all a nice piece of kit....

ATB

Thanks Roger

A couple more pics of the base mount are attached. No markings.

I am not sure how the zero would survive the recoil. I was wondering if it may have been a mount fashioned for a .22 trainer with no recoil.

The elongated holes almost look like 2 screws could have fitted in each but that would make the receiver weak. I don't recognise the shape of the metal as being off something else.

I bought an LE1* a couple of years ago and somebody had but a K4 Weaver scope on it. The mounts had been ingeniously fashioned from the chamber end of an SMLE barrel with the same curvature as the receiver wall.

Cheers

Steve

I know I'll regret it but I want to buy a couple of LECs and I need the dough so I am going to sell it. It's on WTS.

Cheers

Steve

The base is obviously well made and finished. My guess would be it was fitted a "Lee Speed" type sporting rifle at some point; where most of those scopes ended up after WWI.

The elongated holes are odd as mentioned above. Could be that there were two screws with one being used to lock the head of the other via a semi-circular cutout in the head of the first screw. Or someone may have attempted to adapt the base to another rifle that already had tapped holes in the receiver. I'd favour the latter as the extreme left and right sides of the respective holes are much more even and regular than the "inside" edges. That would suggest some later bodging to me.

Couldn't be off a Ross with that curved backside.

Thanks Surpmil

That could all be a good call actually. The bracket seems to look better on a Long Lee than it does on an SMLE.

I've never held a Ross, so thanks for the confirmation that it is not off one.

Cheers

Steve

Sorry to disagree with the last two replies Suirpmil and DOwn but looking at the thickness of the steel from under the screw/bolt heads to the underside of the dovetailed bracket (last 2x photos, top article.....), but in my experience, that bracket wouldn't last 10 minutes under the rotational forces imparted to it by the recoil of a full-house load. The weight of the telescope would have that bracket loose, the screws commencing to shear and then off in very short order. Simple engineering practice tells all that elongated holes like that are for one reason only. To allow for fore and aft adjustment. After which they'd be locked up. On a bigger but simpler scale, think steering racks.....................

I could be wrong of course but if these rotational forces can separate the No4T/L42 pads.............................

Thanks Peter

Do you think that this lower bracket in turn went onto another piece? The curvature of the bracket does exactly fit the curve of the Enfield receiver wall though. I was wondering whether it may have been adapted for use on a .22 trainer post war.

Steve

Perhaps Peter's comment explains the enlarged holes: a second adjoining screw added to each original to try and make up for an insufficiency, so to speak.

I thought that too. But wouldn't two holes so close together weaken the receiver?

Depends on their size I suppose, and depth. The holes might have been put so close to each other because it was felt they would give more rigidity if placed at the ends rather than closer to the centre.