Printable View
Hi,
I spotted a really nice sniper rifle on youtube, and I really like the mounts he has can anyone help me out please identifying them, so I can find some details on the business side of the mounts. I heard him say Holland and Holland, but not a mount I've seen. Thanks find vidi here.
World War One Sniper Rifle - .303 British Enfield Rifle - YouTube
Regards Ian
It is the Holland & Holland mount with an Aldis scope. Nice collection, is this a museum or private?
Not like any Holland and Holland setup I've ever seen. Just my opinion but it looks composite to me.
Actually, everything he said sounded more opinionated than fact based. Lots of bad and wrong info there.
Thanks very much guys, for your replies. It didn't look right to me either, but my knowledge is pretty limited, I agree with the composite assessment. The windage adjustment looks like it's right under the scope, Kinda German style, and the mount distance to the side of the rife looks very lengthy, in fact the whole scope looks very far over.
Even the date of the rifle seems strange, I understood they went to the No3* in 1915-16 for snipers, except for the Australian rifles.
Regards Ian
I,m looking for the pics of one I had, as it was a real nice scope with case but the mounts were of a different nature to the normal run of the mill but very similar, when I spoke to H&H they said it would of been fitted to a sporter.
Am sure there was a thread not long ago regarding a similar scope.
Most of what he says is nonsense - simples!
I was trying to be nice...Quote:
Originally Posted by Beerhunter
The scope is about an inch and a half too high and a good inch too far off set compared to all the pics I have and have seen... He really doesn't have much of an idea, does he? All for the want of the right book :banghead:
He has quite a collection. There's a PIAT on the floor behind him. Don't see many of them over here.
Interesting wire cutter
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fm85vPD-Rg0
The M1941 Johnson rifle is pretty cool too.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gEFSJ9AIewA
I sure wouldn't pay extra for the so called provenance of his Johnson rifle.
Probably a slip of the tongue but I don't think that any Japanese invaders got as far as the Netherlands. Alternatively, he may not know where the Netherlands is. The latter would not surprise me.Quote:
Originally Posted by browningautorifle
He means the Dutch East Indies. I find the sight modifications interesting. I've had several over the years and still retain one. It's refinished with no provenance but has both .30-06 and 7x57 barrels.
I am glad he deduced it went to South Africa which makes it a rare weapon, I thought the mag cut offs were deleted way before 1918 and why would you take the risk of changing out a mag dropping it say in the dark and reducing your rifle to a club, rather than a stripper at least if you drop that you can grab another, perhaps he does not know Ian Skennerton wrote articles on the said lineage of the Lee Enfields. Still I would not mind that collection
Well, apparently issuing extra mags was prohibited in writing...anywayzzz, I'd like the collection, but I wouldn't need his provenance of where anything came from.
Nice to know the Johnson had a barrel that could be changed, not that it could be broken down for paratroop use... I'd guess he bought the bayonet from a guy that swore he bought it from a guy that found it in...sure thing.
But he did say "the Netherlands and their colonies" .... "were overrun by the Japanese". The latter were indeed know as the Dutch East Indies but the "overrunning" of the former was carried out by the Wehrmacht last time I looked.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Dick
I agree his choice of narrative leaves a little to be desired.
Jim, can you see us fumbling around to get the barrel back on after a jump into a hot LZ? :banghead:
---------- Post added at 01:10 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:09 PM ----------
God bless the M1 Rifle!!
No...and I often questioned the fastening of a rifle to my right leg and landing with it. The lowered equipment is definitely better. Another story was when the barrel jacket took a ding on landing, you'd not get the barrel back in anyway. That would be harrowing to say the least. Bring your machinist's hammer to tap things back to shape using the collar as a mandrel...Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Dick
We had a big dude do a PLF on his early M249 SAW which was lowered on the 15' line and it warped the receiver. I went through Hell with higher level maintenance to try and repair it. They gave me every replacement part known to God and the gun still would't run. I finally had to take the acting Arms Room Officer with me across the road to the battalion workshops and he duked it out with the other LT over there while I stood in the corner. They final gave us a direct exchange for a new weapon after much back and forth between the two officers. The early SAW's were a real headache. I guess they're better now but I've heard good and bad. I don't have an opinion since I haven't touched one since 1986. They make them about an hour and a half from here at FNMI in Columbia, SC!
The odd one does get damaged by landing, that's unavoidable. The newer ones are a bit nicer, the mods, shorter barrel, retractable butt...better lines. But, if you land on them they won't always take it.
