Australian P14 Snipers, or Rifle No 3 Mk I* (T)

G'Day All,

I've been investigating a P14 sniper conversion aspirant from Lithgow during WW2. I say aspirant, as the rifle had not been completed as a fully-fledged sniper model. The initial machining work to score the breech ring and the left rear receiver face had been completed, but no scope attached.

The rifle is a Remington and comes complete with a Winchester (F) sight.

My question to the wider audience is: how often do you see a complete No 3 Mk I* (T) rifle? I have only seen one for sale, and no others in the past few years.

Does anyone have any feel for the price one would go for in $AU? If you're commenting from overseas, would be grateful to hear your experience and price knowledge too.

Thanks in advance.

Check the MKL in the Sniper Rifles Category (click here) for both examples including the BSA and PP scope versions, plus the Alexander Matin conversion ...

Check the Knowledge Library for extensive photo montages and all examples of P14 sniper rifles

No.3 MkI* (T) Rifle (BSA Scope) - (Pattern 1914 Mk1* W (T) Sniper Rifle)
(Manufactured by Winchester - Serial #W226763)
c/w Model 1918 (3x) Scope Serial #226763 (Mfg by B.S.A Guns)
c/w 1907 Pattern leather sling


No.3 MkI* (T) Rifle (PP Scope) - (Pattern 1914 Mk1* W (T) Sniper Rifle)
(Manufactured by Winchester - Serial #W196128)

c/w Model 1918 (3x) Scope (Mfg by Periscopic Prism Co. Ltd.)
c/w 1908 Web Pattern sling (Mfg in 1913 by M.E. Co.)

No.3 MkI* (T)A Sniper Rifle - (Pattern 1914 Mk1* W (T)A Sniper Rifle)
(Manufactured by Winchester) Serial #W209977
Sniper conversion by Alexander Martin (Glasgow) - Scope Mount Serial #209977
c/w Model 1916 (3x) Pattern 4 Scope Serial #71262
(Mfg by Aldis Bros. - Birmingham)
c/w 1907 Pattern leather sling
(Mfg by W.T.& B. Co. - 1918)
(Also marked J.J.M. - 1918)

BTW, they are all for sale, but only the BSA conversion is still left ... ;)

Hope that helps ... :cheers:

Regards,
Doug

I think there was a rifle for sale in Australia last year which had the Lithgow manufactured scope handfitted to a rifle, using the SMLE scope rings. Might this be the one you're referring to? Probably someone removed the non-original parts and sold on the rest.

There is not a single rifle from another manufacturer other than Winchester that I know of being an official sniper rifle (OK, aside of the obviously of Eddystone-manufactured Canadian P.14 with the Warner & Swasey scope and some single trials rifles). The No. 3 T snipers I am aware of with Australian property marking are also all of Winchester manufacture.

Thanks, Doug, I did use this excellent advice on the weekend in my earlier research. In particular, the detail of the (F) sight.

I'd love to make an offer, but the Gummint here is dead against we untrustworthy citizens importing dangerous, nasty firearms. We are apparently all likely to go and commit evil crimes, so the barrier to free trade is Everest high.

---------- Post added at 08:37 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:30 AM ----------

Promo, there is speculation that the Australian Army, being woefully prepared and kitted out for the kick off of WW2, took anything and everything they could get their hands on. We inherited a lot of No 3 Mk 1* (F) and even non-(F) and Lithgow was to turn these into (T) rifles. Of course, the No 1 Mk III* was the usual base for our (T) rifles, but that was once the panic had subsided in 1943 and Tojo was on the run north of the Owen Stanleys. I have not found enough history specifically relating to our (T) rifles, as I haven't yet read Skennerton's book on Commonwealth sniper rifles. Maybe time to get my hands on a copy.

The rifle in question is not in the public domain and I won't undermine the owner's privacy. I have seen evidence to support the claim that the rifle was prepared for further work, it just never happened.

