John Rigby & Sons No. 1 Mk.III Sniper

For the beginning only a handful pictures of what I now finally have here with me in Europe and is now the pride of my British WWI snipers: the (to me) only known survivor of the John Rigby & Sons SMLE sniper rifle.

The particular piece came from the estate of Bob Faris and was bought at Poulin Antiques in an auction. This rifle originated from the Enfield Pattern Room since it was listed to had been part of it in 1927.

I have not had time yet to fully inspect it in detail. One thing I however noticed was the cut on the left rear sight protector, what makes me believe it originally had a scope which had the lateral adjustment in this place (aren‘t they called „capstans“ or something like this?), like the PPCo scope. I however do not have a PPCo scope without mount to see if it would fit!

Edit: added the additional pictures I've done also to this starting post.

That's a very interesting piece alright. Looking at the photos I can come up with some guesses, but there are some apparent contradictions as well.

For example the sight protector, even though modified appears to impinge on the axis of the rings, so that a scope of that diameter simply wouldn't fit. Nor I think would one of much less diameter!

There is a blob of what looks like solder on the upper edge of the front ring and it looks like something was soldered in judging from the "white" interior of the ring.

But the rear ring with those two small dovetails? Possibly a couple of leaf springs would have been inserted to hold the scope tube centered in the ring? There does appear to be more wear on the inside bottom of the rear ring than around the sides and from the finish, whatever was inserted was not a close fit. What are the inside diameters of the two rings?

I'm thinking there must have been a collar or something similar soldered into the front ring, in which the scope, whatever it was, could move.

Would you mind posting photos of the front and rear edges of both rings?
Perhaps the scope fitted was some sort of simple straight tube affair and the windage and elevation adjustments were via screws in that now missing collar?

The rear ring is obviously made for easy removal of the scope, so presumably the front ring permitted that also. I can't see any provision for adjustments in the rear ring, so presumably adjustment was either in the scope itself or in the front ring.

But we come back to the impinging sight protector.

Could this have been a kind of "swing-away" mounting, with a design that brought the scope closer to the centerline of the bore without obstructing the charger loading or use of the battle sights so beloved of the authorities?

In that case, the front ring need only have been the pivot point for a leg which could have had a stud which would set into a matching conical or ball shaped socket, in turn soldered into that front ring. Such a system WOULD have cleared the modified backsight protector shown.

If the socket on the front ring was set into an eccentric or if one was somehow incorporated into the rear ring, that would allow zeroing for windage, with the same caveat as the prism on the Patt. 18 scope of course: that elevation would need to be reset when the windage zero was changed.

It would have made sense for there to be work in this direction since from very early on there were numerous complaints about the off-set scopes from France, while the authorities refused to permit overhead mounts until quite late in the war. A mount which allow the scope to be swung over to clear the charger guides and the metallic sights would have satisfied all parties, if it held zero!

There is one known example of a H&H design which may be a similar principle.

It appears the two ring bores are not aligned with each other, which is hard to fathom if this was a conventional mounting.

Rob, already the original drawing (here shown in a certain detail only and having removed the dimensions) mentions that the rear sight protector is cut to clear stud, see the attached drawing. It might also be the angle that the two holes are not in line, it is possible to slide in a scope and clamp it so for sure correctly aligned. And the drawing shows what appears to be a PPCo. Scope.

The scope is indeed a PP Co and the dovetails in the rear base / clamp would originally have had small pieces of Rubber inserted in them. As natural Rubber perishes and falls apart over time this would explain their absence.

Fantastic piece Georg, congratulations.

I had a PPCo Rigby marked scope some years ago and it went to a German collector.
The scope looks like it might have fit on this rifle as there were no other type of mount attached to the scope and it did not have the normal type slide on mount.
There was a rifle number engraved on the tube instead of the ring where the numbers are normally found.
MIGHT have a picture of it somewhere.

A fellow member here already showed me his "PPCo Style" scope which bears Rigby engravings on the scope tube, and he had just mentioned he would part with it. So I think I am on a good way to bring back the rifle to former glory!

