Printable View
I picked this sight up today, I'm assuming it's a variant of the Number 9 sight does anyone know exactly which variant and approximately when it was made (I'm guessing pre-WW1). Also, I've never seen that address associated with Parker before.
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...SC010151-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...SC010161-1.jpg
:confused: OK you've got me, the address is not a problem, several changes of premises were noted for both A.G and A.J over the years. We need more info and pic's.
Are there any pat. dates? and pictures of the windarm would help to put this one into perspective.
Ian, I thought those were called a 5A sight. I had one and it was marked on the windage arm???
note to self. read the post while awake before replying.
Service and TArget Rifle Sights ~ Parker-Hale and B.S.A. about half way down. This might be of some help.
I guess mine wasn't a 5A after all. Maybe a 5. Sorry, I'm not going to be any help.
The company naming was:
Afred Parker - company founded in 1890*
A.G. Parker & Company - from 1900
A.G. Parker & Company Ltd. - from 1904
I therefore conclude that the sight was made in the first period - 1890 to 1900.
It must be one of the earliest Parker sights. A precursor of the No. 9? Originally made for the Long Lee.
At present, it does not seem to be assembled correctly. The adapter plate needs to be rotated anticlockwise, so that the tail is at bottom-right, to fit on an SMLE.
Patrick
:wave:
*Note: some sources will say 1880. But Greenhill has: Company founded in 1890, and A.G. Parker died in 1975. To have founded a company in 1880 (which would require him being adult, i.e. over 21 in those days) would mean that he was at least 116 years old in 1975 ! Either the 1880 or the 1975 appears to be wrong - or the 1975 date refers to Alfred J. Parker! Can someone clarify this with proper source references?
Greenhill also gives the company address (citing English Gunmakers) as:
69 Icknield Field St. from 1894 - 1900.
This seems to push the Cecil St. address back to before 1894, making it truly an extremely early sight - maybe for a Lee-Metford???
Patrick
:wave:
I think the sight is folded foward. I remember they do that as if to fold them out of the way. Then the windage arm folds up out of the line of sight.
It never fails to amaze me what you can learn from this site.......... Well done all you subscribers inc BAR, PC, muffer and Rumplehart
Thanks for all of the replies, there are no markings on the windage arm, beyond the windage markings, which are inscribed directly into the arm. The arm itself does fold, so we're on to something there. Additionally the Iris has BSA marked on it and a patent number ending in -03, but I'm not sure the iris is original to the sight. The mount plate is marked only 'Alf Parker' with no trade marks or addresses. I'm thinking the sight as it sits now is in the folded position, and it'll take a screw driver to allow it to rotate. The mounting plate is identical to the one shown in the Parker catalogue to allow the mounting of the Number 9 sight to the SMLE, so I'm guessing that that pretty much confirms it, it's an early Number 9 (designed for the Long Lee) on a conversion plate to allow mounting on the SMLE. Now I'm going to have to get an early SMLE to put it on, my earliest is a 1918 Lithgow.
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...DSC01018-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...DSC01026-1.jpg
I have no clue how this fellow ended up on the western edge of the Empire - but as with all of this stuff, I wish it could talk! Many thanks to everyone for your help, I'm pretty sure there's nowhere else that I could get an answer to a question about something so obscure.
The sight does in fact fold:
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...DSC01030-1.jpg
and deploys:
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...DSC01031-1.jpg
Good grief Ian! I hope you aren't going to use that mole wrench to adjust the sight!:eek:
Patrick
:wave:
LOL - not ever! Actually the sight functions perfectly - clicks are sharp and distinct and the folding mechanism is solid, as are the windage and elevation settings. All in all very useable (when I find the right rifle to mount it on) will this addiction ever end?
:confused: There are a couple of interesting features, 1. the windage arm is similar to a late model 9E or 9G. with the large adjuster, 2. The address is more likely young Alfred just after his unexplained split with the Hales, the original premises not being as large as Ickneild, (1900's) Whittal (1920's on) or Bath st. (A.J. 1940's-1950's)
Remembering that BSA had relinquished it's existing No.9 series stock to Parker-Hale, and that young Alfred was the real brains and had a hand in developing this series, it seems likely that this sight may be one of the first produced before the TWIN ZERO, giving it a rough time frame of about 1925-1927.
My reasoning toward this being his is that the brand AGP and PH were firmly established prior to this time, the 1950's REGENT was marked similarly, also by the son.
I would love to be further enlightened.
