Printable View
Looking to start a new long term prodject of a smle sniper from ww1 with the offset scope to the left. Supposedly a member on here "roger Payne" makes very good repro mounts for this set up. If any one could point me in the right direction I'd very much appreciate it thx!
You've found him........but there are numerous different types of mounts (most of them offset) from WW1 for the SMLE. Was there any particular type you had in mind?
Probably worth sourcing a correct scope before deciding on the mountings. I believe there were quite a few variations on the SMLE.
Attachment 83925 I hope this worked but like thisQuote:
Originally Posted by Roger Payne
This is the PPCo offset mount.
So I guess if anyone has any parts real or nice reproductions I'd be very interested. Going to look at a 1917 sporter at a local store wed. Anything special I should look at when I go look at it. Newer to smle's
I would love to find a mount and rings for a PPCo SMLE. I have the perfect rifle for a clone and I have the scope. Unless the economy here in Alberta picks up, all I get to do is hope and wait.
That the receiver has not been drilled & tapped if its sporterised your going to need NOS woods or a 2nd hand set either way they can change hands for a pretty penny- what else is missing from it, take some bore gauges if you have them if not the poor mans way of doing the muzzle with a MK VII 303 round as modern projectiles vary considerably from .310.5 (Hornady FMJ) to .312 (Hornady 150gn SP)-.311 (Seirra MK) - .313 (Woodleigh I think) all of which will give a possible incorrect assessment of the muzzle smaller ones will look like its worn whilst the larger will falsely indicate a lesser worn bore if I had to choose it would be the SMK obviously the deeper it goes in the more worn the muzzle is.
Any FTR markings on it, Go No go gauges if you have them .064 "Go" .074 "No Go" there is so much you do have to look at try googling the threads on this site for a guide as it could take a while to digest & type the info and remember buy the rifle not the story
I had not mentioned it in my post, but I think there are better scope mounts which you should consider for building a SMLE sniper than the PPCo mount. Nearly all SMLE sniper mounts are an awful amount of work and consist of many hand-made parts. And if I'm not mistaken the PPCo mount even requires some machining to the receiver. The same awful number of complicated parts also applies to the Holland & Holland and the J. Purdey & Sons mount, not to speak of the Evans mount where scopes are unobtainable.
To make it simple: you do not sound like you want to get closest to the original rifle as possbile and build a faux sniper with no worries on costs (period correct PPCo or Aldis scopes can cost you more than $1000, the handful correct reproduction mounts I've seen nearly get into that range too) and with a sharp eye also on period correct manufacturer, matching numbers and using the correct manufacturing year and manufacturer.
If you manufacture the mount yourself, pick the Whitehead mount which is rather simply and requires a rather commonly found Winchester A5 scope. Or if you only want the appearance of a SMLE sniper you might also look into the Australian mount, which is basically the No. 3 (T) mount adapted to work on the No. 1 rifle. Of the No. 3 (T) mount there are reproductions available out there, and without having had one of those in my hand I think if you have a good gunsmith they might get this mount fitting on a SMLE rifle too. This mount by the way also has the advantage of having split rings which - unlike the Purdey, H&H or PPCo mount - do not require the scope to be soldered in the rings.
Sorry for the delay in getting back to you. Promo is absolutely correct - there is an awful lot of work (& hence expense) in recreating these WW1 mount systems. There is no such thing as a 'cheap after market repro' with these. The Whitehead mounts for the Winchester A5 are indeed the easiest to produce - I have had three or four small batches done over the years - & I have just commissioned another small run. However, these things always take many months from giving the go ahead to actually having something in your hands ready to sell. Another advantage of going for the Whitehead/A5 set up is that if you don't mind either a civvy A5 or even one of the repro A5's, they are relatively readily available, at least compared to PPCo & Aldis scopes. (A very nice PPCo scope, complete with rings & in its case recently sold on that auction site for just over 2000 pounds sterling - about 2.5k in USD).
Thx guys this is a bad pic of the rifle my buddy sent me. It's 250 bucks so I guess we will see tomorrow if it's anything to right home about. I appreciate all the help. As far as the mount goes not set on any mount or scope just wanted a nice representation of a ww1 smle. So the easier the parts are to aquire the better off I'll be. My dream gun was a no4 T so I sourced all original parts for my rifle. This gun not actually being a real sniper to start with I don't mind them not all being real. Mr. Payne do u have pictures of mount u may have being built in the upcoming months and the scope I would need for it?
Enclosed some of the mount variations that exist. The A5 scope is shown with the long slender leather case in the first picture, & also on the rifle in the last, attached with the Whitehead mounts I have had made. Other photo's show the PPCo rifle & Aldis with both Purdey & H&H mounts.
When I get the next batch of Whitehead mounts they will be like the ones shown on the last rifle.
If you search on line you should be able to find both genuine & reproduction A5 scopes. Original military marked examples fetch a premium, but civilian examples are less expensive, & I suspect the reproductions would be cheaper still.
Hope this helps.
Well, its a real project, you appear to need an awful lot of parts going by that picture.
