Printable View
I have an oportunity to purchase what i beleive is a sniper scope off a WW1 SMLE sniper rifle.
Can the experts please have a look at the attached photos & let me know what you think.
Thanks in advance
Shane
Attachment 107490Attachment 107491Attachment 107492Attachment 107493Attachment 107494Attachment 107495Attachment 107496Attachment 107497
Hi all,
.....
Looks absolutely typical. Try and find out if it was brought home by an ANZAC vet and if so, who. The only thing I see that looks a little different is the two holes in the flat of the dovetail.
Hard to say when the initials went on the case, but looks like it was a long time ago. Do a little detective work; provenance adds a lot of value if you're planning to resell it.
Yes, it looks a nice example. The leather case is correct but not matched to the scope.
Thank you Surpmil & Rodger Payne for your replies! Could you please advise what would this scope be worth/what should i offer?
Regards Shane
Depends on local conditions, but based on the Aldis with case we saw offered in NZ recently with a starting bid of $1000NZD something around that maybe?
The hard part will be finding the rest of the mount.
If the OP wants an original one, yes!
If you have the missing part I have the scope bit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Payne
I've had a number of small batches of repro PPCo bases made over the years Bindi. I don't have any currently, but was in the process of getting another small run made when the present fun & games hit us. Hopefully they'll arrive in the fullness of time......
I can vouch for Roger's repro base - brought one some years back and its a top quality piece of work...
You probably need one of these. Made many years ago by Roger's original machinist (now no longer with us - a great loss). Roger borrowed this as a pattern for new production from a new machinist but Covid intervened.
Thanks Nige. It was kind of you to lend me the base, although as fate would have it I acquired back one of the Graham's, complete with a matching set of rings he made, so I now have good quality patterns again. Your kindness was much appreciated though.
Roger do yo.u know anyone who replicates AOC patt1918 scope mounts I have a scope with rings but no rifle mounts.
For the Lithgow H T? I'm afraid I don't. I've never got them made myself because I thought it would be debatable if the market was big enough to make it worthwhile. There are just so few 'spare' Model 1918 scopes around that one could use to put a rifle together. On top of which, there are complete & genuine rifles around to be bought if people really want one badly enough (& have a thick enough wallet!). However, I have heard rumblings from time to time about people intending to do them in Oz - I don't know if anything has ever come to fruition - maybe someone there could shed some light on the matter?
Good luck with your search!
Replica Patt.18 rings have been sold on ePay in the past. How accurate they were to the AOC originals is anyone's guess.
I didn't know that surpmil! I'd seen the No3 T mounts but hadn't realized they have been copied for the Lithgow H T.
Roger the LithgowHT mounts where adapted from the no3 t mounts I will probably have to buy a set and see what I can make happen .
Yes; I suspect it would be a labour of love!
I just checked the mounts on a high mount HT with a No3 T & the rings look very similar if not identical (I did not physically measure them), but the bases will be more fun & games to modify.
Someone on this forum once offered to reproduce the Lithgow mounts, both high and low. The costs were so high that for spare sets "in whatever case" I passed. Maybe search can help you.
Regarding the PPCo base, I might throw in that there are different patterns of the bases (from what I've learnt from Roger). So if you come across one that doesn't look like one pictured above it doesn't necessarily mean it is a reproduction.
Thanks promo. Over the years I have noticed that there seems to be two minor variations on the basic side mount/female dovetail PPCo design. The differences are not major but seem to be consistent. Some bases have a rounded front lower end, & these examples also tend to have larger thumb catch. The other types have a squared off front lower corner, with a smaller thumb catch. Even so, in essence they are all of the same design. Having said that, my observations are based on some of the very small number of original rifles or bases that I have seen that still exist, so there may be hybrids & possibly even other minor variants that we are not yet aware of! It is much easier to see the minor differences than to explain them - the article I wrote for the HBSA a few years ago is available here on the milsurps site & there is at least one photo showing them clearly.
As an aside, there are also some bases out there that are reproductions that are second generation examples that have not been copied too accurately. They are a bit 'mix & match', but are usually readily distinguishable from original bases.
Roger. Interesting observations regarding the different PPC female dovetail design...it is probably common knowledge that there are two variations of the PPC scope, of which the original poster was looking at the earlier variant? I have what may be the later type without the bulge at the front end of the ocular cone. Is it possible that the changes to the female mount were done at the same time as the changes to the scope?
Also another thing that has come up in my more recent examination of the subject is the use of Aldis scopes in the early PPC mounts. My theory is that as the war progressed, the less robust (a point of debate?) PPC scopes were replaced by Aldis scopes as the PPC scopes became unserviceable. I have seen three or four of these Aldis scopes, where the scopes appear to have been made in 1916, well after the initial PPS scopes. A significant degree of engineering effort has been made to fit the Aldis scopes, as they need new made rings/male dovetail. This is due to the Aldis scopes being a 1 inch diameter tube, vs the significantly smaller diameter PPC tube. I can vouch for the fact that these Aldis scopes fit into the PPC female mount. So a bunch of questions ensue:
1. What was the reason that Aldis scopes were used in the PPC dovetail mounts?
2. Who actually supplied the new made dovetail mounts for the Aldis scopes? PPC or someone else?
3. Was mounting of Aldis scopes on the PPC mounts a / the reason for developing the Aldis objective lens windage adjustment prism? Sounds a radical thought, but most of the standard mounting systems (H&H and Purdey) were easier to adjust windage on the rifle mounts rather than a windage prism. Also, as the PPC mounts had no windage adjustment, this was catered for by the PPC scope itself having windage adjustment.
4. Following on from 1., were the Aldis scopes a replacement for U/S PPC scopes on existing PPC set up rifles? Or were the Aldis scopes put on as new production by PPC to supplement / replace their own scope production?
5. Is it possible that the female dovetail variation is associated with the Aldis scopes?
ATB, Damien
Hello Damien. Crikey! Where do you start! I suppose part of the fascination for me about the WW1 stuff is the fact that there are more gaps in our knowledge than there is knowledge! We know some, & speculate a lot.
I know the modified PPCo type rings adapted to fit the Aldis that you speak of. I was chasing an example of this scope & rings combination for years, until last year a friend here on the forum found one for me in North America. Luckily I managed to secure it, BDL shipped it for me, & a nice example it is too. There is documentation (I have it somewhere, though finding it quickly may be easier said than done), which indicates that a quantity of Aldis scopes were made/modified by the manufacturer to incorporate the prism assembly. IIRC I think the total was 700, though it could be more. Of course, they could have been for use on the early 'Trials' P'14 snipers, or they could have been destined for the PPCo rifles with modded rings, or ultimately for both. Some were also used late on on the claw mount over bore SMLE rifle (essentially the P'14 T mounts modified to fit the SMLE, but with the rear base position on the receiver side wall, not on the charger bridge as per the later Lithgow rifles). However, the scopes used on the P'14 & I suspect also the SMLE over bore claw mount, were (I think!) all graduated 1 to 10 on the range drums. The example I have with the modified PPCo offset rings is graduated 1 to 6 in the usual style for mid WW1. The later over bore rifles were set up in 1918/19. Do I think existing PPCo offset SMLE's had their scopes replaced with Aldis scopes as & when the original PPCo scopes became unserviceable? I don't know is the answer, but I am maybe a little more inclined to lean towards the Aldis scopes being specifically set up as part of an appreciable contract, rather than piece meal. Indeed, there are those that suspect that these Aldis scopes in PPCo mounts could even represent one of the 'lost' mount designs from WW1 (Bartle, Atkin, Aldis Brothers own design).
It is even an assumption that the 'Transitional' Fuess/PPCo scopes are that. I suspected that because one sees scopes that show mixed features, chiefly the presence or otherwise of the deflection adjustment capstans. I have always assumed that their addition was part of that transition from Fuess to PPCo, part of the 'anglicising' of the scope, if you like. But even this is an assumption. It could be that Fuess were offering scopes with or without lateral adjustment facility at the time that war broke out - we just don't know, although if someone had an old catalogue showing definitively Fuess origin scopes bearing the capstans that would be pretty strong evidence that we (British government) probably did rather less to the Helios 3 than previously thought - perhaps just anglicising the screw threads?
Concerning the use of scopes with or without intrinsic deflection adjustment with mount systems with or without same, I see where you're coming from. As a rule of thumb I have gone with the belief that if the scope has lateral adjustment it will fit a mounting system that lacks it, & vice versa. It just doesn't make sense to do anything else. Mind you, do governments always act sensibly?? I had assumed that the Aldis scope/PPCo type ring arrangement was probably contemporaneous to the PPCo scope/PPCo ring set ups.......if not during 1915 at least during 1916. Of the few scopes I have seen that had or had had modified PPCo rings on them, AFAICR all were 1916 dated......& all graduated 1 to 6. Although I have only one Aldis bearing the modded PPCo rings I have several scopes, & have seen a fair few more over the years, that did bear these rings (as evidenced by the residual marks on the scope tubes), to suggest that there was probably a fair total fitted up on to SMLE's. If my bumbling is correct it would suggest that the lateral adjustment prism in the 3rd Pattern Aldis came in during 1916, & was retained on the later SMLE & P'14 over bore claw mount type rifles, although their range drums were graduated up to 1000 yds, which makes distinguishing them possible. Lots of speculation there....! The Aldis' inmodded PPCo mounts could have been retro fitted late in WW1, but if so, why range drums 'only' graduated to 600?
SMLE/PPCo mount bases? I don't know if there was more than one maker of those. I have always assumed only one (PPCo). The differences are only very minor & could easily have been incorporated into production with little interruption. The main difference is the size of the thumb catch; some are deeper than others (some project below & above the thumb catch spring & some project only above). As far as I can see there are no crucial major dimensional differences between any of the relatively few original that I have seen over the years, but it is feasible there could have been more than one maker. IIRC in the patent details the 'small thumb catch squared off front lower end' variety is shown, so one might surmise that this type is the earlier version.
I've actually seen three variations of PPCo scopes (marked up as such, not counting any Fuess transitional variations). Apart from the two 'short cone' & 'long cone' ocular housing variants, there is also a fairly scarce type where the range drum saddle extends entirely round the 360 degree circumference of the scope tube. I have only ever seen three or four, & have one example, though it has been 'got at' somewhat, unfortunately. They do seem to be quite scarce & I wonder if they might be early?? Of the two commoner types I am not aware of any definitive info to determine if one of these patterns came before the other, or if indeed they could have been set up together contemporaneously. However, the patent details definitely show a 'short cone' pattern in the drawings, & the 'short cone' is also the type that more closely resembles the Fuess Helios 3, suggesting that that may be the earlier variant.
Phew! I've only scratched the surface of what you've asked, but I already need to go & lie down in a darkened room for a while!:madsmile:
Hello Roger. Many thanks for your most comprehensive and illuminating reply! As you say, where to start?!
Yes, I think you are on the money when you say that there are more gaps than information in this field, but I am constantly amazed by what turns up, and how that adds to the knowledge base.
I agree with your comments regarding the use of the deflection prisms in Aldis scopes. There appears to have been a conscious effort not to 'waste' these on scopes installed in mount systems that did not require them. The penny dropped for me when I saw a nice No.4 Aldis without deflection prism, but nevertheless had the Aldis Brothers + date + serial number engraving on the 'original' small diameter objective group body. ( For the benefit of readers not familiar with the arcane aspects of Aldis scopes, it was No.4 scope practice to engrave the maker's details on the brass objective lens group body , as the ocular bell was thin steel and was not engraved - at least not in military service. The No.1, 2 & 3 scopes all had makers details engraved in the brass ocular housing).