All No. 3 (F) rifles were Winchester based. Even if those were converted in Lithgow to snipers, they wouldn't be a Remington rifle. I therefore still see no reason why it would be a Remington rifle they picked.

Summarizing what you have is a Remington rifle with modifications in similar manner to what are required to have the PPCo scope bases fitted. These are basically a very small inletting on the receiver ears, and drilling two holes on the receiver. Nothing which can only be done in a military workshop and when considering that reproduction mounts are available it is quite possible that someone just wanted to have a sniper rifle built himself, but picked the wrong action and didn't complete his work.

There is no proof that this rifle was started by Lithgow (why wouldn't it be completed?), and even if they had started to work on it, why would they sell it off partially converted rather than throw away the action which is basically weakend.

Edit: does it have a D proof on the left side of the receiver? The Australian No. 3 T snipers I am aware of had those.

I suspect that if the Australians needed some P14s to convert to "T" spec. in wartime, they would convert Remingtons just as happily as Winchesters. The original selection of Winchesters for conversion is a bit of a mystery to me, since AFAWK there was no inherent superiority in their product over Remington Illion and as is pointed out in "The U.S. Enfield" by I.D.S., the American Expeditionary Force actually requested that no further Winchester rifles be sent to France in 1918, reportedly due to problems with interchangeability of parts. From how American militiary procurement worked at the time, that could have been nothing but politics, but that's what the record says.

That's not to say that they did convert any RE rifles, only that in the absence of reliable records I wouldn't assume that they didn't just because the War Office specified Winchesters originally. On the other hand, after the various "fast ones" that Winchester tried to pull on the British government with the P14 contracts, you'd think they wouldn't have specified Winchester without a good reason!

:dunno:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Promo

All No. 3 (F) rifles were Winchester based. Even if those were converted in Lithgow to snipers, they wouldn't be a Remington rifle. I therefore still see no reason why it would be a Remington rifle they picked.

Summarizing what you have is a Remington rifle with modifications in similar manner to what are required to have the PPCo scope bases fitted. These are basically a very small inletting on the receiver ears, and drilling two holes on the receiver. Nothing which can only be done in a military workshop and when considering that reproduction mounts are available it is quite possible that someone just wanted to have a sniper rifle built himself, but picked the wrong action and didn't complete his work.

---

Some rather interesting and potentially valid views there, Promo.

Let's take a step back, to Mr Skennerton's research, which is very close to the mark and widely cited. Ian has spent a lot of time talking to people whom worked in or around armaments production during the war. Much of his research is real stuff- talking to people whom did see/touch/do work on various armaments. Not a lot of detail of their input to war production was recorded formally, until Ian talked to them from the 1980's onwards. Some 40 years after the event.

To suggest anyone's detailed recollection after 40 years is spot on is a stretch. I'm not suggesting information presented is incorrect, fabricated or otherwise. What I am suggesting is it is unwise to believe everything one reads (particularly on the internet!)

Now Australia, as mentioned earlier, was in a real pickle when WW2 started. When we answered Great Britain's call to arms, we were a rag-tag Army of hastily cobbled together people and equipment. Luckily, we fell on our feet and learned quickly, thanks in part to one Erwin Rommel who decided that training the second AIF and their Kiwi cousins was part of his brief. Kindly, he gave us much opportunity to hone our soldiering skills in the Western Desert and in the Palestine against the scurrilous Vichy French. When we managed to wrap up our relatively successful innings in North Africa, we were hastily dispatched to turn Tojo around from PNG. Now the fellows initially thrown at Tojo were effectively Reservists, Citizen Soldiers, or Militia. These fellows were a mix of callings, capabilities, effectiveness and reliability. When they were thrown into action in New Guinea, they had WW 1 equipment, on average, at best. Whatever they could get their hands on, they used. Australia's logistics were disgraceful, at best.