Sorry to be slow to chip in but I just drove back from the Somme 99th anniversary commemorations this evening. The thumb nails show the original rifle I rebuilt from a stripped receiver (EFD 1916 Mk3*) a couple of years ago. I submitted some photo's at the time, & they are a few pages in on the Restorer's Forum. She's complete now save for the modified rear hand guard.
ATB
P.S. Sorry the photo's are indifferent in quality, but they are all I had readily available.
I'd say he has a WWI Aldis sight with rings modified after WWI for fitting to a sporting rifle, which has then been grafted back onto an SMLE to impress the uninitiated. I have seen that rear ring with the bevel somewhere else. The scope is obviously much too far offset to be either practical or original.
We've had those here on forum before and they look very little like his example...
Sorry when you say we've had these here on the forum before, what are you really referring too, an extreme example like this one, or just some generally cobbled together stuff. It's sole intention to fool, and that was never real at all.
I've read about various concocted mounts now, seem to be made out of British bases,adapted to German rings, I assume with windage adjustment in-tact and the rings to take the German scopes. Mention is really all I can find, no pictures anywhere, or not that I've found, thou these things don't seem to like to pose for the camera much.
Nearly everything I've found is a British made mount, especially modified for the German Scope size of the period.
Did they ever exist, or is this just urban/trench legend, other than the special custom made officers rifles, that they either brought with them, from before the war. Obtained during it, by various means, one being a very charitable lady it seems.
Regards Ian
Yes, they did exist. Ian Skennerton has pictures of each of the variations and write up of each. Look in his "The Lee Enfield" book. They were all to be broken up, that's why they are so rare.
"The scope is obviously much too far offset to be either practical or original."
Some collectors should get out more - like go to the range and try shooting with their "rarities". Then they might realize that what they have in their hands is a non-functional nonsense.
For shooting in the prone position, that setup would be an abomination. I would not risk one single shot with it, as the scope is likely to end up in the eye socket.
The only way one could use it safely would be to shoot in a sitting position, using the left eye for aiming. Hardly likely for a sniper, but plausible for a hunter sitting in a hide.
Even then, the scope is set alarmingly far back. Over the years I have seen several German hunters with the unofficial "badge" of a half-moon cut on the eyebrow, the typical result of having a scope set too far back, and putting the eye too close to the scope in an unconscious effort to get closer to the target.
A hunter in a hide would have the scope set up for the most favourable distance (say 100-150 yards), and the horizontal variation of the POI resulting from the offset would be about 1" over that range - seems acceptable. Useless for long ranges of course, but they would never be attempted.
In short, IMHO this is a rifle/scope combination that was cobbled together for a hunter who could not use his right eye.
We've had the No1 Mk3 snipers... Here's one... Lithgow No1 MkIII* HT Sniper Rifle SurveyQuote:
Originally Posted by harlton
I agree with Patrick here, we've seen examples of rifles and shotguns over the years that were made up for vets with parts missing...from the great war more than anything. Perhaps this was one.Quote:
Originally Posted by Patrick Chadwick
The Small Arms Committee decreed in the early 1920's that all SMLE snipers should be returned to Weedon in Northamptonshire where they were to be stripped down & all salvageable parts reused. Most scopes were sold off into the trade & some (mainly Aldis types) were retained against possible future need. The only genuine WW1 SMLE snipers that have survived are rifles which for whatever reason did not get sent back for stripping down. In the early 1990's Ryton Arms imported from Egypt 1200 SMLE's that had been in a warehouse for decades, & amongst them were two authentic Periscopic Prism Company rifles (no scopes, but mount bases present). One went to the Charnwod collection, & the other was retained by the then manager of Ryton Arms. Fortunately, after a couple of years I managed to persuade him that he didn't want it any longer.
The other rifle that I have, shown in the pictures earlier in the thread, is a complete rebuild of a SMLE/ with Holland & Holland mounts, but it is built on a genuine receiver that had had the mounts removed, & all original parts have been used in the rebuild. On a rifle so rare, I can live with that. I have other SMLE snipers, but they are WW2 Lithgows, & I have other WW1 snipers, but they are not SMLE's. Just two examples in forty years of actively seeking them out shows just how scarce they really are......
Hi Roger,
Thanks for explaining that. Sorry to be a pest, but it's frustrating, to keep reading about all these rifles, some 1000 in total roughly, from what I've gleaned. Then never be able to even see a photo of what they may have looked like.
I've been putting stuff aside for this for twenty years, plus I got very lucky recently, with a couple of rifles that really fit the bill not wanting to ruin some original piece.