In my small arms collection, I promised myself early on not to become involved with snipers - OK, maybe just one representative example - as I hade seen that the average dedicated sniper collector had to play a verrry long and expensive game to get a rig together - particularly anything WW1. In order to get that one representative example, I tended to jump on individual components as they came up, hoping that I would one day have enough to get just one complete WW1 rig together. In that vein, I picked up one of your PPC mounts from ebay a few years ago, which was then followed four years later by a complete scope in case with lens caps. This was the long cone version that I assumed to be the 'later' type so the PPC example was essentially complete last year. Hence my knowledge of the PPC line is not especially deep, so was not even aware of the wrap-around range drum saddle variation. That said, design variations generally arise for a few reasons, such as lack of bespoke tooling, a design change to rectify an obvious fault, going from metric to imperial, or just a straight out manufacturing expedient to reduce cost/time of production. It would be interesting to see a photo of this variation and have a guess at what the reason may be. I am away from my main computer so my list of serial numbers etc. is not handy, but are there PPC serial numbers that may shed some light onto where this variation sits in the sequence of production?
I have mainly been compiling a spreadsheet on Aldis scope models and serial numbers - largely obtained from the web - but also from some really enlightening examples held by fellow collectors. There are some interesting patterns emerging which gives a feel for how Aldis (and possibly the Govt) operated - which is not overly straight forward.
Now I think I need a lie down...
All the best, Damien
Keep it going.The last few posts were highly interesting plus probably the best information coming up on sniper rifles in a long time on this forum and I guess I'll need to re-read them several times to make sure I understood everything.
If I'm not mistaken Skennerton has a picture in his book showing a Ross Rifle with a PPCo mounted scope - IIRC this was an Aldis scope.
The data you are collating sounds fascinating Damien. As, when, & if you ever feel in a position to share it I'd be delighted to hear about what you have.
I hope the PPCo base met up to expectations. I'm trying to get another small batch of reproductions made currently, although Covid-19 isn't helping! At present I only have Whitehead Brothers mounts available.
Roger, will be delighted to collaborate on a list. PM sent. Am gathering some thoughts for another burst,Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Payne
ATB, Damien
I'd better get my two index fingers into training then! I wish I could type properly!:)
Damien, what kind of data do you collect? I could check my scopes for you to add it to your listing. Happy to help you with that.
Promo, many thanks for that - very much appreciated. I am away from my main non-cloud computer, but as I recall:
Aldis scopes
1. Model such as No.1, 2, 3 or 4
2. date
3. serial number of scope on the ocular cone for No.1, 2 and 3 models.
4. serial number and date on the objective lens group for No.4 scopes
5. rifle serial number engraved on the tube
6. whether fitted with standard objective lens group, or windage prism group
7. style of elevation turret. No,1 and 2 are low and flat, No.3 and 4 higher.
8. Which way the set screw is pointing - forwards or rearwards. This may not mean much.
9. Graduation range on the elevation drum (based on Rogers comments above)
10, mounting system, eg, Purdey, H&H, PPC, etc. Sometimes a bare scope can give an indication of what mounts used to be on it.
11. Case details. There was a pretty standard leather case with rifle serial number and broad arrow for most Aldis scopes, but the overbore type of 1918 must have used a broader case to accommodate the longer claw mounts.
Sometimes the scopes can be a bit of a mix, as major component groups were interchangeable to varying degrees across all four models.
My recollection of the PPC scopes list headings is a bit shabby, but I will have to get back to the forum on that.
Thanks again for your kind offer. Hopefully some patterns will emerge for everyone's enlightenment. ATB, Damien
I'd better try & have a rummage tomorrow....!
IIRC the decision to mount the Aldis No.2/3 that had the deflection adjustment prisms in PPCo. mounts is in the minutes of the Small Arms Committee and so can be dated.
I don't know if the PRO at Kew holds all of those minutes, but perhaps the "Royal Armouries" at Leeds has copies or some of them?
Many years ago I spent a little time at Kew and came away with the impression that there was surprisingly little info in the S.A.C. minutes of 1914-18 on these matters - there was perhaps a sub-committee that handled most of the details - I feel pretty sure I have sen a reference to that somewhere.
The PPCo. mount was far simpler than the Purdey & H&H mounts and thus vastly cheaper; any little shop with a shaper, a small mill and a drill press could have made them.
Whether they were fitted using jigs to achieve collimation we'll probably never know, but they certainly could have been given that large female dovetail, and the fact that the plate over the "muzzle end" of it is just screwed on. It would have been easy enough to make the final cut in the dovetail while the barrelled action was held in a collimated jig, as was done with the No.4(T)., but the tool marks in the dovetails don't suggest that(?)
There was a version of the PPCo. with graduations for MkVI ammo, so one could presumably be fairly certain that those were earlier fittings to CLLE rifles, and thus their other characteristics could be to some extent dated by extension?
All in all, it was a poor choice. Hesketh-Pritchard I think referred to it as a type that should never have been accepted for service.
The windage capstans are a recipe for trouble: over-tightened or under-tightened on one side or the other they would be liable to work loose with firing, or strip their threads. There was no tiny "capstan bar" provided to adjust them AFAWK, and the result must have been either fingers (inadequate) or pliers, or a safety pin or needle from the sewing kit. And of course the only seal around the capstan heads or plates was metal to metal.
Hopefully the pea-brains who ordered the breaking up of the Aldis-SMLE rifles after WWI were still around to rue their folly in 1939/40.
I see one of these photos is an Aldis No.2 in PPCo. mounts, which is odd, but may be a post war fitting or a scope that was modified with the earlier objective cell at some point.
A Feuss Scharfstellung showing presumably the ancestry of the capstans. Feuss seems to have dropped the idea fairly quickly - it was not really needed with windage adjustable claw mounts after all.
There is an even more rare and mysterious side mount for the Aldis, but so far only one known example has surfaced, and that without the base.
I don't know when the German troops had their pickelhaubes sent back to the bases, but presumably not before the last photo was taken, which might help to date it, and the mounts (right hand soldier appears to have an Aldis in PPCo. mounts)
Is the "2637" number on the PPC0 Scope Bracket the rifle number? or scope number? If a rifle number what year would it be?
Roger - what's the status of the scope base?
Ron (Canada)
Hello Ron,
Yes, that's the rifle serial number. It's difficult to date from serials with the SMLE but all rifles that I & just about everyone else I've discussed the subject with have seen, have been of 1915 or 1916 manufacture, usually EFD but BSA examples too**. I have never heard of a LSA conversion, but this my just be a reflection of the smaller production total of LSA & the tiny survival rate of WW1 SMLE snipers anyway. I have just two totally genuine WW1 SMLE snipers & both are EFD 1916 Mk3*'s.
The PPCo mount bases are still pending Ron. I will try chasing the fellow up in the next week or so.
Evening surpmil! A fascinating read. I genuinely am unsure about these scopes graduated for Mk6 ball........the story may well be that they were fitted to long rifles or suchlike, but I have also wondered if they could have been regraduated post WW1 for civilian use, as there would presumably have been Mk6 ammo around still in fair quantities. Having said that I really can't make up my mind. You may well be right. I have both a PPCo & an Aldis so marked.......so perhaps their only relative scarcity is in itself supportive of a military contract with reasonable quantities having been produced???
There's one thing about this WW1 sniping subject.........it offers plenty of opportunities to engage in conjecture!
I have the minutes that you describe surpmil........I'll see if I can find them & copy them to the forum. There may be a few more sad puppies like us that would find them interesting!
** I mean the main contract rifles that were produced in quantity such as PPCo, Aldis/Purdey, Aldis/H&H & WA5/Whiteheads. The early small volume sniping equipments show much more variation; there is a 1912 rifle set up with Evans mounts in the NFC at Leeds, for example. Being early it is not surprising that a pre WW1 rifle was used as the scope platform.
Roger, I would doubt the MkVI marking is post war only because most re-worked WWI scopes seem to have had their service markings replaced by whatever gunsmiths refitted them and rarely exceed 2-400 yard IIRC(?). And of course these MkVI graduated scopes seem to be entirely original and marked to 600 yards or more.
As for there being lots of MkVI around, I don't know; my guess would be that it was mostly used up for training if not in service in the earlier part of the war.
If you have an Aldis thus marked as well, then I would say that points pretty strongly to CLLE - what sort of mounts though?
Perhaps the CLLE and other "Long Lees" were actually thought of a bit later in the process when it may have been difficult to get SMLE's released? The authorities were quite dismissive of such "distractions" from "proper" military efforts after all.
It would be too much to hope that they did what would have made sense: fit the earlier and heavier barrels cut down to SMLE's and issue the 215 grain round nose ammo for sniping.
Would be interesting to see what the Minutes say, so thanks for that. As for its larger significance, I think any study of the evolution of a military technology can tell a good deal about the process that occurs in most cases, and that in turn can tell a good deal about much larger matters. Matchbooks, coasters or small squares of coloured paper with ink stains on them - now that surely is sad! :lol:
More rich veins of discussion!
For my tuppence worth, I have never seen any scopes marked for MNk.VI ball, but as far as I can make out, the whole Gallipoli campaign was fought on Mk.VI ammo, as well as the early campaigns such as Kut and Egypt / Palestine and Mesopotamia. Certainly the Gallipoli / Suvla Bay campaigns used snipers as enthusiastically as anywhere else, but mainly using SMLE Mk.IIIs with range sights (such as Mues) or just plain iron sights. Billy Sing was renowned for his sniping prowess and used a spotter with a spotting scope (probably ex signals issue).
My understanding is that Mk.VI was used on the Western Front as well, but mainly by second echelon rifle users such as ASC and Artillery. A couple of SMLE Mk.IIs have turned up marked to Western Front artillery units still sighted in Mk.VI. To what extent the BEF of 1914 rushed to France with Mk.VI sighted rifles I don't know, but I have seen the odd reference to this.
Certainly by the time the ANZAC troops returned to Egypt in late 1915 with their Mk.VI sighted rifles, they exchanged them all for new UK production sighted in Mk,VII so that their debut on the Western Front in mid 1916 would 'fit in' logistically.
The Aldis on PPC mount without the windage prism is unexpected, as that would demand a very high degree of precision in the mounting of scope to rifle. Not impossible, but not very convenient either, as it would demand that the sniper memorise the offset for various ranges. I have seen at least six of the Aldis / PPC scopes (four in the flesh), being 3 x No.3s and 3 x No.4 - all having the deflection prism and 1916 scope manufacture dates.
Attachment 108135Attachment 108136Attachment 108135Attachment 108136
Although I had never seen any of the Aldis scope in this configuration until the last three years or so, the number that have come out of the woodwork seems to rank them with the Purdeys, H&H and standard PPC scopes. This may be some sort of statistical anomaly, but there (to my own surprise) it is...
Regarding PPC scopes, I have had a thorough look at mine and cannot find a scope serial number anywhere. The only number appears to be the rile number inscribed on one of the mounting rings, and on the leather case. Hence, it will be difficult to get a good chronology of the PPC scope production if that is the case with all PPC scopes. I have taken details of scopes I have seen in collections and on ebay, etc, and there is a preponderance of Enfield serial numbers in the S, T, U, V and Y range, with an 'H' out on its lonesome. My data on Enfield production in the war years is sketchy. I was very straight forward and linear from 1907 to 1914 where the serial numbers track production numbers OK, but when production really ramped up during WW1, Enfield was cycling through its four digit A to Z prefixes three times a year (ie, there could be three Enfield rifles with the same date and serial number produced in a given year), so it gets difficult to track runs of rifles fitted with scopes, or attach much meaning to them on the physical evidence that remains.
ATB, D.
Hello everyone! Damien, I have just sent you a little info on four Aldis scopes that were readily to hand. I'll get info on others for you as soon as I can. Bear with me a little........I haven't been as busy as I am now since I took early retirement!