Now, while Ian Skennerton concentrates on what the Brits did with their No 3 Mk I* (T) that is a relatively different story. One needs to accept that Australia was in dire peril in 1941/42 when we were about ot be invaded and all our fighting forces were in the Western Desert, or about to be annihilated in Singapore and Malay. What ever we could scrounge, steal, requisition, buy, beg, lift, borrow - we did.

So, the P14s coming from Britain were valued. They were taken to Lithgow, our principal small arms factory or 'armoury' (in US terms). Lithgow was the main producer of rifle actions and other infantry and light artillery weapons. Further on in 1942, Orange Annex opened up, some 80 miles away, and it was the principal assembler of components from Lithgow (SAF) and the feeders: Wellington, Forbes and Bathurst. The specialist work for (T) rifles was done at Lithgow. Why the rifles (several known) were not complete is a wartime uncertainty. As for the potential of some one 'having a crack' at starting their own (T), that's a valid possibility. Is it probable, who knows?

What I would suggest, is that the vagaries of wartime necessity, production, availability, constraints from enemy action all add up to some differences in the norm. Peter Laidler, an expert with front line experience in both the UK and AU army logistics chain under combat duress, cites frequently the differences found from time to time that Base or Field workshops need to correct or work with.

Perhaps this Remington was supposed to be a (T) but priorities changed (ever hear that from the Army?), or stocks of No 1 Mk III* became available for the job. Perhaps the Army in its infinite wisdom decided to consolidate and only use the No 1 rifle, as spares were readily available, where P14s were not.

Dunno... All good possibilities and food for research and thought.

One can never rule out the small possibility of such an item really being made. It is however very uncertain that they picked a very handful of Remington made rifles - I have never yet seen any convincing Remington based No. 3 T rifle. For me this would be necessary to at least give a slight chance there was another Remington made rifle which was - for whatever reason - stopped during conversion.

Another fact that speaks against this is the fact that I do not know a single No. 3 T rifle with Australian acceptance/proof/property marking which features anything particular Australian, aside of the marking. These rifles ALL carry the PPCo scope, the scope blocks are all shaped exactly the same way as the WWI scope blocks (in contrast to the 1935-1938 scope blocks on the BSA made rifles for Ireland! They are different both in shape of the bases, the way the serial number was added and if the serial number was with the W prefix or not). This for me is a sign that nearly all Australian No. 3 T snipers were simply leftover British WWI No. 3 T snipers.

I do know some No. 3 T rifles which for whatever reason surface in Italy which are rather oddly spread all over the right side of the rear sight protector marked with D (arrow) D and the rifle serial number, compared to the D with the broad arrow in it on the left side of the receiver towards the barrel as on my Australian No. 3 T rifle, which may make the "Italian rifles" a possible WWII Australian assembled snipers, but yet they are Winchester made too.

So we know that Winchester might not had been the one which allowed interchangeability of parts with the ones from Remington and Eddystone, and we also know for sure that Australia had British WWI No. 3 T's. Why then now start a manufacturer mix which can end in having no interchangeability between your own sniper rifles. These are highly valueable in war, even under great pressure you would very carefully produce them and make sure they are not lost or damaged, and to have spare parts available (fun fact from WWI: an Italian sniper always consisted of two persons - the sniper and the person who was in charge to bring home the rifle in case the sniper was killed, because it was so valueable).

I therefore understand your point and I can't rule out 100% that there was never such a rifle as you mentioned. What I tried was to give you facts which speak against this. If you want to believe in the 1 in 1 Million chance it's up to you, but always remember to buy the gun and not the story. And even if you had been the engineer at Lithgow who has drilled and modified the Remington P.14 action for sniper useage you don't have a written proof of what this rifle is, just a chance of appearing more reliable than any gun owner who might tell you the greatest stories just to get a few bucks more for his rifle, or even just envies!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Promo

And even if you had been the engineer at Lithgow who has drilled and modified the Remington P.14 action for sniper useage you don't have a written proof of what this rifle is, just a chance of appearing more reliable than any gun owner who might tell you the greatest stories just to get a few bucks more for his rifle, or even just envies!