Rob, for you I checked in detail the front ring yesterday. What I originally also had thought would be remnants of silver solder turned out to be scratches in the blueing. The scope rings diameter is exactly 1". The drawing I had attached also shows there originally had been a "positioning stud" added to the scope tube. If you look at the detail shot of the rear scope ring you can see where this stud would lock into.

I think this mount design is quite clever! After all this is the very first mount I am aware of where there are no "rings" and "bases", but the two united in one design and the scope itself (and only) removeable from the rings/bases. And even up to now I do not know of any other scope mount design with this solution!

Warren, would highly appreciate if you are able to find a picture of the scope you had sold.

Hope it all works out for you Promo..

Attached the detail picture of the front ring showing that there are scratches and no silver solder!

I'm currently not sure if Rigby really used the PPCo scope, or if he had used the German scope which served as pattern for the PPCo scope. Note the military pattern PPCo scopes all had an enlarged brass housing at the front (doesn't matter if longer or shorter cone ocular housing), which would not work with the scope mount as on my rifle (plus the drawing shows it differently).

So it is my guess that Rigby had used the same scope he was using on his civilian sporting guns since the shape is exactly identical to the one on the drawing, compare it yourself:
https://www.milsurps.com/attachment....3&d=1526394881
https://www.milsurps.com/attachment....5&d=1526395117
Versus the Military Pattern PPCo scope:
https://www.milsurps.com/attachment....6&d=1526395407

Very interesting, but looking at the photos I still don't see how the sight protector would clear the tube, but apparently that is just the photos, or me!

If the scope was soldered into the front ring, why have a quick-detach mechanism in the rear ring?

And the locating stud you mention Georg, no doubt fitted into that recess inside the rear ring which is half in the upper and half in the lower parts of the ring, although the stud looks to have grown from a simple round into something more like the shape of a No.32 erector cell locking segment, and perhaps a plate soldered to the scope tube with a screw or rivet to hold it?

The drawing shows an angle of declination in the mounting of 0".2', so that explains the difference in alignment I noticed. Not sure how to read 0".2' though!

Whatever was in those dovetail grooves inside the rear ring might have been an afterthought when it was found that just the nut and screw were not enough to hold the scope in zero.

I wondered about pieces of rubber as Simon refers to, or some sort of fibre in those dovetails, but if the front mounting was rigid and non-detachable what would be the point of allowing movement in the rear mounting? It would merely allow the front mounting to "work" from the vibration of the scope when the rifle was fired.

So, we come back to the mystery of the front ring attachment: it must have been detachable or the rear ring design would be a pointless and expensive complication. Not that there haven't been pointless & expensive designs fielded of course!

I wonder if the scope was taken off to be refitted to a P14 by Alex Martin in 1940/41?

The forend and handguards look like a very early pattern for the SMLE; what year is the rifle if you don't mind telling?

I'd take a guess at 0 degrees .2 minutes. though measuring .2 minutes is another thing.

in the last post he mentions "no" silver solder, so the removable scope is still feasable.

looking at the set up I'd say the scope is dropped into the rear mount while rotated anti clockwise 30-50°, slid forward into the front ring, then rotated back to verticle.

it must have taken a lot of work to keep the rings collumated when made. that being said i like it better than the A5 mounts that mount to the sight protectors.

Rob no, please read what I had written:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Promo

Rob, for you I checked in detail the front ring yesterday. What I originally also had thought would be remnants of silver solder turned out to be scratches in the blueing.

---

*Click me, I'm a link to the detail shot showing there are only scratches*

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by henry r

in the last post he mentions "no" silver solder, so the removable scope is still feasable.
looking at the set up I'd say the scope is dropped into the rear mount while rotated anti clockwise 30-50°, slid forward into the front ring, then rotated back to verticle.
it must have taken a lot of work to keep the rings collumated when made. that being said i like it better than the A5 mounts that mount to the sight protectors.

---

Thank you, that was exactly what I had meant to say. NO silver solder, so NO fixing at the front. And my personal believe is that the scope is removeable in exactly the manner you described. Sorry, I'm not a native speaker and therefore might not had explained it technically correct.