Last night I managed to grab a moment & get a couple of photo's of my PPCo with 'wrap around' range drum saddle. I'll try to get a few of the scopes with range drums marked for Mk6 ball, in due course. The enlarged objective housing is I think a post war civvy mod. The tube has been reblued but the PPCo markings are in the usual place & in the usual style. I have seen only three or four of these, ever, but the saddle appears to be of the same design in all.
That perhaps is not so surprising since these came later to the field than the Purdey & H&H mounts and so had a better chance of surviving service.Quote:
Originally Posted by lmg15
A Purdey or H&H fitting that wore out its barrel or developed some other problems was likely sent back to them as being beyond the skills of armourers to rectify. In fact I believe the rifle number changes we see on some of their scopes appear to have been done in the same style and manner, suggesting the same firm perhaps. (Didn't H-P comment that an SMLE might only keep its best accuracy for 600 rounds or so?)
If the PPCo. dovetails were more or less interchangeable, that sort of work may been done in France for them. Do the renumbers we see support that, and do the dovetails mate-up consistently? The very nature of the design is such that if the angles are consistent, the actual depth of the dovetailed parts can vary a bit as spring travel should provide for that.
There's something screwy with the "Delete Post" feature; just cost me a post I'll try and recreate. Nor does the selective quote feature seem to work.Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Payne
Interesting scope Roger.
Points:
1. Can't see any reason for sleeve except to use a drum saddle made for a larger tube diameter.
2. Knurling missing from capstans: new ones made to compensate for thickness of sleeve?
3. Tube has the screw holes for the typical PPCo. mount (as you of course know) Surplus parts or a rework of scope that saw service?
4. Someone with some skills, tools and parts at work there, presumably before the war? That said, we know Aldis was trying in the 50s if not 60s to flog that utterly obsolete lump they made up with bits and bobs left over from their pre-war production; assuming they made the Irish contract No.4 pattern scopes from new, which I rather doubt. In which case it was mostly parts left over from 1919 and before; and look at the price!
Interesting observations Surpmil re PPC scope.
I was wondering if it was a manufacturing expedient that avoided the need for the two brass pads under the windage screws? This effectively becomes a one piece sleeve with the added bonus of giving an extra couple of mm elevation travel for the crosshairs.
However, when all else fails, I had a look in The British Sniper pp.42 - 43. According to the CISA blueprint, the pre- Feb 1916 scopes used the wrap-around arrangement, (as per Roger's previous comment) which was substituted thereafter by the two brass pads under the windage screws labelled "O.C. END IMPROVEMENTS. INCORPORATED SUBSEQUENTLY TO FEB 1ST 1916. I have to say that I did a double take on the Feb 1916 date. My dodgy eyesight, small print and preconceived notions made me read that as Feb 1915 initially, but IDS then says it again in plain English on p.43.
The dovetail patent was dated 24 Feb 1915, so at most a year's worth of production before the improvements were incorporated. Going to pp.62-63, the first orders for PPC are 8 April 1915 with 1,120 ordered and an order for 4,000 on 28 Oct 1915. There is a 3 month gap in the records IDS found, so the figures become a bit rubbery. Is that 1220 + 4000 + 5220, or were some of the scopes from the October 1915 order incorporating some of the earlier order? Looks like it with total PPC scope deliveries being 4830.
Another point of rubbery-ness in the figures is that the date ordered does not reflect the date delivered, so many of the scopes may have been delivered after Feb 1916 for all I know, thereby incorporating the post Feb 1916 modifications. Then again, most of the scopes made in 1915 may have had the modifications and CISA did not note the mods until later. This would not be the first time that the configuration paperwork caught up with the fielded item well after the event (many LoC examples...)
Roger, were the other scopes in this configuration with out the dovetail / with the larger objective group?
ATB, D.
---------- Post added at 09:02 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:54 AM ----------
PS - p.63 has a list of the Enfield Pattern Room collection referring to PPCo solid drum and PPCo split drum scopes on single PPCo mounts.
There you are: "RTFRM" :D (Reference Material!) It's not like I don't have a well-thumbed copy.:rolleyes:
So what we have here is a very early PPCo. that someone has added an objective to later? We do see hand-engraved range markings on the earlier scopes generally IIRC, so that would fit here, despite the nicely pantographed but superfluous "Hundreds of Yards". A helpful hint for novices? :D (H-P again: "Where did you get that rifle? It was issued to me as Trench Stores sir!")
When did they stop sending the rifles to Bisley to be shot in before the range markings were engraved?
Agree re: order dates too; often who knows how much later than actual deliveries. A result of Whitehall/Horse Guards bureaucratic methods?
If the objective was an original type we might have expected an example to be in that well known inventory you refer to I expect.
Crikey..........I never thought to look in TBS! I need a good smacking........although I am delighted to know that they represent an early variant. I suspected it to be the case, but wasn't sure.....& the answer was there in the book all along! Well done lmg15!! I am sure the fat objective housing is a later addition. A mutual friend of surpmil & I in South Wales also has an example & I'm pretty sure (although it is a long time since I saw it) that the front end is of the conventional design. I've seen photo's of one or two more over th eyears & IIRC they were 'conventional. I forgot to measure it having intended to, but I think the capstans may also be a little further back on the scope on this variant than on the 'run of the mill' PPCo scopes.
Yes, keeping the paperwork correct, even if a little late in the day.........the acceptance of the No4 Mk1* in 1946, admittedly World War later, when it had been in production since the beginning of 1942, springs to mind......
I'll try & get a couple of photo's of the intriguing graduated for Mk6 ammo range drums today........
Yes Roger and Surpmil, I am as guilty as anyone. In another RTFM moment, I had a look at what are probably the driest and accordingly least read pages in TBS and answered a couple more of my own questions.
In the mid-1915 War Office specification for the supply of sniper rifles, it comes to pass that like the rifles, the scopes are also supplied to the trade as WO supplied equipment, with the gunmakers doing the mounting work being liable for any damage to the scopes and rifles, as well as providing their mounting systems to the full satisfaction of the Inspectorate.
Why PPCo would provide the bare scopes to the WO under separate contract, then take delivery back with the rifles for fitting up the mounts seems a trifle inefficient, but would be sorted by having a Govt inspector at the PPCo factory to accept them such that they remained WO furnished supplies on-site until used, maybe in a WO regulated store-room etc.
However, for all of the other makers, it would appear that that the Aldis scopes were procured by separate contract by the WO, then distributed with the rifles to the various makers. If this is so, then what will we expect in terms of groups of scope serial numbers being aligned with particular mount types. The spreadsheet definitely shows groups of scopes with the same mount types, but there are some anomalies as well, such as Aldis PPCo SMLE overbore claw mount scopes being close together, but from much earlier in the 1916 scope production run that you would expect for scoped fitted up in the 1917 - 1919 period.
So what may be very interesting is finding any reference to the direct contracts between WO and Aldis / PPCo for the supply of scopes, rather than the contracts between the WO and gunmakers for the scope mounting.
ATB,
D.
I think you're right about the scopes (generally anyway) being supplied by the government to the contractors to be fitted, using their (contractors) mounting system. It would be consistent with more than one type of scope being fitted with the same rings. For example, it is generally accepted that the Aldis scope is most commonly associated with the characteristic mounts produced by Purdey & H&H. And, generally, that is the case, yet from time to time other scopes turn up in Purdey or H&H mounts. I have a Fuess type with capstans (note I have modified my terminology!) that bears classical Purdey mounts, & I have a friend who has one bearing classical H&H mounts. If scopes were 'handed out' (for the want of a better way of putting it) to contractors, the contractors would fit whatever came through the front door. I know of a Kahles scope in Purdey mounts, an Aldis in Rigby mounts, & other odd combinations, which are perhaps not so odd, given the presumed method of issue of telescopes to be mated to rifles by the trade.
By the way, the wire cutters are just there to stop the scopes from rolling over......
Hi all,
I have just received the PPC scope i purchased & have a couple of questions.
The optics are quite clear but i noticed the front lense was loose, so on removing the front i found that there appears to be two countersunk screws missing which i assume holds the front lense internal retaining collar in place. Also, after looking at the photo's posted by Rodger Payne it appears that the screw securing the focus adjustment is incorrect and should be the same as the capstan screws used for windage adjustment.
Can anyone please help me out with replacement screws or the sizes required. Any help would be greatly appreciated.
Regards Shane
They will most probably be 8 BA although I am not absolutely sure about that. I'll check on a scope. If so, they are readily available still over here as they are popular with model engineers, & are also the most prevalent screw thread on the No32.
Kind fellow forummer Valley Sniper just happened to have a PPCo in bits to hand & has confirmed that the focus screw is 5 BA, the capstan screws are 4 BA, & the objective housing screws are indeed 8 BA. These are all readily available from model engineering suppliers, as are the taps & dies. If you have any problems in sourcing them Gripster then let me know...
Valley Sniper was also the person to whom I was referring when I mentioned that a friend had a better example of the early 'wrap around' range drum saddle variant, & he has sent me some photo's of his example, which I will upload shortly......all being well!
Addendum - here they are. The OG lens is mounted differently to the later PPCo's - it sits in a concentric housing similar to binocular OG's).
I tried PM'ing him the other day about my vintage P.Kohler Berlin scope as he seems to be the only person with any knowledge of these things but his inbox was full :help:Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Payne
If you try again I suspect you'll have more luck.....;)
lmg15, I honestly have no clue upon how to properly answer the details you were looking for with the Aldis scopes. If pictures answer your questions as well, please let me know what you need to see (or even give sample pics) and I'd be happy to provide these pictures.
Really fascinating thread on the MKVI markings - I recently got hold of a PPC with MKVI on the range drum - first reply so hope I can work out how to upload photos - and was chatting to Roger on email a week or so back. Not sure if this might be useful to the discussion - My one has the standard 1915 patent rings and rifle number of R4878 (assume that was standard SMLE serial format - would the CLLE have the same numbering format?). Not to say of course that the rings might not have been put on later - there does appear to have been some slippage from original marks on the tube although what I assume is an armourer's orientation nick is still aligned. Assume if there was a batch specifically made for the CLLE's, would this have been separate to the specification SA 390/- 4/05/1915? (That does specify SMLE MkIII). However, Ian Skennerton does mention in the Lee Enfield Story that a number of CLLE's were fitted with optical sights for TF units - assumed Latteys etc, so possible that some may have been scoped? Would have been a bit of a logistics tangle having to supply MkVI rounds if the rest of the unit was standardized on rifles optimised for MkVII ball.
Welcome to the forum! If you can figure out how to upload one or two pictures it would be fascinating to see your scope.
I have seen a long rifle with a French APX scope mounted onto it, so anything's possible! No doubt not official, but probably set up at or shortly after the time....
Ah - I was using chrome - attachments uploads seem to work properly in IE - hope all the markings (MkVI/rifle serial etc) are visible in these attachments. Scope is a gem - optics and reticule in close to perfect condition and no internal debris. Had a thin coating of rust on the tube, but 95% paint on the brass.
Yes, a very nice looking scope. The Mk VI engraving looks remarkably similar to that on the other scope. When I acquired mine many years ago, it came from an advanced collector in New Zealand. Sadly he passed on in 2002, but when I had the scope from him he informed me that it was sourced locally, & he suspected that the range grads may even have been changed for 'local' service as there was, relatively, still plenty of Mk6 ammunition available in NZ. I really couldn't say for sure - but this was his opinion. Regardless, you have quite a rarity!
Thanks, but I just have and I didn't, still full.Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Payne
Never mind.