---

Promo, that is really the valuable message I deduced from your earlier post. Thank you. I do hope others read into it the same way.

As it stands, for much of that reason (that there was no evidence of provenance) and the silly price, the offer was politely, but firmly declined.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 22SqnRAE

Promo, that is really the valuable message I deduced from your earlier post. Thank you. I do hope others read into it the same way.

As it stands, for much of that reason (that there was no evidence of provenance) and the silly price, the offer was politely, but firmly declined.

---

A very wise choice 22Sqn........... at least you asked the questions first and covered all bases and by doing so have saved yourself a lot of hard earned cash. There is nothing worse than seeing folk convincing themselves they have a rare example when everyone else is trying to be as diplomatic as possible and tell them what they do have is not what they think they have......... these are the kind of items that do a few laps of the fairs etc, then are sold in the auction.

I bought a lemon a good few years back, of course never really knew much or anything about it but it was a sale or return........ (very quickly returned) but it showed up again with a very high price tag, although the new owner was convinced he had something special.......... even when I told him where it had come from and what the experts on this forum had quickly described it as, he still thought different......

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bigduke6

A very wise choice 22Sqn........... at least you asked the questions first and covered all bases and by doing so have saved yourself a lot of hard earned cash. There is nothing worse than seeing folk convincing themselves they have a rare example when everyone else is trying to be as diplomatic as possible and tell them what they do have is not what they think they have......... these are the kind of items that do a few laps of the fairs etc, then are sold in the auction.

---

Thanks BD6, you're right about the need to ask, test, query. I did some more detailed research, and found the story behind the rifle was probably valid. But as there was no proof offered, the asking price was unsupportable. I'm learning that as a collector, patience and perserverence is equal to detailed knowledge! :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Surpmil

The original selection of Winchesters for conversion is a bit of a mystery to me, since AFAWK there was no inherent superiority in their product over Remington Illion and as is pointed out in "The U.S. Enfield" by I.D.S., the American Expeditionary Force actually requested that no further Winchester rifles be sent to France in 1918,
:

---

The only reason I can see for their insistence on Winchesters for conversion to snipers (and it's only a theory), is that, if I remember correctly, the first shipments of rifles apparently came from Winchester, so the sniper rifles were probably initially selected from those. Thereafter, once the interchangeability issues became apparent, they insisted on Winchesters so that at least all the sniper rifles could share common components.

Found this thread while looking for something else, but maybe worth providing some clarity on some of the theories presented so far. Reading between the lines in a recent Gunboards post, this post may have been the basis for some of the comments therein.

The gist is that Remington No,3 rifles appear to have had some work done on them at Lithgow to convert them to No.3(T). The jury is still out on that, but only one plausible example has been found purportedly at the Lithgow SAF collection back room.

What can be said with certainty is that Australia received one third of the total P14(T) production (668 of 2001) in the early 1920s. These appear in the official Small Arms Returns between the wars. That may be surprising to many that such a large number and proportion of total production ended up in Australia. But alas, this is in black and white. Such rifles were marked with the small /I\ inside a D mark on the left side of the receiver ring, and on the right side of the butt.

It would appear that at least 247 of the Australian issued No.3(T)s were issued to the 2nd Military District, and were marked D/I\D over 2 over the rack number. The rack number was positioned such that it formed a prefix to the existing serial number on the RH sight protector. Rack number and serial number are separated by a "."

eg,

D/I\D
2
247.191511

It is likely that the bulk of the rifles were issued to NSW (2nd MD) and Victoria (3rd MD) which were the most populous states.