*Edit*

Rifle is a 1914 dating Enfield made No. 1 Mk.III (non *) rifle with all matching serial number (L780) on stock, nose cap, rear sight, bolt, receiver and barrel. It carries a painted Museum number ("P7") on bottom of the butt stock.

Georg,

You are correct regarding the use of what I've always thought of as a transition Rigby/Feuss - Periscopic Prism Co scope. I've only ever seen two examples but the scope is effectively straight tubed as per the Rigby but is equipped with the lateral adjustment capstans of the PP Co.

Regarding my comments about the Rubber inserts. These were used simple to take up any "slop" between the rear ring and the scope to prevent movement without crushing the tube. The original drawings clearly show a ".05 thickness of Rubber" to be fitted to the dovetails.

I'd be very interested to hear what Roger Payne can tell us.

Roger liked it and was also painfully waiting for me to finally get it, but he's currently not at home and sure he will jump in when he gets back! I've however satisfied his curiosity by sending him a few pics to his mobile :) .

Had just did some more pics showing the rifle in general. Please find them attached (and if I can manage to, I'll edit the starting post to also add them there).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Promo

Rob no, please read what I had written:

*Click me, I'm a link to the detail shot showing there are only scratches*

Thank you, that was exactly what I had meant to say. NO silver solder, so NO fixing at the front. And my personal believe is that the scope is removeable in exactly the manner you described. Sorry, I'm not a native speaker and therefore might not had explained it technically correct.

*Edit*

Rifle is a 1914 dating Enfield made No. 1 Mk.III (non *) rifle with all matching serial number (L780) on stock, nose cap, rear sight, bolt, receiver and barrel. It carries a painted Museum number ("P7") on bottom of the butt stock.

---

Thanks Georg, I got your comment about the solder. Looking at the closeup you posted those scratches look more like hacksaw blade marks, but I can't see why that would have been necessary.

I'll have to disagree about solder though: it is entirely typical of a soldered surface and the residue of solder no doubt present has prevented rust etc. Notice the scratches inside the ring: often seen where solder has been scraped off.

If the scope just slid into the front ring one would expect the inside to be finished similar to the inside of the rear ring. Logically there would also be some way of taking up slack similar to the rubber pads in the rear ring, would there not?

You could try a lead testing kit to see if there is or was solder inside the front ring.

Anyway, a remarkable survivor thanks to Mr. Robert Faris who took an interest in these things when hardly anyone else did, and now in your safe keeping. Thanks for sharing it with us.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by henry r

I'd take a guess at 0 degrees .2 minutes. though measuring .2 minutes is another thing.

in the last post he mentions "no" silver solder, so the removable scope is still feasable.

looking at the set up I'd say the scope is dropped into the rear mount while rotated anti clockwise 30-50°, slid forward into the front ring, then rotated back to verticle.

it must have taken a lot of work to keep the rings collumated when made. that being said i like it better than the A5 mounts that mount to the sight protectors.

---

A common built-in declination these days is 20 minutes of angle, albeit for longer ranges, but considering the trajectory of .303 MkVII, I doubt two minutes would be of much use and .2 minutes so little as to be pointless.

Still, they may have thought differently then!

As you say, the collimation in setup must have been troublesome.

Hello everyone. Just got back from the latest trip over to the battlefields, visiting the Red Baron crash site & Manchester Hill, amongst other places. Until I heard about this rifle I thought there were none left on the planet, although like Georg & Simon I do have the partial set of drawings. It looks to me, & bearing in mind this is an early conversion, that the scope would have been a Fuess Helios 3/PPco transitional type. I have seen more than one variation (they usually bear no maker's mark though may have 'fitted by Fred Bloggs & Co' engraved on them). (Presumed) earlier transitional models lack the capstans for lateral adjustment, but those made a little later do have them, & look to all intents & purposes like PPCo scopes, save for the objective lens housing, which is flush with the outside diameter of the tube, rather than wider as in a 'definitive' PPCo scope. Of course, being parallel would allow a 'transitional' scope to be slid out of the mount arrangement backwards, if the wing clamp at the rear were to be undone.