Thanks Roger - Img15's earlier comment about MkVI ammo being used exclusively at Gallopoli etc and my head scratching about logsitics has hopefully given a Eureka moment on the MkVI markings.(And from a family POV - I certainly hope so!;-) Two of the units at Gallopoli were Scottish Horse and Lovats Scouts. They were withdrawn to Egypt, and certainly the Scottish Horse was in a support role at Ramadi against the Turks. Both units were then sent to Salonika. From a logistics point of view, it would make sense that considerable old stock of MkVI ammunition would be sent exclusively to a specific theatre - MkVII obviously sent to the Western Front). High likelihood then (based on the Gallipoli information) that the MKVI ammo ended up in the Middle East?
Sniper training for Scottish Horse started in Egypt (see the attached diary entry where my Grandfather, Bill Scott, is given the post of sniper officer by Tullibardine, later Duke of Atholl). This would have focused initially on stalking etc with iron sights, based very much on Bill's ABW experience - he had been Scout Sergeant for SH in South Africa, and had missed Gallipoli as he was on OCTU in Aldershot. The journal of one of his scout-snipers (James Anderson - "So Once more it was Bundle and Go!" - published by his late daughter Ann Walker) indicates that "telescopic rifles, night sights and telescopes" were only received once they had arrived in Salonika. Given that there are a number of well-known pictures of snipers in Salonika with PPC's, it makes sense that the MkVI- marked range drums were destined for Salonika or similar theatres flagged for the stocks of MkVI ammunition? (Grandfather ended up running 27th Div SOS with Major Grant of the Lovats, before both units were sent back to France, so really hoping I might have inadvertently got a scope that could have crossed paths with him! ;-) Lack of internal debris from damp and rust certainly does indicate that this is an "Away from the Western Front" scope. Thoughts? (Covid permitting, hoping to get out to the Sturma Valley in the next year on one of Alan Wakefield's tours, so will need to see if there is any indication of MkVI use there). I have sourced some 215-grain bullets (originally for my metford, so was looking to do MkIV loads) but will need to see if I can work some loads to emulate the MkVI.
I read Ian Skennertons "Enfield Story" in a bit more detail, and it does appear that the CCLE's with the optic sights were specifically sighted for MKVII ammuntion, so that probably closes down my previous thought on that.
Oh, sorry GeeRam. He phoned me yesterday or the day before & mentioned that his in box was full, but I think he thinks he's cleared it. I'll give him a dig in the ribs for you if you like....?
And thanks Madzi, I've just twigged who you are! Is James Anderson's book available? I don't think I am familiar with it, but would be most interested to track down a copy....
What you say all makes sense, thinking about it. I had not really given this issue a lot of thought, but I think surpmil is correct in that they were 'officially' modified (or graduated for Mk6 ball from the outset, even), & it would make sense to limit them to a specific theatre, other than the main theatre of operations, as you say. I would agree that Mk7 ball is ubiquitous on the Western Front. I have found or seen literally many thousands of rounds of 303 SAA that still turns up in F&F today, & only once have I ever seen any ball ammunition other than Mk7. This was just last year at a 'brocante' (street market) in a local village on the Somme, where a chap with various military relics for sale had about thirty rounds of ground dug Mk6 ball.......still live! I asked him if he knew from where they had come, but unfortunately he couldn't enlighten me, though they would almost certainly have been unearthed somewhere local. But not at all a common find.
Madzi, interesting point about Salonika and consistent with my expectations at least, but may need some battlefield archaeology to confirm one way or the other. I wondered whether the broader campaign in Palestine from 1916 used Mk,VII ball to standardise with the Western Front? I am thinking that if no official records on that are available, then are there any examples of 303 trench art that may give a clue? Most I have seen are the scimitar style letter openers, but use Turkish 7.65mm cases.
BTW, my Great Uncle Harold Connor also served with the 2nd Battalion Scottish Horse in ABW, as did many Colonial Australians who missed out on the other Australian raised regiments. He joined just after he returned from the Boxer Rebellion with the NSW Naval Brigade.
RE the PPCo scopes, one thing I neglected to mention about the info I am collecting is that there is usually (but not always) a rifle number on the front edge of the dovetail mount that does not match the number on the front ring. Still thinking about this...is that a number for its new rifle, and if so, why not strike a line through the old serial number as seen on some Aldis scopes? ATB, D.
Very interesting comments gentlemen. As far as serial number lists go, I started an Aldis one back around 2008(?), ValleySniper took over the job and I have a version from him dated 2010. I'm afraid neither of us have kept it up consistently since then, and clearly a PPCo. list is needed as well which can be shared between those of us who are interested. Of course mount types, re-numbers and any other details that might be relevant are logged as well.
Knowing what we do about the fumbling and low level of interest in sniping and equipment, I have trouble believing that the War Office was so well-organized as to have rifles marked up for MkVI .303 made and sent specifically to theatres where more of it was used. Was not a great deal of it was also used in France in 1915/16 by those New Army battalions that used the earlier rifles?
As far as finding out where an artifact such as a scope has been, use the method popularized by Max Frei: pollen There will be plenty of it in the nooks and crannies of scope cases, not to mention scopes that have not been cleaned much over the years.
In fact, with the popularity and increasing cheapness of DNA testing these days, it won't be long before DNA samples obtained from artifacts can be easily tested and correlated to existing databases, perhaps making it quite easy with the help of military records to say whose DNA was left behind. I've been keeping samples from artifacts I've cleaned over the years in anticipation of that service becoming cheaply and easily available, but provenance does not interest everyone, though it certainly adds to value which should appeal to most.
Hi Roger - yes - still copies available on Amazon -
So Once More It Was Bundle and Go: Memories of the Great War: Amazon.co.uk: Anderson, James Scott: 9781786233677: Books
James' daughter Anne published it a couple of years back (She very sadly passed away at the beginning of this year) - proceeds go to the SSAFA Armed Forces Charity. Very interesting in that it is very much a squaddie's eye view of what was happening and really interesting to put his experiences in context against my grandfather's diary and the unit war diary at National Archives. Think I may have sent you a copy of the article compiling those that I wrote as a follow-up when we were sorting the Whitehead Bros mounts last year? (Interestingly, James's journal and my article were used as a module for a battlefield study of the Homondos assault that Alan Wakefield did for British Army recce units last year).
I'm likeing Milsurps suggestion around the DNA - definitely need to keep the inside of my scope sealed or take a swab.
Img15 - thanks - I had never spotted the numbers on the ring. I have a matching number on the eyepiece side to the main number (both R4878). On the objective side, just a single didget "5".
Annoyingly for me, I found this photo @ww1macedonianfront Instagram post (carousel) #ww1 #ww1history #wwone #worldwarone #worldwar1 #relics #bullets #macedonia #bulgarian #french #ww1relics #wartoendallwars #german #english #british #1915 #1916 #1917 #19141918 #history #macedonianfront #salonika #dig #fallen #soldier #ww1finds - Gramho.com of spent rounds in Salonika - does appear to be MkVII's (the roundnose is likely an 8mm from a Bulgar M95) so that would remove the possibility of a family connection with my scope - but still like to think Palestine and support of the Arab revolt could still be in the picture for the MkVI scopes, assuming, of course, as Milsurps pointed out, effective logistics, and as you rightly pointed out, they would ultimately have standardized on MkVII, so it would likely have just been for a limited period while there were sufficient stocks of MkVI.
Very interesting on your great uncle - my grandfather was also 2nd Battalion SH in the ABW - K Squadron (joined from an Argyll & Sutherland Highlanders VSC). I'm currently in the very slow process of writing up his very detailed diary - younger, so far more detail than his WW1 diaries. I will need to get you over a draft when ready.
Many thanks for the pointer Madzi. I have purchased a copy this evening & will check back to see if I have your article.
This has been an excellent thread. I have seen an article that looked in to the use of telescopic sights by Australian snipers towards the end of the Gallipoli campaign. If this was the case they would have certainly been graduated for MkVI ammunition. Looks like I'm going to have to go up into my loft to find the article - I've looked everywhere else. I did find this quote in the Gallipoli Diary, Vol II. I couldn't cut and paste so took a photo of my screen instead. It refers specifically to the Scottish Horse " they were very proud of themselves and of the effect their rifles with telescopic sights had produced when put into the hands of gillies and deer stalkers."
Most interesting Nige. Wish you all success in the loft!
I've found my photocopies of the SAC minutes from August/September 1917, which I'm afraid don't help on the issue of scopes graduated for Mk6 ammunition, but which state that at that time 350 Aldis scopes had had prisms fitted for lateral adjustment, & that the total requirement to be so converted was 750. At that time it seems as though it was envisaged fitting these scopes all to P'14's although the Hensoldt light telescope is mentioned in the text as well. I've also found some minutes from 1921 on the disposal of the SMLE snipers that were then to hand. Thirdly, I have managed to retrieve some data on the contracts, most but possibly not all of which is in TBS, on contracts to the various trade members such as H&H, Purdey, & so on. It is quite illuminating in that some contracts were awarded for 'the fitting of telescopic sights', & some for 'the SUPPLY & fitting of telescopic sights' (my capitals), which perhaps has a bearing on our earlier discussion. Unfortunately my printer/scanner refuses to recognize my laptop to send the files to, but I will try to get round it & as soon as I can I will post them here in case they are of interest.
That is a really interesting bit of info - thanks Nigel. I had been under the impression that they were just using iron sights in Egypt (sniper training and Battle of Romadi), and that they first got their hands on scoped rifles in Salonika, but certainly looks, from that article, like they had them then in Gallipoli. Key organisers there I suspect would have been Sgt Donny McPhearson (Mentioned in Dispatches/KIA at Le Cateau in 1918) and Cpl Lewis Finney DCM, who were both recommended to my Grandfather as NCO's for his sniper section by Major Sir Archie Lyle on return to Egypt, as a result of their scouting/sniping performance at Gallipoli.
And to think how often I take my wife in vain.........she's managed to scan the three pages onto her laptop & email to me, so here goes. Apologies for the rather poor quality copies, but that's how they came. You may need to enlarge them a little to read comfortably. May be something of interest to a few. Nigel will recognize at least one, if not all three....
There's a comment about increasing the range grads from 600 to 1000 yds, comparison being made to how German scopes were (already) graduated to 1000m!
Another very interesting bunch of leads to follow. Regret that I am pressed for time to respond, but until I can elaborate further, a few observations.
1. I was scratching my head too about the difference in the descriptions of "fitted by" and "supplied and fitted by" when compared with the WO spec being "fitted only". Seems to bear out my earlier comment about why would PPC ship scopes to the WO to have them shipped back for fitting? I think the answer is becoming clearer since the PPC scopes are "supplied and fitted" vs the Aldis scopes that are universally only "fitted". Looks like this PPC privilege was also extended to only one other maker capable of providing both scopes and fitting up services.
2. I have a copy of some of the SAC minutes (possibly the same ones?) but will have to pull them out to compare with what you have there Roger. When I read it years ago, I was under the impression that the Hensoldt Light Pattern scope (the DIALYT 3X) was mounted on a captured German short rifle, but reading the pages you have posted, it appears to be a Hensoldt scope with original German scope mounts fitted to an SMLE that has had bespoke rifle mounts made for it.
3. Scopes used in Gallipoli. IIRC, Bryce Courtney makes a big deal about an Aldis being used, but at the time of reading this work of fiction, I thought that it would have been a PPC if anything. Anyway, that memory is a bit hazy, but I wonder on what basis he incorporated an Aldis scope into the plot. Too late to ask him now, but there may be some hints in the Acknowledgements section. If scopes were issued at Gallipoli, I would have thought it would have been to British forces primarily.
The Glew radium tubes in Roger's first document would have been for the brass night sights fitted to the SMLE, I would assume? I wonder who had the contract to make those? (Those are mentioned in James Anderson's journal, so one of my Holy Grail items, if anyone spots any going...;-). For the second doc, I've got quite an interesting (unfortunately interwar, so not the one) Henzolt-Wetzler, which has the same tube dimensions as the M1918 - (shown here with M1918 mounts, and next to a Fuess 5 for comparisome, but focusing ring disallows straight use of the mounts). Pretty sure that would have the same "parent" as the M1918.