The theory that the D/I\D over 2 marks were put on Lithgow converted No.3(T)s is not borne out by any evidence. In fact, it is clear that the serial number font is identical to the standard PPC set up rifles, and the rack number is in a different font applied later by the 2nd MD.

The only evidence I have seen to link Australian production to No.3(T)s is a spare Pattern 1918 scope made by AOC in 1944. Identical to the scopes fitted to the No.1Mk.3H(T), the only difference is that the rear mount is set further back against the ocular cone to fit the No.3 rifle. It appeared that the rear mount was placed there in the first instance rather than being moved aft at a later stage that would leave traces of solder and disrupted blueing. On the face of it, it would appear that defective or lost PPC scopes may have been replaced by AOC scopes, but fitted to original PPC set up No.3(T) rifles.

I have also seen an original No.3(T) rifle fitted with a US M84 scope in original Patt 1918 scope mounts. While one could theorise that it was a field replacement of a broken 1918 scope, I think it was done well post WW2.

Without some additional info, the best light I can put on Australian converted Remington No.3 snipers is some experimental tinkering at the SAF.

I knew you'd search the thread over here too, that is why I mentioned it on GB ;) . Thanks again for your opinion and the summary.


Just to make sure I understood correctly: the 668 that went to Australia were ALL marked with the D and broad arrow in it on the right side of the receiver. Exclusively those which were issued to the 2nd Military District received the additional inventory number on the right side of the receiver too. Would you mind telling me based upon what you can do the attribution to the 2nd Military District?


The M84 scopes were standardized in April 1945. I therefore highly doubt there is any chance at all that it could had been an official issue, other than maybe a prototype.


PS: How comes that you btw specifically mention REMINGTON in context with "Australian converted No. 3 Snipers", and leave out Eddystone as well as Winchester?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lmg15

D/I\D
2
247.191511

---

A bit of a correction is in order, at least as far as the example cited is concerned. It is not marked, "D /l\ D over 2" as mentioned, but the reverse - " 2 over D /l\ D".

Also, lest there be any confusion, No. 247 is a Winchester product.

The only reason I am certain these points are facts, rather than speculation, is because this rifle has been sitting in my safe for the last 19 years.

Cheers,

Terry

My Patt’14 Mk.I* W (T) 248.191781 is sequential in its New South Wales, Australia “rack number” to Terry’s 247. Mine, original Winchester serial number W191781, is now complete except for fitting the mounts I have and obtaining a Model 1918 scope and the rings to mount it

In 1918, the British added sniper scopes to 2,000 or 2,001 Patt’14 MkI* W rifles, almost certainly to (F) Fine sight sniper rifles. The scopes were usually the Periscopic Prism Co.’s Model 1918. The original Winchester factory serial number (e.g. W191781) was covered by the front mount for the sniper scope. As a result the British marked the serial number on the right side of the rear sight housing, but omitted the “W” prefix. Reportedly 688 of these rifles went to Australia during and just after World War I according their inventories, with this one going to the 2nd Military District. The highest prefix 2MD serial number noted so far is 260.198841 owed by my friend “Sqwan”, also in Canada. Both of ours have the early single D with /|\ inside (pre-circa 1926 Australian ownership mark) as well as the 2 over the D/|\D (post 1926 approximately Australian ownership mark).

The markings as shown below where the Australian 2 Military District number 248 has been added in front of the relocated British serial number 191781, separated by a period.

2
D /|\ D
248.141781

Confusion arises as some No.3 Mk.I* rifles converted to sniper equipment included the “W” prefix on the relocated s/n position on the rear sight housing. My study of the serial numbers shows that these all appear to be part of the Irish contract for 79 rifles in the 1930s for what by then was by then known as the No.3 Mk. I* (T). These Irish sniper rifles were never Patt’14 Mk.I* W (T).

