Printable View
So I replaced the stamped rear sight on my Lee-Enfield No.4 with a milled No.4/No.5 adjustable sight as I was told is more proper. And one of the big thing that stands out is the larger peep on the sight when it's down. Is there a specific reason the peep sight was enlarged? It's almost like ghost sight on a shotgun.
Quick target acquisition I feel, when you use the battle sight it is sighted for the spike bayonet to be affixed on the rifle. If you want to try this zero the the rifle with the micrometer sight at 300yds then affix the spike bayonet then with the sight still raised fire a couple of rounds to see where they strike. Then drop the sight to the battle sight with the spike still attached and have a couple of shots.
Of course you know those are two different sights? The #5 is graduated to 800 yds only... And yes, the large aperture is for quick target acquisition.Quote:
Originally Posted by amadeus76
http://www.milsurps.com/images/impor.../2943p13-1.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by browningautorifle
Watch the orthography, Wolfgang: aperture.:madsmile:
Dan it... I was led to understand they were the sight was interchangeable for the No.4 and No. 5.Quote:
Originally Posted by Parashooter
I found a "Lee Enfield No4 'Savage' Singer Pattern Rear Sight" that looks correct. It's marked out to 1300m and looks just like the above photo except the upper right hand corner is marked with an 'S' instead of an 'F'... Would this be correct?
They are all correct. Whoever made the sight is totally academic.
So the 800m sight is correct for the rifle?Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Laidler
I'm so confused...
The 800 YARD sight is correct for a No.5.Quote:
Originally Posted by amadeus76
For your No.4 you require the sight which goes up to 1300 yards.
The 800-yard sight will fit and work on a No 4; it is not strictly "correct" though. The graduated range markings are different between the two and reflect the difference in barrel length/sight radius/ballistics between the No 4 and No 5 rifles.
1300 yard sights are correct for the No 4, irrespective of the sight manufacturer's code letter marked on it.
The No.5 rifles barrel is shorter in length than the No.4 hence the difference in range marks so the 800 yard sight is not correct for your No.4 rifle, just sell the No.5 sight on flea bay and pick up a 1300 yard one there's oodles out there just shop around till you get a good one or try your local gunsmith goodness knows they horde stuff more than me
If I might be so bold, I'd like to jump in here feet first as it seems as though I'm being made to look like a bit of a chump.
Amadeus told us in thread 1 that he has a No4 Mk1. And he's replaced it with a No4/5 type Mk1 sight. So far, so good. The question was why is the battlesight aperture enlarged - which Cinders, Bar and Parashooter answered.
Thread 5 and 6 he tells us that his 'new' sight is marked to 1300 yards BUT it is marked S instead of F. Again, so far, so good as we know he has a No4 with the correct 1300 sight. Any reference hereafter to a No5 800 sight is academic. So I tell him - in easily understood words that any No4 sight is correct and the manufacturer is academic.
So now....... thread 8, he is confused. And as a result it almost as though I have confused the issue. Chaps...... I haven't! I have done enough No4's, No4 sights, No5's and sights to last a lifetime
:dunno::runaway:
I know why...when replying, if you don't use a quote and people don't read through to put things in context...they can lose their focus. Peter didn't confuse anything, just answered a question directly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Laidler
Quote:
Originally Posted by amadeus76
Quote:
Originally Posted by amadeus76
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Laidler
Seems to me amadeus misconstrued Capt. Laidler's "all" as "all types" rather than "all makers". Perhaps he missed "Whoever made the sight is totally academic."Quote:
Originally Posted by amadeus76
I suspect the basic problem is varying definitions of "correct". To a practical armorer, any authorized part (regardless of maker) that fits and functions appropriately is "correct". To a rabid collector of the part-swapping persuasion, only items that would have been present at original manufacture are "correct". To me, a "correct" military arm is one in a condition it had while in active service, including any repairs by military armorers.
And we have document evidence of the MoS asking if the milled sight is being produced at Savage because they want some for the early No.4(T)s. (Shortage of them at Home.)
Ok... This threads gotten more life than I expected. Anyway, I've sent the No.5 sight back and found a correct No.4 sight on ebay that I'll probably buy. It's in Britain so hopefully it arrives by the time I get back from NTC.
In a word yes, there is a specific reason. It is having an adequate field of vision and rapid target acquisition during combat, hence the name, 'Battle Sight'. Having been there and done that for real, I can tell you that you really do want to see what is out 'there' and be able to aim quickly.Quote:
Originally Posted by amadeus76
I realize that and I've been there too. The reason I asked about how large it was is because it's even bigger than the one on the stamped sight I have.Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul S.
This is a issue I have recently taken to changing my own terminology for to try and prevent confusion as so many people have different meanings as to what a phrase means. I now use the phrases all matching, factory original, and factory correct.Quote:
Originally Posted by Parashooter
All matching simply means the parts are matching even if they have parts in there which were replaced in service according to what the requirements of remarking were (for Germans it was renumbering the parts, for the Lee Enfields, it depended on the part if they would stamp the number on it, etc.). A all matching rifle can have been through refurbishment, rebuilds, etc.
Factory Original means the parts are exactly as the firearm would have left the factory. They also have to be all matching and original to the firearm for this phrase to be correct. Depending on what the firearm is will have a big effect if this is common or not. For example many South American Mausers are Factory Original firearms, however there is very few American M1 Garands which this would apply to.
Factory correct means the parts are as they firearm would have left the factory. However they do not have to be all matching and original to the firearm. You see this more with American milsurps as everyone is trading parts to try and make a 'correct' rifle.
That's right, they're comparatively small. You'll find machined examples that are smaller too.Quote:
Originally Posted by amadeus76
---------- Post added at 10:19 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:16 AM ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eaglelord17
One more would be "Corrected". Like and M1 rifle, early war that left with a front sight seal. Then later removed, when replaced an NOS part was replaced...makes it corrected. That of course could be the only alteration for that to be...Quote:
Originally Posted by Eaglelord17
I personally consider it the work of bubba myself (unless the part is broken, there is no need to replace it), but apparently collectors of American firearms get pretty offended when you call it that so I will stick with factory correct for now (at least until I figureout/learn a better term for it).Quote:
Originally Posted by browningautorifle
I guess you don't understand what I'm speaking about then, the specific part. You aren't replacing...it's not there any more. Corrected IS one of the terms that are used anyway...Quote:
Originally Posted by Eaglelord17
Had to reread what you were saying a couple times to get it. Almost like people replacing magazine cut-offs on Lee Enfields that had them removed due to refurbishment or what have you.
That's exactly what I'm talking about. There's a thread right now about "Correcting" a Lithy that was probably never issued with that part but it's soon going to wear one.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eaglelord17
An M1 may have left factory with a sight seal but it was removed during it's first service inspection. Still, it was there when it left the factory...corrected...
It is almost interesting how quite a fair bit of the damage done to understanding how milsurps were used in service is done by those same collectors. Bubba might be crude, but you can at least identify his work easily. Those small changes to make it more 'correct' are significantly harder to identify, and as time goes on they wear the same as the rifles. Some areas are ripe with fakes/restorations which may or may not have had good intentions when started, however as time progressed the knowledge as to what had been done to them has faded as well.
This is part of what I like about my more esoteric firearms (Carcanos, Mannlichers, Mauser-Vaqueros etc.) is that much less people collecting them, and pretty much no one trying to make the firearms 'correct'.
I had a beautiful early M1 rifle, LL...which I was worried would be seen as corrected or outright faked if I kept it a dozen more years. I sold it recently while things were good...Quote:
Originally Posted by Eaglelord17
Anyway, back to battlesights I guess...