You are comparing it with a commercial Hensoldt scope. If you take the military variant and hold it next to a PPCo scope (well, in my case here next to a BSA Irish Contract scope), it becomes quite obvious:Quote:
Originally Posted by Madzi
https://www.milsurps.com/attachment....3&d=1517090913
A quiet Saturday morning, so time to address some of the info from previous posts and add a bit more.
Promo, you beat me to the punch regarding a comparison photo of the Patt 1918 and Hensoldt Dialyt 3X. An interesting example of the Dialyt 3X you have there, but not sure which version you have from the photo. I was surprised to find that there are two distinct types. Judging by the scope serial numbers, all I can say is that there is an early and later type. The attached photo compares the early and later types with the body of a Patt 18 scope to make the similarities and differences a bit clearer.
Attachment 108361
The bottom scope is the early type serial number 6067 with military mounts from Gew No.1319p. Range drum graduations are from 1-6. Scope body diameter is 22.0mm and ocular cone diameter is 29.5mm. The ocular lenses are held in by a single brass locking ring. Steel tube has overall length of 211mm. No focus adjustment.
The top scope is the later type serial number 9278 with Patt 1918 mounts (don't read anything into that). Original German rifle number has probably been erased. Range drum graduations are from 1-10. Scope body diameter is 22.0mm, but the ocular cone is wider at 31.75mm, with the ocular lenses being held in by a compound arrangement of two brass locking rings. Overall length of the steel tube is also 211mm. No focus adjustment.
The Patt 18 steel tube in the middle is there for comparison. As we are aware, the range drum graduations will be 1-10. Scope body diameter is 22mm as per both of the Dialyt scopes, but ocular cone is 29.5 as per the early type Dialyt. Other differences are the Patt 18 has a sliding focus adjustment as per the previous patterns of most German and Brit scopes. Steel tube length is 199mm, so 12mm shorter than the Dialyts, but used the Aldis type deflection prism rather than a windage adjustment on the rear leg as per the German scopes.
I had a look for my copies of the SAC Minutes, and could only find the LMG15 ones (215) that had a reference to a late German pattern Goertz turret mount scope. Anyway, still an interesting point about the Dialyt 3X being mounted on an SMLE in 1917.
Following discussion on Govt acceptance marks on Galilean optics, I had a look at my Martins example. No arrows at all, but the wooden case lid is marked, "Sight, Martins, Optical" using a military style of nomenclature.
I only have the front half of a Lattey optical sight, but it has the full broad arrow. Still looking for the rear half...
Madzi, there is a book "Southern Cross Scotts" which lists all of the personnel in the 1st & 2nd Battalion Scottish Horse in South Africa. It has some good contemporary cartoon illustrations showing the difference between the Australian and Scottish approach. My great uncle had three serial numbers in 2Bn SH, two are in the book and one on his QSA medal.
I've never understood why the S.A.C. was apparently so fascinated by this Hensoldt. As far as I can tell there was nothing to distinguish it from an Oigee, Bock or Goerz etc.; mechanically or optically. Or an Aldis for that matter.
One gets the impression that very little of such stuff ever made it back from France except as closely guarded souvenirs and thus when this piece, in the the third year of the war no less, finally came into their hands they were apparently much struck by the novelty of it and didn't have the knowledge to put it in a proper perspective(?)
The wider front mount is perhaps more stable and robust than the usual claw mounts, but still as inherently unsound as lacking any mechanical provision for windage adjustment, and thus when the usual little capstan screw in the rear leg was turned, the tube and mounts were simply twisted within each other until hopefully the desired position was obtained before any distortion or damage occurred! Except in the example above, there is no dovetail and screw in the rear leg! Resting the "hooks" of the front ring on a bar that runs across the base is certainly an improvement on the little claws and hand-carved notches, but as soon as the windage is adjusted, one ring "hook" or other must begin to part company with its matching bar...
As for ease and cost of manufacture, and interchangeability...what is the attraction over for example the mounts already(? Yes, I know one is a later Aldis No.4) being fitted by makers like Alex Martin and Alex Henry, and even perhaps Geo. Gibbs. (Photos attached) Those had a dovetail block in a mount base, adjustable via a screw, or two, and either a round front peg or a single claw. Certainly the claw is an inherently poor design as to pivot it must have sufficient side clearance to so, and the farther the claw projects forward, the wider the clearance must be, and thus the harder it becomes to keep the front claw from slipping left and right rather than simply pivoting. Chiselling such things out of blocks of softened steel and filing them to a perfect fit would delight the soul of the "feinhandwerkmeister" or whatever the proper term is ;) , but in wartime....??:confused:
The round peg (give Purdey at least credit for that) in the front base does allow a proper pivot, and this was belatedly what Goerz tried to achieve with their "Semi-turret" design, thought they ended up with two round pegs, which was easier to manufacture at least.
So at the risk of being repetitive, it's hard to avoid the impression that the S.A.C. having heard stories about the "wonderful German sights" etc. for several years, were all agog at this Hensoldt and assumed that it was some great advance over existing scopes and mounts, and ordained that it was to be the pattern, etc. etc.! But was it? Not as far as I can see. How is it better or cheaper than a H&H fitting for example?
If they wanted a small and light scope, they could have gone back to Dr. Common's, if anyone remembered it from 15 years before?
And is the Patt.18 any better than the Aldis No.3 or 4? Or any much cheaper or easier to make? Not that I can see.
What was wanted was a fully sealed scope with reliable external adjustments, and preferably an etched reticule with the hold-overs for each range marked on the reticule: once zeroed only the point of aim needs to be changed. Warner & Swasey started it* with their ranging stadia lines, and the Japanese perfected it in the Arisaka scopes, but I digress. They could even had added radium illumination via one of those small capsules - Sir Howard Grubb had already suggested illuminated reticules in 1900! A design that would have allowed the base to be machined after fitting to achieve proper collimation as per the No.4(T) and Arisakas would have been preferable as well.
* May precede them actually - seem to recall reading something that referred to a 19th C. American scope maker incorporating several crosshairs for different ranges.
Very cogent surpmil! I am inclined to agree that the Hensoldt could just have easily been a Voigtlander, a Goerz, or an Otto Bock, & also that the Aldis is just as good an optic as those. But as we know from many instances, the enemy's kit is much better than our own.........except that whilst the perception is sometimes correct, it is by no means always. In the SAC minutes there is considerable discussion over the lateral adjustment issue, & the decision seems to fall in favour of the fitting of the prisms (well, they did go ahead & do it!) over an optically simpler scope & lateral adjustment on a mount leg. Even so, the relative merits of twin screws, one tightened as the other is slackened off, is debated against the usual German method of a single transverse worm screw. The SAC minutes make the point that if a laterally adjustable mount were to be used then the twin screws is a better idea as there is less propensity for backlash developing as the threads wear with use. As they were clearly thinking in terms of fitting the modified Aldis scopes (prism fitted) to the P'14 rifles which were being trialled over this period, what on earth made them abandon it in favour of another plagiarised German scope that at best was only the equal of the Aldis, & in some ways its inferior?? Or perhaps the answer is as simple as mentioned near the top of the paragraph.......all down to perception.
Yes, I should qualify my previous comment to the extent that as you point out, the Patt.18 does eliminate the windage adjustment issue with claw mounts, by moving that adjustment to the rotating prism in the objective cell. (Edit: erroneous evaluation of contact between crosspin and front claws removed!)
But as far as being durable, accessible and simple to use, I'm not sure the prism idea is much good: not only hidden behind that very fragile brass cover, but only adjustable with a special flat key and every time you adjust the windage, you have to correct the range drum as well. Even for those with only two thumbs ;) working with those key slots without mashing them up isn't easy is it?
At least with the typical Germanic square key you could grasp the key with a small wrench if you had to, or find a suitable key in clock-maker's shop; very common in those days of course.
The double opposing adjustment screws were indeed an improvement on the single screw as you say, as allowing screw backlash to be taken up as it developed. Once the single screw type develops backlash it's back to base workshop, and those dovetails and threads were so close fitting, ----- help you if you allowed moisture to get in and quietly rust it solid! And as you know from working on them, those prism cells are inclined to go solid as well...
The only advantage to the Patt.18 I can think of it is a bit less weight and therefore a bit less stress on mounts from recoil/"rebound" on firing.
Yes, one has to be careful of the tendency to see the opponent's equipment as always better - at least as cautious of the tendency to do the opposite! ;)
Some very good insights there that get me thinking.... I have had a bit of experience with the manufacture of the front mounting blocks for the Patt.18, and as a result have had to consider some of these things from both practical and theoretical points of view.
It is hard to know all the steps that PPCo considered in the evolution of the Patt.18 mount system, but I think that the theoretical failings of the German shallow claw system (as you very cogently spell out above) were understood by PPCo. The ability to use the Aldis lateral adjustment prism gave them the opportunity to make the scope and rifle mounts as rigid, simple and solid as possible, while still allowing for quick detachment.
That brings us to the question of whether the PPCo system was the best in practicality and execution, but without some objective evidence, it is hard to say whether the Patt.18 system of mounts was a practical improvement over the German shallow claw mounts. That would probably come down to things like no wandering zero and repeatability (ability to keep MPI after when the scope is mounted/dismounted from the rifle over and over), when compared with its German counterparts. Maybe PPCo had such faith in the rigidity of the Patt.18 system and its corresponding repeatability, that the PITA prism adjustment was something not required often enough to be a real PITA?
In terms of the practicality of execution from an engineering perspective, The level of commitment to precision in the PPCo mount system is very high, given that it is also designed for a high degree of interchangeability between rifles and scopes (notwithstanding the scopes still being serial numbered to the rifles). This means that any significant factory of field hand fitting is not on the agenda, as opposed to almost every German WWI sniper rig I have seen (maybe with the exception of the late war Goertz semi turret system).
So with that in mind, the use of the transverse pin in the front rifle mount must allow the scope only one degree of freedom when it is attached, being movement backwards and forwards. This has to be done with extreme precision in terms of eliminating any vertical movement whatsoever, so its diameter, in turn, has to be a very fine tolerance fit into the notch of the scope mount claw. The rear scope mount is locked rigidly into the rear rifle mount with a slight interference fit with the semi cylindrical locking catch / cam (it should tighten up a little and the thumb lever is rolled over to lock in the rear scope leg). Hence you have complete rigidity with the scope locked in both vertically and horizontally.
The lateral degree of freedom is addresses by having fine tolerances and large bearing surface areas between the front rifle mount slots and the claw blades. Similarly fine lateral tolerances on the rear mounts too.
So, that's the theory, but how practical was it? Well, having tried to make a set and measuring pins and slots to the point of near insanity, I can vouch that the fine tolerances required were executed well by PPCo (and not necessarily by me). Also, having done one pair of front rifle mount blocks, I am pretty certain of the exact manufacturing sequence required to achieve the required outcome, and for a well set up shop, it is eminently do-able, with one pair of identical blocks coming out of each set of operations.
So that is my insight from personal design and manufacturing experience.
As an aside, I cannot understand why the Accumounts versions of the rifle blocks are so poor when they could be much better for just a little more effort. That notes that you cannot fit an original Patt.18 scope onto the Accumounts front block because the pin diameter is too big, and has to be ground out in the middle to fit it onto a receiver ring. The Accumounts rear rifle block has paid vague homage to the original, but in all other respects has gone completely free-style. The Accumount scope rings are also not too good, as they do not have the rounded profile. I accept that it is diabolical to get that round profile for the home machinist, but easy enough on an industrial NC machine. Attempting to rectify the Accumounts product is also fraught, as they have used extremely hard steel that resists every attempt to put even a scratch on them.