I must say though, that I'm not sure about the recesses in the rear 'ring'. I've always tended to agree with Simon, & certainly recesses for rubber inserts is quite plausible, but I'm really not sure why they are not machined equally spaced (say three of them at 120 degree intervals, or four of them at ninety degrees), so as to cushion the scope all round. If collimation was in some way intrinsically a bit out, then some form of adjustment method would have to be found - perhaps differential thicknesses of rubber in the bushings??? Further, one recess is quite different to the other two. I did wonder if this might be for some sort of projecting stud or screw head on the scope tube. I have a similar type of scope fitted by Gibbs that bristles with small projecting screw heads that I must dig out for a closer look. A bit of an odd one I admit, & I don't pretend to have all of the answers......

My two cents... If the upper milled recessions on the rear ring are for rubber inserts as indicated on the drawing, perhaps the scope had a soldered sleeve with that provided the appropriate colomation via sleeve thickness. The sleeve may have had a protrusion that fit inside the recessed portion on the right side of the lower and upper rear (when clamped shut) so as to secure the scope in position so no rearward or forward movement would occur as I cannot see why that feature is present on the rear ring. Once the scope was inserted I guess the rubber inserts were probably to ensure that the clamping action of the rear ring did not crush the scope once locked in place.

Andrew, already the drawing shows the stud added to the scope tube to lock the scope in place! I think the rubber shims are only there to additionally lock the scope in place, not only by the locking stud. When the rear scope ring is fully "closed" (meaning the fixture screw has been tightened to the maximum) the rear scope ring has an approx. diameter of 25mm, so 0,4mm less than it should have. So the scope is really held in place by the rubber shims.

And Roger, it is quite clear why there are only TWO of them and BOTH at the top. If you would make three of them and all three equally spaced at 120°, you can be sure that every removal results in the need of zeroing the scope again because it would depend upon how much you tighten the screw if there was an additional shim at the bottom. So the way it is designed is the only proper way this would work.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Promo

Andrew, already the drawing shows the stud added to the scope tube to lock the scope in place!

---

Ah, well there was a detail I missed in the drawing! Thanks for the clarification.

You make a good point Georg. And I would expect the scope tube to be 25mm diameter, not 25.4mm as it is a plagiarised German scope, remember! Even definitive PPCo scopes are not a full one inch in diameter, they're marginally under. I've always taken this to be a reflection of the scope's German origins.......

I'm pretty sure it was meant to be 1" since the front scope ring has a diameter of 25,something (well, nearer to 25,5mm than to 25mm), and a 25mm tube would not be sitting in there properly. Need to get myself a non-metric caliper!

Interesting. I suppose we should all wait until you've had a chance to measure it accurately. Certainly though, the PPCo tube is slightly under 1" as I've measured a number of them over the years when getting the rings copied. Other British nominally 1" diameter scopes like the Aldis & No32 are generally bang on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kiwi

Ah, well there was a detail I missed in the drawing! Thanks for the clarification.

---

Although as I mentioned, the slot in the rings appears to suit a different and larger locking "plate" and stud than the simple .050" x .20" round stud shown on the drawing.

Such a small stud would need to be set into the scope tube and brazed or silver soldered to have any strength. Perhaps they went to a larger plate so as to permit a less time-consuming method of attachment and better load distribution?

The drawing shows much more of the sight protector being removed; at first I thought that was simply depicting the part obscured by the scope tube, but similar obscurations are not shown so I conclude it indicates the portion to be removed.

There is an error in the drawing of the rings by the way at where the bottom of the scope tube passes through the front one.

Rob, the drawing does not show how much of the rear sight protector is to be removed. It only says that there needs to be removed material (it even says PORTION and not EVERYTHING) and they showed it with dashed lines since it would otherwise be covered by the scope. And top half ring on the rear is (measured) 0.5" long, so 0.2" long locking stud fits both the drawing and what is visible on my pictures.