One of the things that strikes me about this sight is the way the scales are engraved directly into the arms - with the #9 (I've only seen as early as a 9c) the scales are applied to the arms, on plates; this makes a great deal of sense in a mass produced sight, (and from a users perspective) but not so much in a small production shop. I'm going to take the mount plate off later to see if there's anything under the hardware that could help, all #9's I've seen have been marked in or near the bottom attachment. Additionally, the mount plate itself is specifically designed to mount a #9 to an SMLE, Metford plates were standard for this series of sights.
:wave: In regards to the mount plate that is confusing you, this plate was made and designed by young Alfred, and came into use around 1924-5, basically the backplate for the No.5 and 5a sight. These were seen with 5 types of markings, PARKER, AGP, PARKER HALE, BISLEY WORKS, and this one ,Alfd. Parker.
This type plate was first used on the 9c, for the SMLE, the 9b requiring a slightly different mount. First listed in 1924 in The Society of Miniature Rifle Clubs catalogue as PARKER, and remained so marked until about 1930 when other markings began to appear.
As we know the breakup with the parent company PARKERHALE was around 1924-26, the Catalogues of PARKERHALE, then mainly controlled by A.T.C, A.C. and S.C. HALE, suddenly dropped references to a lot of the sights previously listed. By 1938 it was only the SportTarget range being offered, Whereas the catalogues of Alfred Parker, having used the address of Joseph Parker, (unknown relationship-hotelier/publican) then Regent St, and finally Bath St, was still listing varieties of the other sights with his name stamped on them. One must assume that the fight over patents was won by the young A.J. Parker.
Hi Ian, just in case you haven't seen it and might be interested try this for a browse; Aperture Sights | The Lee Enfield Rifle
I'm still collecting photos and you've come up with a variant I haven't seen before, nicely done. That mount with the long leg is the best one to have, its a bit more rigid that ones without, hence a fair affect on accuracy.
I like the reasoning of moffat.2008. My explanation pushes the date extremely far back. His gives a plausible time fit with the mounting plate.
Patrick
:wave:
It is very possible that this sight dates to the "break up" period, one thing that the photos don't convey well is that this sight is, well, 'rough'. It's a long way from the precision you might expect for a precision sight, there are file marks under the finish in several locations and otherwise square edges are slightly off. I'm not sure the mounting plate (like the Iris) is a good way to date the sight, since the plate was sold seperately. This is of course one of the joys of virtually anything 'Parker' - I also have a Parker stamped No4 Mk2 complete with TZ 4/47 sight, with no military markings at all, and the documentation that these rifles were even produced, is scarce to say the least. I read somewhere that when the plant closed down, all of the records were piled up outside doused with gas and set on fire, so we may never know.
What a testament to the makers of many of these old sights that most of them, used for decades on end, then mothballed for further decades, come out again and with a fairly light duty cleanup/service, function pretty close to, if not as well as modern world class "match" sight. More of them!
:wave: Ian, in reference to your No.4, is the rifle stamped PARKER, or is there some other means of identification, and what is the build date?
A.J. Parker listed brand new No.4 Mk.2 rifles and special purchase ex government rifles for the target fraternity in his 1953 catalogue. No. SR11 was as received from the Ministry of Supply, selected, adjusted and tested, barrel lapped, fitted with TZ Model 4/47 sight for 33 pound 10 shillings.(why has'nt this bloody computer got a pound sign?)
WRG to the No4, again, a small stamp on the front of the receiver, simply 'Alf Parker Bham'. Serial number on the left side wrist, no makers marks, just proof marks and refinished. Shoots beautifully though.
Back again, according to the young Parker's listing, this rifle is personally selected, adjusted, tested for close grouping, barrel lapped, trigger pull adjusted, fitted with sling link, TZ 4/47 and six hole eyepeice.
He also states that all his rifles are submitted for Proof before sale. So does this mean that these selected rifles were virgin as opposed to the other ex service rifles offered?
If they had basic proof marks on barrel and reciever when supplied by the Ministry of Supply, without most of the confusing but interesting stamps, it may clarify the situation.
Someone out there with the time to peruse photo's of these rifles in the larger recorded collections may be able to shed some light on the subject.
It always amazed me how Parker-Hale managed to survive this period, being able to maintain the prefix name Parker through marriage of Alfreds sister to one of the Hale's. The accountant I think, who was probably responsible for the rift. Always blame the money man.
This dispute was resolved after the war, but both parties continued to go there seperate ways. At least they were able to acknowledge each others products.
As far as the rifle I own goes, there's a single BNP mark on the receiver, and the barrel stamp. There is a crossed flag (large, but poorly struck) on the top of the Knox form and the letter I. The bolt head is a 0 and proofed.