So I am not defending the mount design or the HEnsoldt scope per se, but I can at least see why they did what they did on 'optimising' the German Hensoldt Dialyt overbore claw mount scope given the mindset they were in.
Having a look at TBSp.73, IDS mentions the CISA decision process in favour of the Hensoldt scope, but the SAC minutes (that I don't have) probably tell us a lot more. IDS also makes the same mistake(??) as me in assuming the Hensoldt scope was on a captured German rig, but he does go on to elaborate to remove doubt that it was indeed a German rifle:
"in mid 1917, a captured German sniper rifle with a light Hensoldt telescopic sight on detachable crawfoot mounts became the inspiration for the assembly of a Pattern 1914 sniper rifle, upon which was mounted an Aldis telescope in the overhead position, using similar mounts. This combination rooved successful enough to warrant its being sent to France for assessment trials, along with the German rifle".
Showing my ignorance again, the SAC minutes talk about the Hensoldt scope being on a "short rifle" (which I assumed to be a Kar98a), but further references to "short rifle" left me under the impression they were talking about the SMLE (vs the MLE/CLLE). The Hensoldt Dialyt 3X being small and light would certainly be well proportioned for the Kar 98a. Can any further light be shed on this?
Lmg15: If you mean the first paragraph of Minute No21 I took it that it was referring to a German Hensoldt scope that had been fitted to a SMLE, as the passage states that the scope (at least I assume the writer meant that it was just the scope) was brought back from France by him, that it retained its original upper mounts, but that the lower mounts were specifically manufactured to suit. Also, I thought that the reference to 'a short rifle' to which was attached 'a light German telescope', suggests to me that only the telescope was German, although I admit there is a certain element of interpretation....
Concerning the prism adjustment, I agree that it is not the kind of thing to be undertaken under trying conditions, but I doubt that was ever intended anyway. It isn't directly comparable with the deflection drum of a modern scope, or even of the No32 twenty five years later. The prism is not ideal, but it was I think representative of one of the more innovative optical technological developments of the time.
I am afraid I know little of the Accumounts No3 (T) mounts other than the fact that the company makes & markets them, although I did gather that they are only approximations to the originals.
Roger, yes I agree with your interpretation of the SAC minute 21 as contained in your post, but wondering what happened between that and IDS's detailed description of a captured German rifle and the comparative trials between it and the prototype P14T. Some potential cross treading in all of that. I will see what Ian can tell me about it. ATB, D.
Thanks. Ah yes, agreed. There is a crucial gap in the story - why did the CISA/SAC do an about turn on the prism modified Aldis in favour of the Model 1918? Perhaps the German rifle gave the nudge. Please do let us know if Ian has anything illuminating to shed on the story!
Following on from the adoption of the Model 1918 scope instead of the prism modified Aldis scopes for the upcoming P'14 sniper's rifles, was the serendipitous availability of up to 750 of these same Aldis scopes. I wonder at what stage the decision was made to fit them (or some of them) on suitably adjusted claw mounts over bore on SMLE's? It would seem that the PPCo set them up at around the same time (or possibly immediately after) the P'14's. Another gap in our knowledge, unless someone is in a position to fill it??
Given their apparent lack of prior history, and failure to deliver the goods leading to govt. take-over, I doubt PPCo. had much if any hand in design and/or concern with interchangeability. It reads more like a company that was set up to bid for war work by parties unknown. Old directories for the area might give an indication of their corporate lifespan. I suspect they simply worked from whatever specs they were given. Their problems may have been due in part to problems hiring or retaining workers skilled enough to produce the product; being in North London there would have been dozens of firms competing for labour nearby during the war. The firms that were in smaller or more distant towns could hold onto their workers more easily - and of course had a core workforce from before the war, and expected to keep going after the war.
It is rather extraordinary to say the least that 500-750 or more Aldis scopes No2/3 were on hand unused in 1917 (if that is the correct reading) out of a total production of about 4000 for the No.2 and No.3 models. That in itself indicates a low priority being given to conversion or some inability to get hold of the rifles, or rifles of sufficient quality. Reminds me of the curious accumulation of unused No32 scopes in 1941-43!
There's plenty of evidence that scoped rifles were always in short supply in France, so some blundering was presumably going on there. Tangentially to that, the letter from Ken Dance, ex-BEF sniper reproduced in TBS (courtesy of Roger Cleverley), states that he and his fellows were told their rifles were specially selected as "one in three thousand".
As for convex rings, they were made AFAIK, by turning the external profile on a lathe and then milling/sawing off two opposing sides to whatever ring width was wanted, the piece could then be held in a vise and the claws etc. be cut in. Accumounts could have done all that on a CNC so can't see why they didn't -cost?
Going back to those contract lists posted above, we have the mystery of the Bartle mounts, which given the large number quoted, should be a common survivor(?) The fact that they aren't might mean something went wrong with either the design or the company, as per PPCo. and the contract was never completed? Could that be the reason for the large accumulation of No.2 & 3 (or just No.3?) scopes, which certainly should never have occurred.
In truth there are so many questions that can be asked about WW1 designs & production, but I have fired a couple at IDS to see if he has any comments to make. Specifically, if he has any ideas about the Mk VI graduated range drums on some scopes, & also if he can shed any light on the decision to abandon the Aldis in favour of the Model 1918, although I have limited it to that as I know another of us was also contemplating asking him about certain aspects of the various discussions that we have had in this thread. I've received an acknowledgement but nothing more as yet, incidentally. When I do I'll let everybody know......
Meantime surpmil, you've given me the impetus to dig out my copy of Sambrook's 'The Optical Munitions Industry in Great Britain, 1888 - 1923', & there is some interesting stuff therein, although it does not answer anywhere near all of the gaps in our knowledge. For instance, he describes an attempt in 1914 by Barr & Stroud, to lure away skilled workers from the Periscopic Prism Company, with whom B&S had dealt since 1911, which if nothing else shows PPCo were not specifically set up at the outset of the Great War, but had already been in existence for a few years at least. He says that the attempt was not successful, by the way!
One or two other snippets he comes out with; the 1st Pattern Aldis was accepted in January 1915 & 200 produced by July 1915, but by summer problems with the range drum keeping its settings, & with fogging due to humidity, led to a redesign resulting in the 2nd Pattern, which was accepted in November 1915. Thus far unfortunately I've not been able to find anything specifically dealing with the 3rd Pattern & prism addition.
Back to the PPCo scope & a total of 'over 4,400' produced by April 1917, with production continuing until the end of the war. Quite possible, although the total of PPCo equipments produced was slightly less than 5000, so production must have slowed down rather over the last eighteen months of the war. And admittedly few original rifles survive, but odd that nobody seems to be aware of any dated 1917 or 1918..........though perhaps I've answered my own question, if the rate of production did indeed slow down appreciably!
Sambrook also confirms that by the end of the war the PPCo were under state control.
He doesn't go into detail, explaining why the Aldis was replaced by the Model 1918 plagiarised & slightly modified from the Hensoldt scope, but he does say: 'The War Office's eventual decision to replace both types (Aldis & earlier type PPCo scope) with one copied from a German riflescope stemmed not from any crucial functional failure in what was available, but more from a supposition that the proposed alternative was fundamentally superior in design & so capable of better standards of performance.' Unfortunately he doesn't tell us how the War Office went about their decision making!
Although the section on rifle scopes is brief, it makes interesting reading.
Surpmil, good point about whether PPCo actually designed the Patt 18 claw mount, or whether they just made them. I thought of going back to TBS and seeing whether there was a signature block that would indicate the designer, but alas, they are just the AID drawings which include the Aldis scopes as well. However, the hint is in the title "Enfield Overhead Fittings for Rifle, Magazine, .303 inch, Patt 1914. So your suspicions would appear to be correct in saying a Government design made at the PPC factory site.
Regarding the finer points of scope ring design, I pondered how I would go about making the convex shape. I did think of the method you refer to, where you essentially turn up something resembling a towball on the lathe, then slice / mill and drill accordingly. This is the way at least one of the WW2 German ring sets was made. However, measuring it up, the radius of the convex shape is much larger than the radius of the rings themselves. You also have the problem of the rear leg being an unsymmetrical shape, and then having to shape the integral clamping lugs at the top just to complicate the process further. All I can see for the average home workshop punter is a lot of fiddling around with a file, that would not come out looking like a bought one. So methinks there is some dedicated machinery involved, possibly of the copy mill / pantograph type, and special concave end mills, etc.
Surpmil and Roger, some very illuminating info on PPCo and the British optical munitions industry - many thanks. D.
Thanks lmg15, you have considerable insight into the manufacturing side of things! In fact, when I got the Aldis over bore claw mounts made about six or seven years ago the machine shop managed to make them with the radius, but even so had to make the clamping lugs as separate pieces & braze them in, something that the original manufacturers managed to avoid, albeit a century ago. Nonetheless, all way beyond my rudimentary abilities....
First to start with, I re-read the whole thread to try to understand as much as possible - not easy with so many technical words for being a non native speaker, but I think I now got most of the discussion and would want to throw in a few aspects from my side:
It is a bit simple to reduce the Germans to a "single claw mount". The Germans I think at least have had 10 different scope manufacturers who then had at least one or more scope models each that were officially introduced with then again each at least one or even more different scope mounts. A simple sample - you can find the Goerz on the Single Claw mount additionally in Bavarian or Prussian configuration (one with a different front scope ring that have had a provision to hold the leather eyecup, additional difference was the elevation adjustment where the Bavarians thought 6(00) was enough), and Goerz supplied two scope mount themselves with different magnification powered scopes! The variety is basically never ending and it would not be fully correct to reduce the claw mount system to one manufacturer only. Hensoldt scopes were brought into war rather late. The earlier German sniper rifles were set up by gunsmiths; those have screw heads fully aligned with the barrel/90° to the barrel, numbered to the base and with very early sniper rifles even the full scope base was engraved. You could find them with one or two claws, both at the front or at the rear (and combinations between these two), sometimes even with pivot pins at the rear, sometimes with spring held buttons at the rear, sometimes with levers in the opposite direction. So to not make it too complicated I'm simply trying to make it as clear as possible that a direct comparison with the wording "German Claw Mount" is way too general.Quote:
Originally Posted by lmg15
An aspect that has not been mentioned in this thread: the Aldis scopes that were mounted to the P.14 rifles with the PPCo overbore mount to my knowledge ALL carry "MOUNTED BY THE PPCo" engravings on the scope tube. So it is clear that PPCo did the conversion of rifles to sniper rifles themselves, as well as that they must had considered the P.14 overbore mount as "their own" sniper mount. I am however a bit wondering why they did this with the P.14 scope mount, but not with their own dovetail mount when using Aldis scopes? On the other hand, it is consistent on the P.14 PPCo mount as well as the SMLE PPCo dovetail mount that the scopes always have the rifle number (only! No additional "Rifle. No.") on them, either on the rings or on the scope tube itself.
The big advantage of the P.14 scope mount is the overbore configuration. Not only because you don't have to consider the small offset of the scope when shooting, but also because it is much more comfortable. And additionally the P.14 rifle shoots really great. And whoever handles a SMLE and then a P.14 (or vica versa) would surely agree that the SMLE is rattling and some parts are not "that tight" whereas the P.14 simply is handsome and even the bolt closes tight.
PS: when speaking of the P.14 .. remember that handful Irish sniper rifles that were made around 1940? I've always wondered how in hell it could had made sense to BSA to manufacture scopes? Or why would someone source them parts and let them put their name on the scope? Was PPCo already non-existing at that time, or why else would they allow someone else copy "their" mount and scope?
Hi Promo. I wondered when you would chip in! I'm not going to dwell on the many different types of claw mounts that existed in Germany in the WW1 era - you know far more about the numerous variations than I do, although I know that there always seemed to me (when I collected German as well as British & Commonwealth kit) that there was almost as many different German mount designs as there was gunsmiths!
