Pictures of old Neil optical sights

Good morning:
I thought I'd post these photos of an old set of optical sights I have for the SMLE. I believe they are the Neill type, based on Skennerton's book page 147. I have never tried them out, but if I ever get out to the range, I will do so. I think they'd be fun to shoot with, albeit rather fussy. The problem with them is that the front optic portion mounts to the nosecap; the curved portion mates to the oval slots in the nosecap and is held on there by pressure, but the pressure is created by a screw which goes through the slot in the front nosecap. To mount the sight, you have to drill a hole through the portion of the forestock which is behind the slot. I would have to use one of my FTR's or something, because I couldn't bear to drill a hole in one of my other SMLE's. It's not a huge deal probably, but still, on principle............


https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...asefront-1.jpg

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...caseback-1.jpg

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...cription-1.jpg

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...tportion-1.jpg

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...tportion-1.jpg

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...ntoptics-1.jpg

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...ntoptics-1.jpg

Ed

It's certainly a complicated sight. One other user asked if it only was graduated at 500. It has a sliding aperture graded for 200-500, only two apertures. The aperture is covered by a glass lens, which can be unsrewed, presumably for cleaning. The aperture portion can be swung aside by loosening a screw. I am not certain why this is--if this is to enable use of just the clear lens, that doesn't really make sense, but is possible. It may be to allow for some lateral adjustment for individual user preference. If anyone happens to have an instruction manual :lol:for this puppy it would be most appreciated :cheers: or if any of the experienced target shooters on this forum have used such a sight before, any insights (no pun intended) would be good. There is some mention of it in Skennerton's book on page 148 (note mine has a crosshair not a centre dot), but no instructions for using it.

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...011/12/8-1.jpg

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...011/12/9-1.jpg

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...11/12/10-1.jpg

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...11/12/11-1.jpg

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...11/12/12-1.jpg

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...11/12/13-1.jpg

Cheers

Ed

That is really a neat item! I have never seen nor heard of this sight. I noticed it was manufactured in Belfast, was this a military item, or made for the civilian mkt? Would really like to see pics of it on the rifle. Are these common? Rare? Now I have one more thing to keep looking for Enfield wise, thanks a lot! :) Thanks for sharing.

My set is marked Barnett Optical Sight inside case lid and not anywhere as nice and clear as your marking. Anyway interesting to see that your front lens has a presumably etched and filled set of crosshairs instead of the normally seen central aiming black infilled dot. Also your rear sight only seems to start off at 500 Yards instead of the normal 200, 400, 500 and 600 yard markings, what other range markings and aperture peep holes are on the rear sight? Perhaps you have a long range example?

Mine also has the pat 1850/15 marking.

Anyone have a Neil marked case one?

Finally another bit of useless information if you have a set with busted lenses, I have had my set read and their prescription is:

Front Lens + 1.00 Dioptre Sphere
Rear Lens - 2.50 Dioptre Sphere

Beautiful pics Ed ... :thup:

Thanks for posting them ...

Regards,
Doug

Didn't waste any money on finishing did they? Rough and ready...perhaps.

A zero at one range and use appliance, as adjusting for range describes a nice arc through the windage as well!

The Ulster Division deserved better.

Thank you for posting the photos. They are interesting.

I took some pictures of my Barnett rear sight and its marked 200, 400, 500 and 600 Yards in opposite to markings on yours. Mine's marked same as example in Skennertons British Sniper page 22 which is of sealed pattern. Now why should yours be marked in a totally different way and have a crosshair reticle instead of sighting dot? Wheaty whats your example like?

I think I know the answer your Ulster Division sight is for an Ozzie Lithgow SMLE as everythings upside down there isn't it? :lol:

Merry Xmas to all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Valleysniper

I took some pictures of my Barnett rear sight and its marked 200, 400, 500 and 600 Yards in opposite to markings on yours. Mine's marked same as example in Skennertons British Sniper page 22 which is of sealed pattern. Now why should yours be marked in a totally different way and have a crosshair reticle instead of sighting dot? Wheaty whats your example like?

I think I know the answer your Ulster Division sight is for an Ozzie Lithgow SMLE as everythings upside down there isn't it? :lol:

Merry Xmas to all.

---

Mine isn't marked differently, depending on how you look at it. When mine is set to 200 yds, the 200 shows up above, and when you move it up to the 500 mark, the 500 shows up below. It is simply a difference in how the markings show, but the elevations remain the same. Yours has more apertures and more graduations than mine does, so I would assume mine is an earlier one. I also understand that the name Neill disappeared after some patent issues, so if yours is labelled as a Barnett, it would be a later one. What does the inside of your case say?

