Does anybody have an image of the Rifle No. 3 with the Warner & Swasey scope. These were former P14 Enfields that had surplus WW I Warner & Swasey scopes mounted on them and used by the Canadians in WW II.
Printable View
Does anybody have an image of the Rifle No. 3 with the Warner & Swasey scope. These were former P14 Enfields that had surplus WW I Warner & Swasey scopes mounted on them and used by the Canadians in WW II.
I just uploaded a photo such as you seek. Haven't used to photo service on this site before so I am not sure how to pin the pic to this thread it is in my gallery (only one) and it is entitled "Canadian Rifle No. 3 w/ WS Scope"Quote:
Originally Posted by Riter
Figured it out :madsmile:
There is another image of exactly the same rifle JGaynor had posted. It is pretty obviously this rifle uses the same rail system as found on Ross Rifle and M1903. The British though had a drawing for a mount which was very different from what we see in the two pictures of the same rifle.
Clive Law dealt with this in his book: the 1st Canadian Division took something like 80 loose W&S scopes with them when they went to the UK in 1939/40. Apparently new bases were made up for fitting to P14s, but we don't yet know when and where.
The rifles were still on issue in 1943 and the Canadians took them to Italy, despite their flaws - one of which is on display here: lack of eye relief. The photo is posed and if the rifle was fired as shown the shooter would lose an eye.
One can see from the surviving photos how few No4(T)s had actually been converted (or issued) up to late 1943: the No.4(T)s shown are usually either trials rifles or other early production rifles, and this accords with the inventory of sniping rifles on issue in late 1943. As I recall there were few more No4(T)s than the 1400 trials rifles; the balance was the 421 Alex Martin P14s and the remaining No.3 Mk.I(T) rifles not lost in France in 1940.
I suspect something happened to interrupt production early on: in later 41 or early 42, wherever it was. That or a decision was taken somewhere in the Ministries to "make do" with what was already on hand "until later". "Later" soon arrived in the form of Italy and then Normandy loomed and suddenly the rush was on?
Meanwhile No.32 Mk.I's cheerfully rolled out in their thousands and went into storage somewhere.
I think there wasn't much left. After all they gave Northern Ireland the remaining stock of those, and even these weren't enough, so BSA set up additional rifles.Quote:
Originally Posted by Surpmil
BTW, I don't think he'd loose an eye. That eye relief is how it is supposed to be with W&S scopes.
I owned one of the 500 Canadian issue W&S so have some idea whereof I speak. ;) Like any scope without excessive parallax, you could hold your head back and use less than the full FoV and still hit the target, but if you had your eye fully up into the eyecup to get the full FoV, you'd better have a rock-solid hold on the rifle or you'd be -----d.Quote:
Originally Posted by Promo
And that is why as we can see in old photos, snipers sometimes cut the eyecup short; it's only useful function was to exclude light or fool you into thinking you could put face into it and come away unscathed. :D
But there are worse; the Alex Martin scope that was fitted to a couple of prize L.E. Mk.I's circa 1900 is basically a theodolite beautifully mounted to the side of a rifle and has about zero eye relief! How that ever got past the "experts" of the time I do not know.
I own two of the Canadian W&S telescopes and a dozen more US W&S scopes of both models with the same eye relief and overall are five of them on rifles I own, therefore I also do know what I speak of. The shooter will not loose an eye as you had suggested. It is uncomfortable shooting with the rubber eyecup but they do not poke you in the eye.
Yes, I know and congratulations! I'm not sure that quantity will have any bearing on the matter though.;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Promo
References to "someone will lose an eye" etc. are a common rhetorical expression in English so take it in that light, but as I said, anything less than a very solid grip on the rifle the shooter will be in trouble.
There were references to the eye cup adhering to the shooter's face due to suction being created, but with the holes provided to prevent that it does seem a bit unlikely, unless it predated the addition of the holes(?) Might have been Brophy or one of the early writers who made mention of that.
Just to be clear the danger comes from the very short eye relief, not the eye-shade itself. There are references to this in Iriam or McBride IIRC.
What did you think of yours Jim?
I neither see any sense that quantity would change qualification of my reply, this was more a reaction to your claim that you once owned one of those and based on this said:
This lead me to the reply that I have personal experiences with these scopes myself, to mention that I do have first hand experiences myself, plus the simple fact that what you said is wrong - the shooter will NOT loose an eye when firing the rifle.Quote:
Originally Posted by Surpmil
Though please now let us get back on topic since this discussion is not what the original poster has asked upon.
Yes I did, No.310 as I recall, in the case, but could post photos if you want supporting evidence for my "claim" :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Promo
Have you fired a Ross Mk.III with W&S scope mounted?
As for the P14s with W&S mounted, I've posted before that I have reliable reports of one on the loose here in Canada in the 1960s. My guess would be that it was brought back by a soldier or a battalion as IIRC a document posted here previously refers to a British requirement that non-No.4 sniper rifles be turned in to stores as No.4(T)s were issued to replace them in late 1943 and early 1944.
From that we can conclude that either there were not sufficient No.4(T)s on hand to equip the Canadian Army sent to Italy, (quite likely in view of the comparative absence of No4(T)s from the late 1943 inventory) or they chose not to turn in the non-No.4 sniper rifles, presumably on the grounds that more would always be better, and since nothing better had been issued after two years of marking time in the UK, probably nothing more would!?