Roger, taken off dimensions. Front ring is between 25 and 25.5mm diameter, depending on how and where you measure it. Very hard to tell this for sure. Placing a 25mm tube scope in it it appears that it is "falling around". But I didn't had a 1" scope tube at hand to test fit it (well, not sure which tube the Evans scope has, but I couldn't put it into the front ring - this one I have had at hand). Will try a 1st pattern Aldis when I have time (and a screw driver at hand to remove the larger front housing).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Promo

Rob, the drawing does not show how much of the rear sight protector is to be removed. It only says that there needs to be removed material (it even says PORTION and not EVERYTHING) and they showed it with dashed lines since it would otherwise be covered by the scope. And top half ring on the rear is (measured) 0.5" long, so 0.2" long locking stud fits both the drawing and what is visible on my pictures.

Roger, taken off dimensions. Front ring is between 25 and 25.5mm diameter, depending on how and where you measure it. Very hard to tell this for sure. Placing a 25mm tube scope in it it appears that it is "falling around". But I didn't had a 1" scope tube at hand to test fit it (well, not sure which tube the Evans scope has, but I couldn't put it into the front ring - this one I have had at hand). Will try a 1st pattern Aldis when I have time (and a screw driver at hand to remove the larger front housing).

---

I'd agree Georg: it is not definitively clear and could be read or interpreted either way. Because other obscured areas have not been outlined one can't be sure of the itention in regard to the foresight protector. Regardless, you have the real thing which is worth more than any drawing.

Will you try a lead test inside the front ring for solder?

What inside diameters does your vernier give from the front and rear edges of the front ring?

Rob, there is no solder in the front ring. I know when I have solder in front of me. It is only bare blank steel.

Really interesting thread. I would love to hear the story of how you managed to get your paws on this item (who you bribed and blackmailed basically). At the same time I'm wondering what the hell we (relatively young / junior Enfield types) are going to do when the likes of Roger / Peter etc pop their clogs and take their brains and knowledge with them.

If you prefer not the give dimensions that's not an issue. My question about the inside dimensions was directed at whether the inside of the ring was tapered, presumably towards the muzzle.

Rob, I simply had not found the time yet and need to admit that despite I'm not that old I do forget to take out the rifle and the caliper when I'm back home in the evening ;). But will do it!

This particular rifle was purchased at Poulin Antiques in an auction, the only good thing is that they didn't knew what I knew on this rifle and had not described what it was (well, they did describe it as a sniper - but they didn't give the name of the sniper converter, the provenance of the Pattern Room and the fact that it is the only known survivor).

Well Promo the little guy's gotta have a win every now and then imagine if they had have realized what they had it may have added more than just a couple of hundred dollars to the items reserve I would be thinking in the 0000's and then you would have had to compete with those that do have deep pockets where monies no object (Say like Bill Gates!) and it being the sole survivor its not like another is going to pop up tomorrow so good for you I hope they see what they lost out on as I am sure they have not missed people in the past.

I didn‘t get a PM asking for a sale yet ... but would not part with it anyway! And for sure noone would had recognized it, even Ian Skennerton didn‘t describe it properly during his rifle writeup of the Faris collection!

Next unobtainium I‘m hoping to get will be an Ainley rifle. Do you know where the rifle of Etherington ended up?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by newcastle

Really interesting thread. I would love to hear the story of how you managed to get your paws on this item (who you bribed and blackmailed basically). At the same time I'm wondering what the hell we (relatively young / junior Enfield types) are going to do when the likes of Roger / Peter etc pop their clogs and take their brains and knowledge with them.

---

Think there is plenty of life left in them yet, They are very friendly and approachable regarding there knowledge and one has certainly put pen to paper and a small price to pay to read about it...... also lot of the info is on this site from both and others, there are only a hand full of collectors in the world who have items such as in this thread ( in this case just one), but they are willing to post and share information, obvious the drawing Promo shows has no dimensions, as if it did I can ashore you the chances of seeing another very shortly in Scotarms or similar would be a dead cert........