Wow the look of those whitehead mounts is very cool! Would u please let me know when there available as I'm in no rush. I like those mounts better than the others. Gives it a real old work feel. Anyway I can pay in advance?
I'm afraid it's 'how long is a piece of string'? on the wait. My machinist does them in odd moments when he's not too busy with other work in order to keep the price reasonable. However, I am hopeful that they'll be ready by the end of the year. Best bet is to rattle my cage periodically & I'll keep you updated, but I wouldn't bother for at least three or four months as nothing is likely to materialize before then.
The Whitehead mount system with the actual mounting blocks attached to the brackets would allow other vintage scopes to be used to simulate a sniper rifle. For example, I have a vintage Fecker scope which looks not unlike the A5, and mounts on the same blocks. My eyes cannot handle iron sight very well any more; a scope makes a rifle much more shootable for me.
Looking at the photos of the Whitehead mount, I believe that making a pair would be within my skill set.
Drilling and tapping an intact original would be a shame. Fortunately there are many sported rifles.
Cut off the screw heads, glue them in place and solder or even better glue (modern glues are sometimes even better than solder) the bases to your rifle. It looks perfect and also withstands recoil, but you didn't destroy an original rifle. And unless you throw it on the ground, it will be on the rifle forever.Quote:
Originally Posted by tiriaq
Thanks! Hadn't considered that. With a good fit on the left sidewall of the receiver, an industrial adhesive would have lots of surface area. The brackets are basically angle stock, and the mounting blocks are readily available.
As an engineer, I'm not too sure or remotely convinced that you could successfully stick body pads to a rifle body, with its curved shapes and aspect with glue!!!!! Recoil will soon put paid to it as sure as eggs is eggs Nope......, sorry, not a chance of lasting success. And if it WAS a success, why didn't Parker Hale, Accuracy International etc etc do it this way? Sorry to disagree but don't forget your physics lessons of forces and moments about a circle and......... and..........
Some modern double shotguns have the barrel tubes bonded into the monoblocks, with the ribs bonded on. Composite structures in aircraft wings are bonded together.
Recoil and forces about a radius......... Nope. Ain't convinced me yet. Boeing might have done it and MINI might have done it with their cars but no one making sniper rifles has done it with steel yet. Sorry to be so vehemently against the idea. Call me old fashioned and all that.............
I've got a Remington 700 in .30-06. It is a bitser, great candidate for an experiment. Receiver from one rifle, barrel from another, stock from a third, bolt from a fourth, bolt handle made from a Brownells universal. Only 700 I know of with a Ruger 77 styled bolt handle. Shoots really well. Weaver 2 piece scope bases on. I'll disassemble the mounts, thoroughly degrease, and reassemble; planning on using Loctite 380. Screw the bases down while the bonding agent cures, then remove the screws and have at it. Surface area would be about the same as with Whitehead brackets. If the recoil with 180gr .30-06 loads doesn't break the mounts free, .303 shouldn't either. Loctite 380 has a bit of resilience. With the climate here, temperature changes can be a challenge for adhesives.
One huge advantage of an assembly that is screwed together is that it can be disassembled without using heat.
Some years ago, I was working with a Steyr SSG Match. Wouldn't zero. Turned out the base was on crooked, confirmed this with a long steel straight edge. Removed the screws to see what was going on. Base wouldn't come off, it was bonded in addition to the screws. It got sent back to Austria. Steyr fixed it, but I'll be darned if I know what they did. Came back with the base on straight, accompanied by a little bug hole of a test target. It was the original receiver.
Composites and modern adhesives are wonderful things, but attempting to hold a scope base and rings on a .303 cal rifle would be a true test of the engineering and chemistry.
The BIG problem with things like the Australian "HT" snipers and the Brit No4T series is that incredibly fiddly procedure to collimate the scopes, not entirely to the bore, but to the TRAJECTORY of the bullet. There is NO windage adjustment in either system; the scope had to be "optically centred and then the BASES were "tweaked" to bring a "nominal" zero onto the same POA as the previously adjusted "iron" sights. The original optics are of the "reticule-moving" type, not the more modern, "image-moving" items seen everywhere today. Thus a "perfectly zeroed" Patt 18 or No.32 may be seen with the "reticule" off-centre, both vertically and horizontally. A "perfect" set up would see the the reticule perfectly centred, On these old girls, this is achieved with LOT of tinkering with the bases / pads.
Maybe some enterprising chap could take up my wild idea of building adjustments into a modern "clone" of the bases / rings, rather than fool around trying to re-engineer the old scopes.
Does anyone have anything on the late use of scopes on the L-42 (A1) other than the "L1" optic?
One advantage of the Winchester A5 (or the Fecker that I might use) is that the adjustments are external, shifting the tube. Lots of available movement.
Speaking of recoil forces, I have gone to using an optic on my S&W CORE 9mm. Leupold DeltaPoint. I cannot imagine the G-forces to which these slide mounted sights are subjected. Darn thing is reliable, holds zero.
Anyway, I'll conduct the experiment, see what happens.
I think it was Leupold, who, many years ago, set out to demonstrate the "robustness" of one of their pistol scopes.