Ed

Attachment 29162Attachment 29161
I think what Valley sniper was mentioning in that his, along with mine go from 200 to 600 yards. 600 yards being the top range on ours while yours is 500 yards.. Yours also differs in that it has a cross hair on the front element while I know Hugh's, along with both of mine have just a dot. My leather case is completely void of markings.

boltaction

Thanks for your explanation.

It would seem that your sight is the original version at least when it comes to the rear sight markings. Wheaty's and mine a later variant. But the crosshair reticle who knows? No one else has mentioned has seen one or owns one the same. As if the Ulster, Caldwell, Neill or Barnett Galilean sight wasn't rare enough you appear to have a rarer version, congratulations.

My case inside is ink stamp marked The Barnett Optical Sight and below that looks like Pat pending 1850/15 and some other lines of text, but it's very faint. Mr Caldwell was the inventor/patent holder and it would be interesting at least to me to know if anybody has these sight sets with cases marked up to Caldwell and Neill as well?

A friend of mine has recently obtained for his collection a very nice complete with some extras Martin Gallilean Sight set and he's OK'd for me to post pictures which may be of interest to the forumers. The Martin set is the only one of the main 4 types missing from my collection should anybody be thinking of disposing of a set. I did offer my friend my left kidney for it but he declined:eek:

Attachment 29209Attachment 29210Attachment 29211Attachment 29212

Try offering the right kidney instead--maybe he's got a preference...... :madsmile:

That is one amazing sight set. Just beautiful. I've got a couple of Long Lees with the Martrin rearsight, but have never seen the front sight portion before. :bow:

I don't know about my set--perhaps the glass was replaced at some point, or perhaps the earliest ones were made with the crosshair and shortly thereafter changed to the dot for some reason? I could see that the crosshairs might be awfully hard to see from such a distance, especially if the lighting wasn't great. A dot would be better I would think.

Ed

Hmmm, would this be a two kidney trade??
The one on the right is named to a "sharpshooter" from the 8th Cheshire Regt. along with his regimental number. I was able to dig out his file from the British War Office records.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Warren

Hmmm, would this be a two kidney trade??
The one on the right is named to a "sharpshooter" from the 8th Cheshire Regt. along with his regimental number. I was able to dig out his file from the British War Office records.

---

:super: :bow:

Looks like I need to write a last minute letter to Santa. Could I arrange for you to receive someone else's kidneys, perhaps? :madsmile:

Ed

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Valleysniper

I took some pictures of my Barnett rear sight and its marked 200, 400, 500 and 600 Yards in opposite to markings on yours. Mine's marked same as example in Skennertons British Sniper page 22 which is of sealed pattern. Now why should yours be marked in a totally different way and have a crosshair reticle instead of sighting dot? Wheaty whats your example like?

I think I know the answer your Ulster Division sight is for an Ozzie Lithgow SMLE as everythings upside down there isn't it? :lol:

Merry Xmas to all.

---

I think you must have the improved version there Valleysniper. The first type above has two positions only, and it looks like the top of the sight leaf is to be aligned with the 200 yard mark and the 500 yard mark with the bottom.

This was probably found confusing by soldiers and so crude an adjustment that it did not inspire confidence compared to the better quality sights. Sales may have slumped and so the good Capt. tried to improve things somewhat.

My previous comment about the aperture describing an arc were not strictly correct with the two position sight as if the axis pin was equidistant to the two positions, there would be no difference in the windage, but with those markings on yours, it's definitely going to be out in the "in between" settings.

In yours of course the top edge only is used for alignment. Alignment on what I don't know as there don't seem to be any particular marks to align with, just somewhere close to the number I suppose. Perhaps users were meant to scratch in their own lines after zeroing their rifles. Or perhaps no one even thought of that, but that's what they ended up doing in the event.

Certainly looks very vulnerable to bumps and jars and being brass would be easily bent or snapped off.

Your later pattern also seems to have four holes drilled in the steel backing plate rather than the one large hole with the aperture moving over it. I'm no optician, but that seems to me a very bad idea as each hole is only exposed to a tiny portion of the lens and the curvature of the lens varies as the leaf is adjusted in and out from the center of the lens. The lens should move with the leaf.

All in all, not much better than nought IMO!

Anyone recognize this one, while we're on the subject?Attachment 29241Attachment 29239Attachment 29240

It fits nicely over the barrel of a CLLE.