Aldis scopes with prism modification certainly do exist with the 'Fitted by the PPC London' (or something very similar) engraved on the scope tube, although as PPCo also fitted the claw mounts to the SMLE at about the same time I suspect that scopes destined for the SMLE would also have been so engraved. It would be nice if someone could categorically confirm this. I am not sure if I understand your following point about PPCo not using Aldis scopes in their own dovetail design mounts - if I have understood you correctly, they did, & it would seem like quite a few, although more often than not when they turn up these days the rings are missing. Indeed only last year surpmil very kindly put me on to a nice complete example in the US that I was able to buy - I had been trying to find one with the rings intact for years.
Concerning the later involvement of BSA during the mid to late 1930's with the Irish contract rifles & scopes, I have always assumed that as the Model 1918 design was carried out at Enfield then Enfield retained what I suppose we would now call the 'intellectual property rights' (!), so could contract with whomsoever they wished to produce this equipment. But again, this is only my supposition. I honestly don't know in which year the PPCo became defunct, but I think it may well have been only shortly after the end of the Great War. I would gladly welcome clarification on this....
Roger; Stephen Sambrook gave a very interesting lecture to the HBSA on Mr Barr and Mr Stroud and how these two academics became involved in rangefinder production.Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Payne
Stephen and I both worked for the same photographic retailer in the 1970's so I was keen to see what research he had been up to since our parting of the ways.
Hello Mick. Well, your old pal Mr Sambrook has produced quite an impressive book, if not one that is light reading! There is not a great deal about rifle scopes, but there is some, & some information with which I was not familiar. There is much more on 'bigger' (both physically & in terms of contract size) optical stores items, & quite a lot on Messrs Barr & Stroud. Interestingly, both the Periscopic Prism Co & Aldis Brothers had had supplied optical glassware to B&S either just before or at the beginning of the war & had had them rejected on quality grounds. However, it looks as though Aldis was rather better at putting its house in order than the PPCo.. the latter ultimately being taken into government ownership (which probably explains why they were chosen to produce the Model 1918 scope).
Incidentally, I secured a copy of the book though Amazon.
Promo, thanks for your insights into the German mounts. I have only just managed to get my own German rig together after 20 years of hunting (1915 Spandau with Gerard B3x), and get your point about the mounting differences from the holistic perspective. What I was referring to was the typical overbore claw mounts often seen on the Gerards & Oigees, but particularly on the Hensoldt Dialyt, being the two widely spaced claws at the front, and the two small claws on the rear leg offset to the left. The main point I was trying to get at is the claws on the front scope mounts are comparatively shallow, and are intended to move slightly in the rifle mount slots to enable windage adjustment. On the other hand, the PPCo overbore mounts of Enfield design are intended to be locked in there as rigidly as possible without any movement whatsoever.Quote:
Originally Posted by Promo
I am always interested to see how particular countries design things to address universal engineering challenges ( BTW, the French are usually the ones on left field). There are many examples where there is incredible focus on theoretical design advantages which absorb huge amounts of machining time and skills to make, but do not actually translate into any practical benefit. These are the sort that could have been done the standard and unimaginative way for a weight penalty of half an ounce, and would be twice as quick to produce etc. There is intrinsically a lot more engineering and manufacturing effort in the Pattern 1918 system than for the equivalent German scopes, but did that translate to tighter groups at 600m? Also how do you separate the rifle's performance from that of the scope mounting system? I would not know from practical experience, but would be keen to know if anyone has done the comparison between P14(T) and German WW1 snipers various. There are comparison trials referred to in the development of the P14(T), but I would have no idea how detailed the surviving records are.
Regarding the 79 Irish contract Patt.18 scoped rifles, as PPCo. became a "ward of the Crown" :D their assets would have been public property and disposed of as such. One guess would be that Aldis Bros. as the related and likely to survive firm were perhaps entrusted with the bits and pieces left over from PPCo. It might well be that Aldis simply purchased what they wanted with the same object on their own initiative, but knowing the generally very conservative approaches taken and the fact there was a great glut of machinery, workers and surplus materiel, how much would anyone have paid for the stuff in 1919/20?
It's equally possible that the finished and unfinished Patt. 18 scopes and mounts were as you say Roger, taken into store at Enfield for use in the maintaining of the rifles and scopes still in service, as it was to be the standard sniping rifle of the Regular Army as we all know.
Considering both recent history and possible future history from the standpoint of the mid-1930s, it does seem more than a bit odd for a government factory to be supplying sniper rifles, or at least just the scopes, to the Irish Free State, so-called! But, odder things have happened, and not long after that... However, would it have been possible for Enfield (that is the WD) to release 79 scopes of the service pattern to BSA for fitting to those rifles? Or if not, did Aldis supply them, and if they did, what if any are the implications of that?
The fact that presumably at least six Patt.18 scopes were found a little later in the decade for fitting to the Ainley rifle prototypes, does suggest there were some on hand "in the system".
One almost has to wonder where those thousands of WWI scopes really ended up, considering how few we see around today and how unlikely it is that such things are destroyed once out of government hands.
I can't help wondering if a good number were actually scrapped post-WWI as not finding any buyers? Who in the generally parsimonious gun trade was likely to buy such stuff in any quantity at that time, considering, as they no doubt did, how many of their past and future clients were either dead or unlikely to ever need or want to buy another gun or rifle, particularly one with a telescopic sight?
One also wonders if the Alex Martin fittings of WWII did not meet a similar fate to the Ross MkIII sniper rifles and scopes, being withdrawn from service during the war, when scrap reclamation policies were followed quite rigorously? How many of that 421 survive, even bearing in mind that some were clearly lost in service as early as Crete in 1941.
Roger, had to get up with all that ton written in here, a tough read where you really have to find the time to go through it without a disturbing call in between. Plus a lot of the discussion focused on very details where I'm surely not the one who can add something.
Re Aldis in PPCo mounts: I was referring to the fact that PPCo when using Aldis scopes on the P.14 rifles they specifically engraved the scopes first of all to match the rifle, secondly with the "FIITED BY THE PPCo". Now that you have an Aldis that is on the PPCo dovetail mount - does that scope also have that "fitted by PPCo" anywhere on it? If not, I wonder why with one mount they did this, but not with the other mount. Could one then probably assume it wasn't PPCo who mounted the Aldis scope to the PPCo dovetail mount?
To Roger and Rob, thanks for the information re the "end" of PPCo. I didn't knew that. Sounds reasonable where they got the parts from. Still a weird thing to imagine Enfield supplying BSA with leftover parts from PPCo and BSA getting the scope tubes marked with their logo.
lmg15, thanks, now understood what you had wanted to say re comparison of the claw mounts with the overbore mount and lateral adjustment. I got your point with which you surely are correct, but please consider that this does NOT apply to ALL German claw mounts. For example the Busch claw mounts most often have a driftable front plate. But even with those that don't have the driftable front plate, remember that the lateral adjustment when properly mounted is usually something you don't need to touch, as well as the maybe minor adjustments done in the rear scope ring would not require large tolerances within the claws. The more I read in here it to me appears as if the British just happened to copy a single and very specific German sniper design that fell into their hands, not even looking at any other (German) pattern mounts nor scopes.
Since you touched the French: they in fact did have sniper rifles in WWI, as did almost all nations aside of the Russians. They in fact have had three different mount patterns for the M1886 M.93 rifle which all were fitted with French made APX scopes (of two different patterns, since one of the three mounts have had a different eye relief), plus one of the three mounts that can also be encountered with the US Winchester A5/B5 scopes. But let us better not start on this as well. I only want to concur with you with the insight on the Austrian Sniper rifle program: they made huge research to proof that a scope on a military rifle not makes any sense, then in WWI discovered the huge advantage of scopes on rifles, quickly changed their mind and requested scoped rifles and at first wanted to take an overbore mount because it was the only one they had been offered in the recent period (what is btw nonsense with a rifle that needs clip loading, so every reload you'll need to take off the scope), then while already trying to contract noticed a German offset pattern mount where they decided to get licenses for and then took over this mount without much testing.
Thanks Promo, also acknowledge your very valid point re the variety of German designs, and the British concentration on only one of them... The Busch ones are interesting as you say with the front plate being a sliding transverse dovetail arrangement. The push button detent arrangement is also a common Busch feature as far as I can see, so does this infer that Busch provided mounts for their own scopes, or another single gunmaker handled the Busch product? This strays away from the Lee Enfields, but I would be interested in more info on the Busch scopes. Best I find the appropriate place to post...
As I have mentioned before, my collecting of WW1 snipers of any nationality has been a long game, where you pick up what you can when you can afford to, and hope a matching rifle or scope turns up. As a result, lots of scopes, a few cases but few complete rigs.
Regarding the Aldis scopes with PPCo dovetail mounts, I have seen a few but they have never had any PPCo markings on either scopes or mounts as per the later overbore types on the P14. I ramble on a bit below, but the bottom line up front is that practicality got in the way, or they just didn't think of it at the time. The rather arcane practicality argument follows:
The only thing I can think of to explain this is that the original PPC scopes were marked with the company details on the scope tube - most probably before the optics and mounts were fitted. The engraving machine would be best set up to roll the empty scope tube past the stationary stylus to evenly engrave the tight diameter involved.
So here's a question - are the PPC rings soldered onto the PPC and Aldis scopes, or just held on using a tight fit and the two grub screws?
If soldered, then the complete Aldis scopes would have had to be stripped out prior to application of heat (it melts the resin cementing the lens couplets together), so it would have been opportune to put the "Mounted by PPCo" engraving on the tube if they had thought of it. If the PPC rings are not soldered on, then I could see it being a pain to do anything more than the bare minimum of removing the objective cell and the range drum turret (a two minute job) and push the new PPC rings on without having to strip out the scope internals.
The smaller diameter rings for the PPC scopes are quite wide and fit the rifle serial number on the front ring and the patent number on the rear ring.
On the other hand, the PPC style rings for the Aldis scopes have a bigger one inch diameter, and the rings are much narrower such that they are difficult to mark (have only ever seen one example with the rifle number in tiny stamps on the rear ring). My theory is that the overall length of the male dovetail / rings is constrained by the length of the female dovetail on the rifle. The narrower width of the rings is then dictated by the amount of room needed by the Aldis's focus adjustment plate to move on its helical slot backwards and forwards, which appears to be more than for the PPC scope. The different position of the Aldis focus plate would also not leave enough room on the scope tube outer surface to fit much engraving between the rings anyway.
Mostly, the rifle serial numbers are neatly engraved on the left side of the PPC mounted Aldis scopes in vicinity of the range drum, and stamped (with some force) on the bottom face of the dovetail. That would indicate the rifle serial on the bottom of the dovetail must have been stamped before the scope was inserted, as otherwise would not be good for delicate optics. One has the rifle number on the rear ring and one has a stamped number on the more solid sections of the male and female dovetails.
Why PPC marked the Aldis scopes in the overbore mounts may have been more of a pride / political move to advertise that PPCo was still relevant in some way, given the Govt takeover. Maybe in the climate of the time, they had more time on their hands to strip down and engrave the Aldis scopes.
All of that said, I have personally only ever seen the P14 Aldis scopes (No.3 and No.4s) marked with the PPC engraving. The SMLE types I have seen (two only)don't appear to have PPC engraving, but the rifle mounts have definitely been soldered to a rifle at some stage. The Aldis No.3 scopes are from the same run, being No70501 and No 70533.
ATB, D.
Gosh, I had to lie down after that! I quite agree with the drift of your deductions above. I suspect the rings were soft soldered with the scopes disassembled. I concur with your points about the markings too, although there is a lot to digest there. I enclose a few photographs that I think may illustrate what you are saying.