I shall be expecting an email from you if you ever do decide to relinquish it;)

Geoff, I had removed the dimensions from the drawing. Someone talented might be able to make a similar reproduction based on my pictures or even without dimensions, but I think with this mount it would be nearly impossible. There is a difference between a reproduction (for me a fake) and a tribute - I did a tribute myself with the P.14 and the No. 32 scope mount what I had wanted to show off as a reproduction to forever mark it as one so it can never be passed on as an original, even after my death.

Roger, I had considered of making this world better and throw all of my collection in the shredder ... so sorry, can't offer it to you :madsmile: (wait, where are my pills???)

Before I realised that there was one rifle of this type left on the planet I had intended to do a similar job to yours with the P'14/No32 mounts, & have a very small number of reproductions (or 'tributes' if you will - I don't want to get lost in semantics), based on the surviving drawings (which came from the Armouries/NFC/Pattern Room Collection) many years ago. However, these drawings are incomplete, although with a degree of measuring, extrapolation, calculation, & maybe just a hint of inspired guesswork, I think the project is still do-able. A bigger question might be 'should it be done?' Personally, I've no objections, so long as copies/reproductions/tributes change hands with both parties knowing full well what they are dealing with. And some years down the road I'd rather deal with the dilemma of assessing whether something is original or a good copy, than not having either to look at because none exist at all. Mind you, people have been known to think differently.......!;);)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Promo

Geoff, I had removed the dimensions from the drawing. Someone talented might be able to make a similar reproduction based on my pictures or even without dimensions, but I think with this mount it would be nearly impossible. There is a difference between a reproduction (for me a fake) and a tribute - I did a tribute myself with the P.14 and the No. 32 scope mount what I had wanted to show off as a reproduction to forever mark it as one so it can never be passed on as an original, even after my death.

Roger, I had considered of making this world better and throw all of my collection in the shredder ... so sorry, can't offer it to you (wait, where are my pills???)

---

Georg, I'd of done the same regarding the sizes, understand the tribute compared to fake and was very impressed with the P14 set up, yep someone with the sizes at hand could produce a fake or tribute and turn it around with some form of providence, you only have to look at some of the German and other "Snipers" at Scotarms in the past, one day the forger will understand the difference in metals and finishing...........

Roger, I fully agree with you. With so little rifles around and the high demand for those resulting in high price which most can‘t pay (German WWII snipers), or with rifles such as this where there simply is only one or a handful out there a reproduction is a good way. And as you said, as long as its identified and sold as what it is, all is fine. I simply only don‘t like those who fake rifles and sell it as originals for a personal profit (moneywise).

Geoff, sorry but what the British gunsmiths produce are rather easily identified as fakes. But forgers in continental Europe aswell as some in the US are really talented! I‘m starting to keep the secrets to identify fakes now for myself, to avoid them to get too good!

My last post was in part a little tongue in cheek. I've been collecting for more years now than I care to remember, & I would not condone the passing off of reproductions as originals - that is quite simply fraud. However, I cannot help but smile inwardly a little when I read some of the posts on forae like these (usually written by newer collectors) that contain just a tiny bit of moral puritanism, if I can call it that; you know what I mean - we've almost got to write our name in full, date of birth, inside leg measurement, & the prevailing weather conditions, all in the barrel channel if we've restored anything!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Promo

Geoff, sorry but what the British gunsmiths produce are rather easily identified as fakes.

---

The problem is we don't really have any proper Gunsmiths anymore and the ones we do have are all involved with sporting guns etc.......

Promo:

Of the SIX made, I don't know exactly how many "loose" Ainley's there are, but ONE came to Australia in the 1980's, as a part of a fairly sizeable collection of goodies from "somewhere" in North America .

WAY over-budget for me, but at least I have the memories of fondling it. That particular rifle is, I understand, the very one featured on page 95 of Ian Skannerton's "British Sniper" book.

The only other "one-off" that I remember from that haul was the BSA SMLE in .276 Pederson, (single-shot only; basic SMLE mag). Apparently it was used as a ballistic test-bed for the VIckers Pederson programme.