Has anyone ever actually used one of these things on a range as a sort of test to its serviceability? Was it ever an issue or an opproved local-purchase unit purchase as such. I've never seen official reference to such a beast. Or was it just a thing you bought yourself to take into the front line? Or just bought yourself to use oin a range somewhere?

I ask because this practice of 'buy-it-yourself-to-take-to-war still goes on. I saw a big list of things that soldiers had purchased privately to take to war in 'Asia', from survival kits that were worse than useless to under body armour wear that was eaually useless to.......... well there was all sorts. Most wouldn't last 5 minutes or had already failed trials in favour of the equivalent that was already issued, such as pouches and goggles and super-dooper go anywhere but last 2 minutes boots! The bit of kit that would be MOST useful, people don't purchase. And that's your own mine proof vehicle

Peter

I have never actually test fired any of the 3 types of Galilean sight sets I have, Barnett, Gibbs, Lattey yet, but I do propose to in future at least the Gibbs & Lattey.

To quote from Martin Peglar’s Out of Nowhere book on WW1 use of Galilean sights:

“Colonel Freemantle , in his manual on sniping devoted some four pages to their description and use, something he was unlikely to do for an item that had no practical use in the field. War Office figures for late 1915 and early 1916 show 9,000 Lattey, 4250 Neill, 775 Martin & 100 Gibbs had been supplied to frontline regiments”

Some empirical testing was done with both a Lattey and a Martin on a 1916 production SMLE to gauge how effective they might have been and the results were interesting, Generally the sights proved surprisingly effective when used in good weather. Target acquisition was good, particularly as movement could be detected easily on either side of the foresight, which, unlike a telescopic sight tube, does not block the shooters peripheral view. They did improve the shooter’s ability to pick out targets in poor light, although with nowhere near the efficiency of a telescopic sight. On the downside, vision was impaired by moisture, which settled on the foresight, and the field of view was poor, although the clear vision on either side of the objective lens did counteract this to a certain extent. They were also prone to working loose due to recoil, but if used within their limitations, they were certainly an improvement on the human eye and in ideal conditions would enable a competent rifleman to make a head shot at around 300 Yards (270 Metres)”

Skennertons The British sniper book also states that in the War Department search for suitable optics for military use up to 1st February 1917 1400 Lattey lens sights were obtained.

The total demand for Optical Munitions to 2nd November 1918, included:

Sights, Telescopic for rifle 13,464
Sights, Optical for rifles (Galilean) 75,900
Sights, Unit telescopic 11,815

Skennerton also quotes on Galilean sights description and use from a March 1915 Trade periodical Arms & Explosives, but I will not print all that text as well.

There is as far as I know only one picture known to exist of which shows maybe one or 2 such Galilean sighted SMLE’s in use.

I'll try and get one out in the next week or so and try it. PROVIDED the road to the range is passable. What started out a a green Xmas has now turned into 10 inches of snow (25.4 cm for those so disposed).
A very Merry Christmas (belated) and a Happy New Year....

Here is a letter from Mr R W Barnett defending the use of his sight (also called the Ulster sight) which appeared in the Sept 4th 1915 edition of The Field. There is also a useful picture of the sights and instructions in their use. If anyoine wants to use them in an article or publication - please credit Nigel Greenaway for having found it !

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Valleysniper

Front Lens + 1.00 Dioptre Sphere Rear Lens - 2.50 Dioptre Sphere

---

Good grief, it's a telephoto lens set!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boltaction

To mount the sight, you have to drill a hole through the portion of the forestock which is behind the slot.

---

Are you sure? I suspect that it mounts under the safety catch, replacing the safety catch washer. Otherwise, there would be no way of ensuring that it was at the correct height and had the correct horizontal offset?

:wave:
Patrick

P.S: I have just seen that the previous post appeared while I was composing this. Still, it's nice to know I guessed right!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Patrick Chadwick

Good grief, it's a telephoto lens set!



Are you sure? I suspect that it mounts under the safety catch, replacing the safety catch washer. Otherwise, there would be no way of ensuring that it was at the correct height and had the correct horizontal offset?

:wave:
Patrick

P.S: I have just seen that the previous post appeared while I was composing this. Still, it's nice to know I guessed right!

---

The rear portion mounts under the safety catch, but the front portion mounts to the slot in the front nosecap, and is held in place with the long screw which goes through the forestock, and does require a hole to be drilled.

Cheers

Ed