It's always been kind of tribute/connection, to my close family members I never meet, that I know will remain for another generation. The fascination with sniper rifles, is just down too, enjoying shooting now for nearly 50yrs, and I just like to building my own stuff.
I want to be accurate as possible, or it looses it's meaning, if just sticking anything on a rifle, and I certainly don't want anything silly, I'm after as close a repop of the period, as I can build, at a price to enjoy.
I like the way the German mounts work, so easy and efficient, and I've had them in my hands. The closest British mount I've seen is the H&H mount you mention, I like that whole set up. I have a Gerard B3 scope, and a 4. Goerz which the books say usually went in the Evans type mounts. who built about 90 I believe, but they seem to have no windage, unless I'm missing something in the photo's. The book on Scopes and mounts, has no Text, but I also have Ian Skennerton's books.
Thanks again, this ruby slipper turned into just glitter quickly, I'll stop being a nuisance now, and machine up some H&H Type mounts, to fit one of my scopes.
Thanks to all, for your help, I'm never going to find out anything, in the middle of Canada. When you're finding it that hard in the middle of the battlefields, and I wanted to make sure, before I commit to drilling any holes in this lovely receiver. Looking forward to trying this offset scope, arrangement, must be a bit like Mum's Knitting, over one, up one, pearl one! excel spread sheet time.
Regards Ian
The scope I mentioned in post #6,
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...ymcaaltl-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...kirnjfy2-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...ylmjjqu5-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...wzv9dcpg-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...djmgjjga-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...2ppijoqf-1.jpg
Although it says H&H I suspect they're highly butchered Purdey rings, extensively reworked into civvy mounts by H&H after the war.
Harlton, if you can find a Winchester A5 or B4 scope I have some reproduction Whitehead Brothers mounts available at the moment - just pm me if interested.
I do get batches of PPCo & other mounts made periodically, & am currently awaiting a small batch of H&H mounts (bases & rings) for the SMLE/Aldis. I know not exactly when they will be ready, but hopefully by the end of this year. Don't have any PPCo's at present, but they are also on the list to get done again in due course.
ATB.
Thanks Big Duke,
Not too anything I'm sure of, it must be an over bore, with the mounts either side, so not Lee Enfield that's for sure, but I wonder if it could be for a Ross Rifle. They did an over the Bore aldis set-up, I've heard tell of. I'll root thru my pic's and book's, really nice scope and rings, as I understand it the Canadians modified them, with a mount towards the front on the left and then where the little bridge mounts. Don't quote me, but I will have a dig and see if it matches what I'm thinking of. Their are people here who can correct me, anyway, many Thanks.
Regards Ian
When I spoke to H&H they said it was or would of been fitted to a sporter but what type of rifle they couldn't say so its anyones guess
Thanks for all, the everything there, Roger. The mounts I have in mind to fab up are the H&H style you show in your first pic's on your own rifle, I saw them in Ian Skennerton's book Commonwealth Sniper Rifles, pages 26 & 27. They seem to be the closest I'll get to a German type arrangement, which I like, without being silly.
When I saw this guy's video, I thought I would ask, but I bet he hates me now, Sorry.
I have a Winchester type scope and mounts, it's an all steel scope, no name on it but looks identical. I would judge it's about it's 6x-8x, missing either the parallax adjuster or the final ring. I hate cutting fine little thread's, but will soon once I give up looking for one.
I did try it on the side, I mocked up a mount, as it was my original thought for the rifle. I wasn't nuts about it, but I have a few physical problems, I'll center mount it, on the bar type mount. Great Target scope, but very small F.O.V. it goes dark as the windage is dialed in.
I'm totally spoiled now, by the German scopes, They must have made it quite an unfair fight, from what I see, and have read of it.
I also tried A W&S scope at an auction, but wasn't keen on it either. Funny, as they make such great Binoculars, I have some.
By the way, do you have that rifle in the first 3 pic's working yet, if so how does she go? I'm very interested in your results, if you don't mind. Thanks again
Best Regards Ian
Hi Ian,
The Aldis/H&H SMLE is just about finished, though I haven't taken her out on the range as yet. I may put a few rounds through her on the zeroing range to start off with.
I hope all goes well with your project - keep us posted.
ATB.
The Aldis scopes I've had; all four of them, LOL, had excellent glass, with the exception of that abomination of a sporter scope they made up from left over bits after WWII, or as it before??
That said, it seems that some exchanges of glass for certain strategic materials the Germans required did indeed take place during WWI, so without testing I can't say where the fine glass in those Aldis scopes may have come from.