AFAIK, no collector in Canada has publicly stated that they own a P14 with W&S scope and that would tend to suggest they were all(?) scrapped. If by chance the serial numbers of those 80 odd scopes should ever show up on some document, we could at least determine if any of the 30+ known survivors from the 500 W&S scopes are among them, and that would in turn tell something about the fate of the rifles as almost all of those scopes have been found in Canada.
Rob, I did not test fire my M1910 with the W&S telescope, mainly for a lack of time and no interest in always having to zero a gun first when going to the shooting range (therefore I only have a very few guns from my collection that I actually use).
The big headscratcher regarding this sniper rifle is the fact that we have:
a) written documentation that scopes were shipped to the UK and a UK drawing dating 7-2-40 (not sure if in UK this means 7nd February or 2nd November, but at least 1940 is for sure) showing a mount consisting of two bases attached to a P.14 receiver with a connecting dovetail to which the W&S scope would slide upon versus
b) the only pictured rifle existing is the same one two times and which has the Ross Rifle bracket modified to fit the P.14 receiver, absolutely not using what the UK drawing shows
So this leaves either:
a) the drawn mount was actually never used and instead the original Ross Rail was used (filed so that the feet would sit on the receiver plus milling a bit off the rear sight protector ears)
b) both types of mounts were used - what I consider not this likely, for the fact that if 80 ever were set up, well then at least one should turn up, or at least with corresponding holes - for either of the mounts
c) none were ever set up and that single unit was just propaganda and since it was easier the original Ross Rail was used, again with modifications per a)
.. or is there any other possibility that I may forgot upon?
Edit: For whatever reason the upload will not work. Had tried to attach a picture of the original drawing.
Clive Law wrote that inventories showed 385 scopes and 208 rifles in store in Canada in the 1930s, and reproduced a letter from the Canadian MGO to the then Chief of Staff suggesting making up additional bases so that "nearly 400" sets could be put into service for training; no date is given, or reference for the letter cited, but presumably this was in 1939.
And so Law states, "a programme was instituted to manufacture, at the Quebec Arsenal, 177 additional mounts to allow for as great an issue [of complete rifles] as possible...". (385-208=177)
Law states that the 80 scopes brought to the UK by the 1st Canadian Division, "...then had the mounts removed and new mounts made to fit the No.3 Mk.I rifles...." He also states that in May 1940 an additional 80 W&S sights were requested", but he does not say if they were in fact delivered. Clearly a misstatement to say that the mounts were "removed" as if they had been present there would have been no need to make up 177.
So, taking that 80 from the 385 scopes in store, we have 305 left and at least 211 rifles. However, we know some new bases were fitted to Ross rifles in Canada as an inventory in December 1943 showed "267 rifle and sight combinations in Canada", this "...despite continuing deliveries to the Canadian Army (Overseas) of the W&S sights..."
No reference or details are given of these "continuing deliveries", but presumably it cannot have been more than 305 - 267 = 38. Personally I doubt there were any more than the original 80 sent, unless something less than 38 for spares or replacements, and logically more of those would have been needed in Canada than in the UK.
Not impossible that more scopes were later found in store somewhere in Canada though, considering the rifles and scopes were at one point stored in different provinces! Also, 115 (500-385) does seem like a high loss/scrap rate, considering most of the sets didn't go to France in WWI and we have no evidence of even training use in Canada or the UK. However, the scopes that saw service in France may have been scrapped as BER even if they weren't just because no one wanted such things in the years immediately following WWI and there was no money to overhaul them. That said, there are so many mechanical weaknesses in the design that correcting for wear and tear in the mounts was difficult if not impossible; wear in the adjusting cam particularly.
Making up bases for the P14 would have been easy enough for any one of thousands of little firms in the U.K. at that time. Fitting would have been a bit specialized, but there were armourers with the skills. Could also have been done at RSAF Enfield, or contracted out to the gun trade. The 1st Can. Div. arrived in the UK in December 1939, so the work might have been done in early 1940 when the Phony War was on and firms were operating more or less on a peace-time basis.
If I had to bet, it would be that they were done in the Canadian workshops in the UK. RSAF(E) was working on the No4(T) ex-trials rifles presumably, so doing them "in house" would have avoided a lot of bureaucratic delays probably.
The only other possibility I can think of is that ex-Springfield bases could have been purchased in the USA and modified to fit, if that was required. I wouldn't be surprised if the surplus dealers in the USA still had hundreds if not thousands of W&S scopes on hand, and probably most went for scrap once the USA geared up war production and scrap prices rose.
Or possibly the "Quebec Arsenal" made up the P14 bases in the event, since they definitely made up some for the Ross Mk.III and we know that unless more scopes were found in store, 177 bases for the Ross Mk.III were not needed as 177-80=97! The very fact that 177 precisely were ordered suggests no provision was made for spares.
Somewhere in the files there should be press/PR photos taken in 1940-42 showing those P14's being used in training in the UK, if they had been completed in 1940-41.
If someone was to dig into the records of RSAF(E), now presumably at Leeds, there might be some clues about this. And of course there might be more in Canada as well.
Thread move way off original topic. ;)
Closed.... :thup:
Regards,
Doug