They mounted it on the SLIDE of a 1911 in 45ACP, and trotted off to the range.
Apparently, it just kept holding zero.
I have "popped" the reticule on several "name-brand" optics, but never busted a Leupold, Pecar, Kahles, etc. Shame they are so hideously expensive, these days, especially here in Oz.
My friends 460 WM destroyed 2 1-4 x 24mm Leupolds he wont have another Luepie ever not good being a guide with a busted scope he did have iron sights to use, it now sports a March we were hitting a 6" gong at 214M with 2 shots each from a bench not the most pleasant experience but we had 100% hits using Woodleigh 500gn projie dawdling along at 2300fps.
I concure with BIO about the prices I was looking at the new S&B 5 - 45 x 56 PMII till I saw the expected retail here in Aus $6,390/AU now that is a good F class rifle just in the scope I priced out doing a Barnard with that scope and it would be @$11,000/AU+ all up my wife understandibly hit the roof when I told her of my intention so looks like my Savage is here to stay:(
In case You have never used externally adjusted scopes such as the Winchester A5, I would like to offer the heads up that you will have to pull the scope back to battery after each shot. The scope stays in place, more or less, while the rifle recoils rearward. I know this is a turn off for many people who like the look.Quote:
Originally Posted by Z28addiction
Hey Peter, remember that most of the weight of the A5 scope moves anyway upon recoil, so the mass it has to hold is by far less than on any other mount. And as tiriaq mentioned, modern adhesive is far from what we were used to. He said he will do an experiment, and I'm really looking forward to his resuls!Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Laidler
Hey Bruce, another big advantage of the Whitehead mount is the simple fact that you can choose yourself where to drill the holes for the commerical bases, if you anyway do a reproduction. And if it were me, I'd fit it exactly parallel to the scope tube, and also zero it that it hits exactly the same offset than the scope from the barrel on target. This is just something you have to remember, but then gives the same offset on all distances.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bruce_in_Oz
Talking on the Australian SMLE mount you are of course fully correct. But I also like it for that reason, because that allows to spot fakes rather easy since nowadays gunsmiths are not used to such work.
Yes, I sell the repro Whitehead bases without the 4 BA holes for locating the dovetail blocks to the rear base (end-user to do it to suit themselves), as this, together with the external adjuster on this type of scope, ensures there is oodles of room to ensure the scope tube can be adjusted to lie parallel to the bore. I suspect it may be an 'average' figure as it relates to all of the offset SMLE mounts, but the sniping pamphlet of November 1917 states that the the scopes sit 1.5" offset to the left. They are supposed to be parallel to the bore, so that 1.5" should be constant at all ranges (ok, I know we can get into bullet drift, spin of the earth etc., but 'constant' for practical WW1 era sniping distances).
If it was me, I'd go for or something similar to the Australian HT snipers, repro mounts are available and you have the option of two scope ring size's too, scope wise I 'd use a German ZF39, plenty of post war variations of these (I've a 6 x one which will be mounted to something in the future)
I can't remember what needs to be done to fit a German Short side rail mount or long side rail mount, but think it can be done with some tweaking. (maybe a lot of tweaking the more I think about it)
Im actually kind of curious now, what mounts would be used for this? The HTs are something I havent read much in to. I may want to add this to my project list.Quote:
Originally Posted by bigduke6
How do u tell if a Winchester A5 was a citizen unit or military used unit?
Winchester A5 scopes which were used for military, if I remember correctly, will either have an armoury stamp on the base or the rifle's serial number engraved into the scope body.
The 907 purchased for use by British & Empire forces in WW1 either bore a boldly engraved SMLE serial number on the top of the tube or a broad arrow & Enfield examiner's mark on the lower part of the rings. Not sure about those used by the US military - I know some had different bases used with them. No doubt someone will chime in. In the case of the British used scopes the only difference between one of them & a civvy A5 is the presence of the property markings/rifle serial number.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mecharius
The ones on ebay are for the P14, on the SMLE ones the rear mount fits on the side of the charger bridge, by 3 screws underneath.
some pictures are in the link below to the knowledge library
https://www.milsurps.com/content.php...(Short-Bracket)
Here's a few photos of that gun I went to look at. I ended up buying it to use as the platform of this build. Will feel good to bring it back to its glory. If anyone has any insight on any of the markings I'm all ears!
Looks ok at least you have a windage rear sight on it possibly re-barreled in 1918 also I have no idea why Bubba reckons these rifles need a good coating of Varnish, at the least you will need a complete top & bottom forewood set, rear sight ears, nose cap, sling swivels as the one pictured looks like a ring in, inner barrel band, front spring & stud with the required fixing screws.
Look up the threads on fitting bottom forewood as it is not just a drop in fit and if you make a mistake it may take some fixing or at the worst ruin it.
Yea my no4 T was laqured to hell when I bought it. Citistrip works wonders taking it off. I'm hopeing to at least salvage the buttstock. There is a piece of wood where the brass disc should be so I'll see if I can pop that out and put a disc back. If anyone has any misc parts laying around you know I'll need and are willing to sell feel free to pm me! Thx