The 421 rifles converted to sniping equipment in 1940-1941 by Alex. Martin in Glasgow, were the model No.3 Mk.I* (T) A. The original serial number on these was not repositioned as it was not covered by a scope mount. The rear sight and its housing were removed and replaced by a simple peep sight. On my matching example, the serial number is repeated on the left side of the scope mount. An Aldis scope is permanently attached to the mount and the mount with the scope was supposed to remain on the rifle. These too were never known as Patt’14 Mk. I* W(T) A as the conversions were done about 14-15 years after the model names had changed for the rifles.

A special thank you to those who have helped me to understand the story of these snipers - Ian Skennerton, Milsurps.com hosts and participants, Roger Payne, John Taylor, Brad Hedges, Warren Wheatfield, Terry Hawker etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seaforth72

The 421 rifles converted to sniping equipment in 1940-1941 by Alex. Martin in Glasgow, were the model No.3 Mk.I* (T) A. The original serial number on these was not repositioned as it was not covered by a scope mount. The rear sight and its housing were removed and replaced by a simple peep sight. On my matching example, the serial number is repeated on the left side of the scope mount. An Aldis scope is permanently attached to the mount and the mount with the scope was supposed to remain on the rifle.

---

Just as a small addendum/correction: while the Aldis scope seems to be the most common scope to be found on these Alexander Martin of Glasgow No. 3 Mk.I* (T) A sniper rifles, there are plenty other scope variants to be found on this mount too. It seems that it was used whatever was at hand from WWI stock. The Knowledge Library entry for example also shows a Watts scope -> https://www.milsurps.com/content.php...A-Sniper-Rifle)

Skennerton mentions in TBS that there was discussion after WWI of putting into store for possible future use the (presumably) Aldis No.3 and 4 scopes removed from broken up SMLE sniper rifles. He writes of it as though it was done, but it is clear from what was fitted to the Alex Martin P14s that in fact no such provision was made, or none persisted until WWII.

There are for example a good number of No.3 and 4 Aldis scopes about clearly fitted up on sporting rifles by the gunmakers during the 1920s and 30s, which could hardly have been the case had they all been put into store after WWI, unless some bright spark subsequently decided to dispose of them.

In fact given the preponderance of Aldis No.2 and PPCo. scopes on the Alex Martin rifles, and even reportedly some German WWI era scopes, probably all that was available for Alex Martin was the dregs that the gunmakers had not yet used on sporting rifles, as being inferior to the No.3 and 4 Aldis. The German models were of course as good or better, but in the interwar period still a bit "politically charged" for most gun trade customers no doubt(?)

The number of rifles converted was very likely dictated by the fact that only 421 scopes could be found in the hands or the gun trade or in museums. (Recall that the situation was so desperate that even the Pattern Room collection was stripped of usable WWI sniping rifles at this point).

I was just looking through some clippings from the 1930s and there is one from the Observer in 1937:

Quote:

---

"No Instructors:
To take one instance only, there are to be in each rifle battalion seventy snipers armed with special rifles fitted with telescopic sights. A reasonably good rifle exists in the P.'14, but so far as is known nothing at all has been done by the War Office in regards to the provision of telescopic sights, and there are certainly no men available to instruct the snipers."

---

The point being that had a store of suitable scopes been on hand they would probably been fitted to P14s in the 1930s.

That shortage rather begs the question of why so many of the No.3 Mk.I(T) rifles were sold to Australia, if indeed the sale was actually completed(?), as that would have left the British Army seriously under-issue. Was this a case of getting some quick cash in the early 30s and/or facilitated by the persistent pie-in-the-sky Ainley Rifle which they continued to fiddle about with well into 1938; the thinking being that a new sniping rifle was in the offing and so the No.3 MkI(T)'s could be disposed of?

For what I remember the overall contract was first 400, and the second one was stopped after 21 (whereas I'm certain that "1" at the end is the Pattern Room Sample, meaning that 420 were made for the field, and one to be kept as sample), and if that wasn't for another 400 too? Anyway, the result to this is that the rather obscure total production of 421 is not [only] a result of a lack of scopes, but due to a cancelled contract. This though might had been due to a lack of scopes, but also due to supply of No. 4 T sniper rifles (compare with dates when the units were completed).