Attached are a few photographs showing a 4th Pattern Aldis with 'modified PPCo rings' & showing the neat rifle number that you allude to lmg15. I also enclose a few views of two more similar scopes, but which now lack their rings. They clearly did bear the modified PPCo rings as evidenced by the two small screw holes on the top of the scope where the mount locating screws were positioned. Note these scopes seem to have been engraved 1 to 6 on the range drums & obviously have the prism modification, there being no method of lateral adjustment on the mount system itself. The last scope is another 4th Pattern scope which I believe is one of the ex-SMLE over bore claw mount variety. I may have to rethink my statement above as it does NOT bear the 'Fitted by PPCo London' engraving on the tube, but does bear a neatly engraved rifle serial number on the side of the tube. The number equally clearly is not the serial of a Winchester produced P'14, & I believe this adds supporting evidence to it being an ex-SMLE issue scope. Note the range drum is also engraved 1 to 10 in common with the P'14 issue scopes.
There are also views of the two variations of the dovetail rings to show how necessarily 'slimmed down' those destined for the Aldis were, as well as the thinner wall thickness, necessitated by the Aldis being a one inch diameter tube & the PPCo being just under (understandable if derived from a German 25mm diameter tubed scope).
I hope forummers may find the pictures help illuminate some of what lmg15 is saying. He has expressed himself better than I could, but there is a lot to take in.
Many thanks Roger - a picture tells a thousand words - I should use more of the former and less of the latter! Apologies everyone, but I did warn that it would get arcane. I will post some more photos to illustrate specific points when I can wrangle the technology, but I think you have nailed all of the main points I was trying to make.
Brilliant specimens there. The scope with the M 30xxx series number is interesting. The number would equate to an LSA rifle made mid-ish 1915, or a BSA made in 1940. More likely the former, but may indicate a rifle drawn from stores if built up into an overbore sometime in late 1917 or 1918? ATB, D.
Many thanks; for a rather dry subject you have put it very well indeed! As you say, sometimes a picture helps. The M prefix serialled scope? Yes, I suspect it is likely indicative of a rifle taken from available stores. I know that most surviving examples of WW1 SMLE snipers are built on EFD rifles, although I know of one, & apparently IDS has seen a few, equipments built around BSA rifles. I suspect LSA variants existed as well, the scarcity/absence of identified examples these days just being a consequence of the much lower LSA production totals & therefore numbers converted in the first place, combined with the negligible survival rate.
lmg15, I cannot tell you whether Busch also mounted the scopes but will ask a friend of mine who is very knowledgeable on WWI German sniper stuff. You even have the early and the late pattern of Busch scopes with these rings. I found this out when buying one of these sniper rifles and happily thinking I could fit the spare scope I've had sitting around. Took me two more years to find the correct later pattern.. That however should be a discussion to be held somewhere else, I promise I stop writing on German WWI scopes by myself now, if not needed to answer someone elses question!
To get back on Topic, and to make it a bit more clearer what I was questioning:
1.) PPCo dovetail mount for the SMLE
a) PPCo made scope. This variant also carries the Patent date and rifle number on the mount and "Periscopic Prism Company Ltd London" on the scope tube between the rings.
b) Aldis made scope. This variant does NOT carry the Patent date NOR the rifle number on the mount. The scope on its tube body carries the rifle number.
2.) "PPCo" overbore mount for the P.14/No. 3 (T)
a) PPCo made scope (based on Hensoldt scope). This scope carries "Periscopic Prism Co Ltd Makers London" as well as "1918 Model" plus the rifle serial on the scope tube. No markings on the ring
b) Aldis made scope. This variant additionally carries the "Fitted by PPCo" on the scope tube.
I'm maybe questioning this detail too much, but why would PPCo see the necessity to mark the Aldis scopes with the P.14/No. 3 rifle, but not with the PPCo dovetail mount for the SMLE, as well as not even putting the patent date on the mount?
Additionally, lmg15 one thing worth mentioning: the rifle number on the PPCo dovetail mounted PPCo scopes is of different size and font than the number of the patent date right next to it. And looking at my scopes I'd even suggest the rifle number was later hand engraved on the PPCo dovetail mount. On the PPCo P.14/No. 3 (T) scopes as well as on the Aldis scopes in either mount the rifle number appears to be machine engraved.
The more we discuss, the less I think I know..
May I humbly make a suggestion? It would not resolve all of the confusion over scopes made by PPCo by any means, but it would help. Perhaps if we referred to the Hensoldt derived PPCo produced scope by its official designation of the Model 1918 scope, it will at least serve to lessen the confusion? It arguably isn't really a PPCo scope anyway, it's an Enfield plagiarised German scope produced by not only the PPCo but also AOC & BSA (being charitable in the last case). I'm not normally overly pedantic on nomenclature so long as liberal use of terminology does not cause any confusion, but here use of the official designation might help.
Just a suggestion, but it might help......:thup:
Thanks Roger - good idea!
Promo, I'll try addressing your points directly in Italics:
1.) PPCo dovetail mount for the SMLE
a) PPCo made scope. This variant also carries the Patent date and rifle number on the mount and "Periscopic Prism Company Ltd London" on the scope tube between the rings. Concur. Production markings on the scope and rings are engraved using a rotary burr stylus before final assembly, with patent details fitting comfortably on the 3/4 inch wide ring. Concur your observations regarding the rifle number font - definitely hand engraved using a traditional engraving tool.
b) Aldis made scope. This variant does NOT carry the Patent date NOR the rifle number on the mount. The scope on its tube body carries the rifle number. There is no patent date as there is not enough room on the narrower ring (3/8 inch wide), but a couple of examples are marked with rifle serial in small stamps on the rear ring. Rifle number is also stamped on the more solid sections of the dovetail on most examples. Due to all of the stamping and soldering, the Aldis scopes would have been stripped of internals beforehand to prevent damage. There is no room to fit "Fitted by PPCo" in the usual area on the scope body between the rings due to the larger focus adjustment plate, but there is still plenty of room to engrave that forward of the rings. What is actually on the P14 mounted Aldis tubes is a real mouth full, being FITTED BY / PERISCOPIC PRISM CO.LTD. / LONDON / 1918 engraved on four lines, so a bit of free area is needed for all of that. Why they did not engrave this on the Aldis scopes in dovetail mounts? I do not know, as they had the opportunity if they wanted to. I am thinking there can be only two alternatives:
1. they did not think of it at the time, as maybe the very design sufficiently implied "PPCo", or
2. the one inch dovetail rings were either not made by PPCo and/or not fitted by them. I would probably find the absence of the patent details more odd than the lack of a serial number on these. I have a set of virgin unfitted dovetail rings for the Aldis scope, and it bears no manufacturing marks whatsoever.
2.) "PPCo" overbore mount for the P.14/No. 3 (T)
a) PPCo made scope (based on Hensoldt scope). This scope carries "Periscopic Prism Co Ltd Makers London" as well as "1918 Model" plus the rifle serial on the scope tube. No markings on the ring. Concur.
b) Aldis made scope. This variant additionally carries the "Fitted by PPCo" on the scope tube. The FITTED BY / PERISCOPIC PRISM CO.LTD. / LONDON / 1918 engraving would be a nice touch on the P14 Aldis scopes, but why not do this for the similar overbore Aldis scopes for SMLE? I could only guess. The only thing I can think of is that PPCo or the WO had a sudden flash of inspiration in 1918 to ensure the fitting contractor was identifiable. As I mentioned earlier, there may have been some politics to demonstrate that PPCo was actually producing something.
I have not been able to glean exactly when the Govt took over PPCo, but was during the first half of 1918? The reason I mention it is that PPCo is still trading as a "Company Limited", meaning that the shareholding is limited. Does that mean the previous shareholders various, or did the Government become the single shareholder? IDS indicates that PPCo was under the "management of the Ministry of Munitions", or was it ownership?
I'm maybe questioning this detail too much, but why would PPCo see the necessity to mark the Aldis scopes with the P.14/No. 3 rifle, but not with the PPCo dovetail mount for the SMLE, as well as not even putting the patent date on the mount? There can never be too much detail Promo...
ATB, D.
May I start Thursday with an apology & an explanation? To borrow Madzi's expression, I've just had a 'eureka moment', at least in a minor sense....
I was pretty certain that both the Aldis scopes destined for the P'14 & the SMLE in the claw mounts were attributable to the PPCo, at least to the confirmation of fitting. It was a shock when I looked at my example off a SMLE (one of those illustrated in an earlier posting) to find that there was no 'Fitted by....' on the scope tube. This perplexed me, until the penny dropped this morning. The SMLE/Aldis/Claw Mount scope WAS overtly attributed to the PPCo., but it was marked NOT on the scope tube. (I had not looked at the scope in question for some time & had forgotten about the location of markings). The chapter & verse on the scopes destined for the SMLE was engraved on the leg of the rear mount. I cannot remember from memory if it was in precisely the same format as engraved on the tubes of the scopes destined for the P'14, but I think it was, or it only differed slightly. Significantly, the date engraved on these, at least on the sole example of which I am aware, is 1919. This again, was behind my earlier comment that I believe the two systems were set up approximately contemporaneously, or perhaps the SMLE system immediately after the P'14's.
I have a photograph of an engraved part set of the SMLE claw mounts stored somewhere that the late Bruce Gorton sent to me about twenty five years ago. At this time we discussed this system a lot. I had mentioned my 'three quarters set' as being finished but in the white & devoid of markings, which prompted him to send me the photograph. I am afraid I cannot remember if the marked part set belonged to Bruce, or was simply one that he was aware of, but I'm sure I still have the photograph somewhere & I will endeavour to find it & attempt to reproduce it here for the interest of anyone who might be.....
But first I must go to Birmingham Proof House, & then keep my wife happy by putting the vacuum cleaner round..........so, until later:madsmile:
(I would suspect that I was developing dementia were it not for the fact that my memory has always been terrible! Apologies for not recalling this sooner.......).
lmg15, may I be evil and add an alternative to the SMLE PPCo mounted Aldis scope: The Aldis scope for the PPCo dovetail mount were not equipped with the scope ring at PPCo, but at another company and therefore do not have the same marking on the tube as with the PPCo mount for the P.14/No. 3 (T) rifle. Or do the contracts show something differently?
Strewth, I've read this all three times.....some is sinking in, other bits are just confusing.....but all in all a wealth of knowledge with a bit of supposition.
Just need someone to put it all in a logical sequence.
Promo, this possibility has cropped up in discussion before (though not, I think, on the forum) - it is entirely possible the rings were made by another company, & I too, would be interested to see what lmg15 thinks of this.
Is it possible that the enlarged PPCo. type mounts are in fact the "Bartle" mounts? If they were PPCo. made and fitted, why would they not have marked them as per their other production?
If the design of the basic PPCo. system was licensed while PPCo. were still a private outfit, all that was required was their agreement and a license fee if any. If their patents were company property, then the government got them when it took the company over and could presumably license them to whoever they saw fit, including perhaps Bartle?
Anyway, I'm thinking out loud here without time to go back over the materials, so may be well off target! ;)
Fellow forum member Bindi2 has asked me to post pictures of his Aldis scope in here, along with the scope rings he has. I have already told him these scope rings are Evans scope rings. The focal adjustment of his Aldis scope is something I've never seen before, maybe someone else has?
PS: Rob, finally someone dared to say this! I'll however let others speak on it..
Edit: forgot to address this today:
This is GREAT information. IF PPCo also marked the SMLE overbore mount somewhere with their name, it would make it nearly impossible that PPCo also mounted the Aldis scopes to the "PPCo dovetail" mount and NOT put their name on it anywhere. The plot thickens.. And Roger, if you find any picture of this, please do share it. That would be great to see, thanks!Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Payne