Bruce, I once found this picture posted on the internet by the son of Robert Etherington of his fathers collection. It shows an Ainley sniper rifle on the very left side. I had wondered you might know if this rifle still is in Australia or not? I never saw it for sale either.

Today's question:

Does / did the Pattern Room have one?

If so, what was its number?

Bruce; yes, they did (& hopefully still do), serial number 4, one of the two made by BSA.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bruce_in_Oz

Today's question:

Does / did the Pattern Room have one?

If so, what was its number?

---

According to their website they do have it, and Roger seems to be correct in that they own serial #4: Experimental Ainley Pattern (about 1939)

I could be mistaken but didn't they have one at Warminster too? Perhaps Peter could confirm?

Boy, I'm a bit stupid ... why didn't I check the drawings for the inside dimensions of the scope?

Clearly, the front scope ring is shown with inside diameter of 0.982" while the rear scope ring having a radius of 0.491" (so also exactly a diameter of 0.982").

Having re-checked my rifle a few times and trying to fit a 25mm scope which is clearly not held in place I can confirm my rifle would need a 1" scope tube. This therefore leaves two possiblities:
a) the rifle was manufactured for a Fuess/PPCo type scope with 1" tube
b) it was modified at a later point of time to accept 1" tubes

I don't think that possibility b would apply, because it would also mean there need to be additional milling marks visible at the rear scope ring, what clearly isn't the case. Additionally the left rear sight protector is milled off, so definitely a scope with capstans for lateral adjustment. Anyone had seen a scope which would fit this description?

PS: an interesting detail, the original drawing dates to 01.12.1914. Per the book of Skennerton Rigby received a contract to supply and fit telescopic sights on 13.01.1915 for a total of 21 rifles (less than a month later). It is now my personal assumption they ordered 21 to keep one for the Pattern Room, what do you think?
Skennerton also lists an additional contract for Rigby dating 02.03.1915 for 100 rifles. So there could originally had been up to 121 of these rifles being made.

Edit: Rob, same dimension both at front and rear of front scope ring, sorry it took so long to let you know!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Simon

I could be mistaken but didn't they have one at Warminster too? Perhaps Peter could confirm?

---

There is one there as by Peter's kindness ValleySniper and I were able to examine it a few years back. It does not have the scope fitted and I'm sure it would have been if it was there.

The scope and mount for the rifle in Australia turned up on eBay in the UK more than ten years ago. I believe we discussed that here previously.

In fact I am sure we did as the mounts have since been refinished, though the posts and photos concerning that seem to have disappeared.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Promo

Boy, I'm a bit stupid ... why didn't I check the drawings for the inside dimensions of the scope?

Clearly, the front scope ring is shown with inside diameter of 0.982" while the rear scope ring having a radius of 0.491" (so also exactly a diameter of 0.982").

Having re-checked my rifle a few times and trying to fit a 25mm scope which is clearly not held in place I can confirm my rifle would need a 1" scope tube. This therefore leaves two possiblities:
a) the rifle was manufactured for a Fuess/PPCo type scope with 1" tube
b) it was modified at a later point of time to accept 1" tubes

I don't think that possibility b would apply, because it would also mean there need to be additionalmilling marks visible at the rear scope ring, what clearly isn't the case. Additionally the left rear sight protector is milled off, so definitely a scope with capstans for lateral adjustment. Anyone had seen a scope which would fit this description?
I
PS: an interesting detail, the original drawing dates to 01.12.1914. Per the book of Skennerton Rigby received a contract to supply and fit telescopic sights on 13.01.1915 for a total of 21 rifles (less than a month later). It is now my personal assumption they ordered 21 to keep one for the Pattern Room, what do you think?
Skennerton also lists an additional contract for Rigby dating 02.03.1915 for 100 rifles. So there could originally had been up to 121 of these rifles being made.

Edit: Rob, same dimension both at front and rear of front scope ring, sorry it took so long to let you know!

---

Hi Georg,
The Pattern Room was the accepted repository for sealed patterns, so it’s possible your 20 + 1 might be right.