The Knowledge Library entry on the Alexander Martin sniper rifles btw speaks of an initial order of 4000 sniper rifles -> https://www.milsurps.com/content.php...A-Sniper-Rifle)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Promo

For what I remember the overall contract was first 400, and the second one was stopped after 21 (whereas I'm certain that "1" at the end is the Pattern Room Sample, meaning that 420 were made for the field, and one to be kept as sample), and if that wasn't for another 400 too? Anyway, the result to this is that the rather obscure total production of 421 is not [only] a result of a lack of scopes, but due to a cancelled contract. This though might had been due to a lack of scopes, but also due to supply of No. 4 T sniper rifles (compare with dates when the units were completed).

The Knowledge Library entry on the Alexander Martin sniper rifles btw speaks of an initial order of 4000 sniper rifles -> https://www.milsurps.com/content.php...A-Sniper-Rifle)

---

Probably a typo for "400".

Is there a source for the cancellation of contracts, and if so, are reasons given?

Given that the deficit of scoped rifles persisted into late 1943, I doubt the contracts with Alex Martin would have been cancelled for any reason other than a lack of suitable scopes. The rifles that were converted we know from photos to have been used for training well into 1943, and presumably had some use in action as well (Tom Barker etc).

Why would the contracts be cancelled when the rifles were considered usable and scoped rifles were still in short supply overall?

We have no reason to think there were not sufficient P.14s on hand, though the 10,000 purportedly set aside for possible future sniper use may be as ephemeral as the purportedly put aside WWI scopes. Regardless, there were large numbers of them in store somewhere in the UK.

The conversions themselves were relatively cheap and easy and allowed collimation "by hand", unlike the No.4(T) pads which were machined in jigs after fitting to the rifle body and therefore required a dedicated milling machine - which Peter saw and inspected in H&H's London factory in 1988(?) Machine time is a valuable commodity in wartime.

Overall the impression I get is that sniping and sniping equipments were not a high production priority as the whole matter was not considered of much military value or importance.

"The British Sniper, A Century of Evolution" by Steve Houghton on page 76 states:

Quote:

---

The delivery of the rifle began with an initial batch of 400 units after which the production of a second batch of 400 rifles commenced, but after just twenty-one rifles were converted the order from the War Department for the 3T (A) was cancelled.

---

Additionally this book btw mentions that there is one of these rifles at Birmingham Proof House with an Evans scope, also it shows a picture of one with a PPCo scope (the large one, not the 1918 model). And I think the Knowledge Library also shows one with a Watts scope.


I currently do not have Ian's books at hands but would need to check at home. Due to that I'd not allow myself to make any assumptions as to whether the contract was ended for lack of scopes or replacement of something else. I only might throw in that the non-detachable scope, which sits offset, a clumsy emergency rear sight and the non-uniform scopes used and the heavy modifications to the receiver itself might have assisted with the cancellaction of the contract.

Things do have a way of being repeated from one author to another without actual confirmation. A good example being the story of the Canadian contract W&S scopes and how they purportedly were unsealed due to the removal of the range scale from the body covers. This story began with Tantum and was repeated by various authors since then. I have one on my desk now and the holes are blind. :rolleyes: So were they in the previous example I owned. I expect you have found the same in the two you own?

In fact if one takes off the small brass plate that gives the ranges for the range-estimating stadia lines there is an evacuation screw for the scope body behind that plate.

Watts, PPCo., Aldis No.2, 3 and 4... there really isn't any other possible explanation than that they were scraping the barrel. Uniformity and commonality are the first principles of military production and supply. Total Aldis production in WWI was in the thousands and IIRC Skennertion states in TBS that some 8000 telescope rifles were broken up for spares after WWI.