Can glass be precisely and non-destructively analyzed for chemical composition?
I wouldn't worry Ian, I seriously doubt he would believe one single word the bunch of us had written. Experts seldom are in the market for correction about something they have that's priceless... It wouldn't be priceless any more.Quote:
Originally Posted by harlton
Spelled "exspurt".
Quote:
Originally Posted by patrick chadwick
Attachment 64300
Fortunately not many nerve endings in the eyebrow area.:lol:
I've seen enough people that might disagree...but more blood vessels I should think. It always bleeds like a pig...
Funny, happened to see the video recently and then happened to see this thread in a search result just now.
The mounts are a post-WWI affair made by one of the better gunmakers to mount the scope on a sporting rifle.
The bases are a contortionist's special vainly attempting to put the scope approximately back where it would have been before the rings were altered or replaced.
I see I could have avoided this resurrection Roger as you answered the question already on the previous page. Oops. ;)
Lost me at the 'detachable' magazine, then I stopped when the suggestion of additional mags was presented. Zero credibility thereon... :banghead:
Interesting that the Geman optics and attachments in WWI were so much better and easier, but the Brits didn't learn from and copy them. Possibly NMH is the reason [not made here]. Seemed to be solved in WWII and subsequently if the long term use of the LE sniper rifles is considered.
We (Brits) didn't copy the over the bore mounting principle until 1918, so left ourselves at somewhat at a disadvantage, yet two of our most significant sniping scopes of the Great War were indeed plagiarised German scopes. The 'original' PPCo scope as fitted offset on the SMLE was a slightly modified version of the Fuess Helios 3, & the later Model 1918 scope (also made by PPCo) was a copy of the Hensoldt Light model scope. Notwithstanding our limitations in equipment British & Dominion marksmen did eventually match, if not surpass, the German forces. This was largely due to the single mindedness of people like Crumm & Hesketh-Prichard in setting up dedicated schools of sniping for each of the British armies.
Thank the Lord for "charitable ladies"Quote:
Originally Posted by harlton
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daan Kemp
I'll add to that comment that if you (Daan) ever have the chance to look through some clean examples of the Aldis No2 and No3 you will find them the equal of probably all contemporaneous German scopes. The only exceptions might be the Zeiss and Goerz prismatics. So the potential was there if it was pursued. Loch Aline(sp?) in Scotland had and has some of the best optical silica in the world; it's all exported now I believe.Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Payne
Unsurprisingly, cultural factors play as large a role in business as they do in political and military matters: even before WWI more thorough and scientific methods in glass production were putting the German manufacturers ahead. The British optical industry remained unorganized post-war despite the lessons partially learned in WWI. The military was largely uninterested in technical innovation and budgets were being clear-cut post-war. The British optical industry had to sink or swim on its own sales: no cosy relationships with banks or government/miitary support, meaning the focus was always on short term profitability rather than long-term investment and technical innovation. These were all factors, as they were in the abject failure of the US optical industry between the wars, and even after WWII.
Returning to the micro again, chance plays a role in these things. If Lord Roberts for example had determined to push through Dr. Common's sight, or if Dr. Common had not died in 1903, it probably would have come into service, been demonstrated as effective and the whole situation in 1914/15 would have been different.
If Churchill when 1st Lord of the Admiralty had not sponsored the tank, would it have ever appeared? The list goes on...
Britain was impoverished by WWI and then WWII. That meant reduced internal markets for higher end goods, and optics for civilian markets were then low volume durables only the wealthier could afford. Scopes were not part of the British way of hunting traditionally, and companies without much support must focus on the highest volume, highest return products.
And of course those countries which pursue business with the unity and strategy of war, take care to if possible prevent the rise of competitors in their target markets, while taking control if they can of those that already exist. Germany, Japan, China, Korea are all pursuing this sort of approach today with eminent success. The USA has tried to use the big stick to secure markets, but that never works in the long term unless carried to its logical conclusion, and even then is doomed to failure in the end as economies and mentalities driven solely by short-term profit simply rush their capital off to whatever opportunity looks to provide the highest immediate return, making the long-term investment that builds high tech industries and R&D difficult to maintain.
Just a footnote: IMHO it is a mistake to think that once our own sniping equipment and efforts got better organized, German sniping did not continue to be effective. Yes, a battalion can dominate its sector to the extent that the enemy is kept almost silent, but there is plenty of evidence that heavy losses were sustained from sniping right to the end of the war, especially in the attack when snipers are concealed by all the other artillery and small arms fire.