Also, & I may be wrong in making this assumption, but there were at least two different types of mounts utilised by Rigby on WW1 sniping arms & I would imagine the total is probably made up of both types. However, that just makes your rifle the only known surviving example of a total of even less than we’d thought! 😜

Roger: well, if my rifle is a single survivor of 121 ever made or single survivor of 21 ever made ... doesn't make much of a difference, right? I am pretty sure, simply based on the dates, that my rifle originally had been among the 21 being made.

The question is (and supported by the fact that even Skennerton speaks of a different scope model for the second contract) what then was the second variation being made? I remember you sending me the picture of your recent aquisition complete with scope case being a Rigby marked scope - wasn't this one a Watts telescope, and didn't Ian write of the Watts telescope? In your mail you also mentioned an Aldis scope, so you have a second one with exactly the same mount?

Rob, I think I even found the pic I was looking for, showing the Ainley rifle in Australia reunited with the scope (note scope case marked X8). Does anyone know where this rifle is now?

Yes, I have both a Watts & an Aldis in the same mounts. Both scopes are engraved up with the Rigby name. The Aldis has belonged to me for many years although the Rigby only came to me in a swap deal earlier this year. The mounts on them look to be of the type on the two Magazine Lee Enfields in the NFC (ex-Pattern Room Collection) at the Armouries in Leeds. As mentioned in our emails I'm hoping to get up there to have a closer look at them shortly. I've seen them before but that was some years ago.

It would be very interesting to indeed find out whether the rifle would fit to the mount of your two scopes! And make sure to check the serial of the rifle, the document I had sent you today mentions several rifles with fittings for scopes, among them serial G.5724, 2981, V.771 and G.7060 (if I read them correctly). Would be quite a discovery to find out there were two different scope mounts made by Rigby, and finally have the production numbers for those two also.

If the firearms curator will let me have a look at the rifles I'll certainly take notes!

I've tried to re-upload the pictures. Would appreciate feedback if that had worked or if I failed doing so. Thanks.

Hi Georg. If you mean the pictures at the very start of the thread, I can see them perfectly. Cheers.

Just glancing again at the first photos in this thread. It has been a matter of some interest what became of the rifles removed from the Pattern Room collection circa 1940/41 for emergency use.

I wonder if we have a clue here in the "P7" marking on the butt of this rifle?

If this is not a Pattern Room marking - and that seems very unlikely - what else could it be?

It's been theorized that those rifles were either sent for use in sniper training, or doled out to the "British Resistance Movement" stay-behind units.

Would "P7" correspond to anything known to be related to the BRM? "Patrol 7" perhaps??

Ian Skennerton back when he did the description of the Faris collection put it this way:

Quote:

---

Markings: No unit or issue markings, 'P7' museum number at toe of butt.

---

as well as

Quote:

---

Other notes: Per rifles listed in 1927 A.I.D. sniper rifle catalogue, Enfield Pattern Room

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Promo

Ian Skennerton back when he did the description of the Faris collection put it this way:

as well as

---

If the rifles from that 1920s list which still remain in the Pattern Room aka "Royal Armouries" collection show similar markings, that would be conclusive.

I wonder if any do.

There's little if anything remaining off the 1927 list (off the top of my head)..............I've often wondered how the Rigby rifle came to survive when all of the others disappeared early in the second world war (or we assume they did). And following on from that, if this rifle remained there, why did the PR let it go when it clearly was not a duplicate & is a very historically significant firearm? It all seems most odd to me, although I'm glad it has ended up in the hands of someone who will look after it & who is happy to share it with us.

Various possibilities: for example having been (presumably) inspected before being taken back into service, the rifle was found to have a NS/US scope, was sent somewhere - perhaps Rigby or their successor firm(?) - for repair of same? Couldn't be fixed or never was, and was simply forgotten about in the many changes of organization and personnel in the early war years?

Or was it quietly pinched as so many telescopic sights and telescopes were over the years? "Lost through enemy action", but "found again" in someone's personal kit later?

More interesting perhaps is how the mount system actually works; Rigby's clearly didn't economize on machining time when making those rings-bases.