Regarding the Alex Martin contracts Skennerton says on p. 101 that, "the first of the Martin No.3 MkI*(T)A rifles were contracted in 1939, but these (sic) are not recorded as being filled, and were probably incorporated in the 400 batch." Earlier on the same page he states: "A quantity of 1st World War vintage Aldis telescopes were still in store and as there were no Pattern 1918 'scopes available in quantity, these were earmarked for fitting to rifles to provide desperately needed sniper equipments. Many of the Pattern 1914 snipers rifles [No.3 Mk.I*(T)] had been disposed of to other Empire forces during the inter-war period, so the shortage was even more acute. The contract for mounting the Aldis sights to No.3 rifles was undertaken by Alexander Martin of Glasgow and initial orders seem to be be for about 4000 rifles, although this figure was the total requirement of sniper rifles at that point in time, and may not have been intended as the total quantity of No.3/Aldis units ordered."

So, as Skennerton points out on page 100, it was May 1940 when the first steps were made to adapt the No.32 to the No.4 Rifle. Previous to this, the No.3 was of course the official and approved sniper rifle. Unless there was a typo in the 1939 Alex Martin contract(s), it appears that the intention was to continue with the No.3 as the sniping rifle, but to expedite the setting up of the needed rifles by using the simplified Alex Martin mounts. Until, voila, it was found that the Aldis scopes referred to had been sold off to the gun trade. :ugh:

So what to do? Rustle about for whatever the gun trade had in their backrooms, send them off to Alex Martin, and come up with a different plan: the No.4 and No.32 sight. Recall that it was around this time that calls were sent to Canada for telescope-sighted Ross rifles, and drawings were prepared at RSAF Enfield for fitting No.32s to Patt.14 rifles etc. So it seems all options were on the table, but of course at some point it was realized that as the No.4 was accurate enough it made no sense to persist with the Patt.14 as a future sniping rifle for all the obvious reasons.

We might ask ourselves why if Alex Martin was given a contract in 1939 for 4000 rifles, they would be given another contract on 1st July 1940 and a third on 26th April 1941 for 400 and 21 units respectively? What happened to the initial contract? Probably while the rustling about in depots for the missing Aldis scopes was going on, the decision was taken to move on to the No.4 and No.32(?) By July 1940 all that could be found was 400 odd scopes and so that was the contract given, with perhaps another 21 showing up by the following year? The logical interpretation would be that initial reports of the gun trade whip-around were something over 400 scopes to be had, so this would be a convenient figure for the first contract. Once the scopes were actually in hand, presumably at Alex Martin, and the number that were actually serviceable had been determined, then the final total would be known and the second contract for 21 was probably be retrospective to provide for the final number?

Skennerton says on P.108 that, "The No.32 Mk.I telescopic rifle sight....was first recommended for adoption with the No.4 Rifle of the sniper role on 20th of March 1940." Thus the lack of scopes for Alex Martin may have been coincidental with a decision to change to the No.4 Rifle, rather than the actual cause of it, but unless we find records to indicate that the intention was to fit the No.32 to the Patt. 14 in 1939, and the RSAF(E) drawing dates should answer that question, then I would have to conclude that it all hinged on the missing WWI Aldis scopes which it was thought were still in store somewhere. Wouldn't be the first time one hand of government sold off what the other hand was later to be looking for!

Incidentally, it appears that RSAF Enfield got through their 1403 No.4(T) conversions even more slowly than H&H later produced theirs, unless that production ended much sooner than the contract dates imply. Skennerton says conversions at Enfield began in May 1940 and "From 22nd September, 1942, Holland & Holland took up the conversion of Britain's No.4 sniping rifles..." Did it take Enfield about 27 months to convert 1403 rifles? With 608 weekdays between 1st May 1940 and 31 August 1942, that is about two rifles per day; not including the possibility of Saturday shifts or multiple shifts on each day.