My ‘Elenor’...
Tried to embed but it won’t let me. Enjoy anyway...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JlzIc4MzqPs
Printable View
My ‘Elenor’...
Tried to embed but it won’t let me. Enjoy anyway...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JlzIc4MzqPs
Here then...Quote:
Originally Posted by amadeus76
Heavy But Effective: Britains No4 MkI (T) Sniper Rifle - YouTube
I'm afraid this gent means well and certainly does make some interesting videos, but there is a tendency to extemporize or "make stuff up".
"The British knew that they were going to want a sniper rifle built on this platform before they had actually even put the No4 MkI rifle into production...." Well, from the documents that have surfaced, no, the SAC was messing about with the pie-in-the-sky Ainley Rifle and at the same time telling Col. Acland in 1938 that there was no General Staff Requirement for a new snipers rifle and if there ever was, "well, don't call us, we'll call you."
So after Dunkirk and the failure to re-embark a certain quanity of hardware, they grabbed the equally futile No32 MkI designed for the Bren - futile on the Bren that is - and got Enfield to draw up a mount for it on the No4 - P.D.Q - and of course the only No4s on hand were the trials examples, and so the birth of the legend and it call came together pretty well. The cheek rest of course came quite a bit later and H&H didn't make up the first ones, etc. etc.
Like his video on the Lee Metford, where there was a mish-mash about Joseph Speed and his patents, position etc. I'm afraid I stopped watching at this point. I have to ask myself if there are as many errors of fact in the other videos?
With all the published material on the Lee Enfield and the No4(T) etc., it would be a good idea to read the same before sitting down to make a video.
Or is it more a question of churning out a constant stream of new material to maintain the Youtube momentum and concomitant revenues??
I agree Rob. The same holds true of some of the mythology perpetrated over and over again in his L42 video. I'm more astounded that the rifle brought over $9k at the RIA. I wonder if the video had anything to do with that not to mention the esteemed former owner is Alan Cors, the former President of the NRA who I know.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Surpmil
Surpmil, can I ask exactly where this info came from? I mean, for people like me still being fresh to it all his videos are about as good as it gets to get a straight answer without people arguing about this that or the other. What are the go-to resources for the No4 (T) to stop this kind of thing happening?
The "go-to resources" are "The British Sniper" by Ian Skennerton, and "An Armourer's Perspective: .303 No.4(T) Sniper Rifle and the Holland & Holland Connection" by Peter Laidler. "Without Warning", by Clive Law is devoted to the Canadian equipment and experience, but has some very interesting information not found elsewhere on other matters as well. For example the inventory of sniper rifles taken in British and Commonwealth forces in late 1943, which showed that there was absolutely no chance H&H was producing 800 rifles a month as their contract reportedly stipulated, more like about 200. A comparison of rifle dates and scopes dates would confirm that I suspect.
The Acland case is from the minutes of the Small Arms Committee in the Public Record Office, Kew. I've posted those here in the past. It is merely an incident, but it shows the thinking of the time. I think Skennerton alludes to this on page. 94, but the following paragraph infers the Ainley rifle was referred to, but that doesn't seem right since the Ainley mounted the Patt. 18 scope, unlike the special-ordered Zeiss on the Acland rifle which he refers to as a "German telescope".
From the published sources, things ambled along between Oct. 1939 and May 1940 when suddenly every kind of small arm was needed to replace the losses in France. Canada was asked for scope sighted Rosses, but had none to spare. Someone (Simon?) kindly posted here in the past various drawings for many of the odd combinations that were considered around this time to make use what kit was left.
Things were so desperate that the 30 or 40 scoped WWI rifles in the Pattern Room collection were appropriated for at least training.
Ok thank you very much for clarifying that Surpmil. I have heard little about 'Without Warning' but was under the impression it was more of a story than perhaps a historical book. I suppose quite often it will be both. I have however never heard of this "Acland Case". Anyway thanks mate. Know what I need to get my hands on next.
Stumbled across these photos recently: Col. Acland's rifle he submitted to the Small Arms Committee in 1938 came up for auction in 2017.
The scope is a modified Zeiss Zielvier. Zeiss offered both elevation and windage drums on the Zielvier as an option between the wars - IIRC the Soviets bought some and in part derived the PE scopes from those.
Anyway, here is Acland's special order scope (the auctioneers for some unknown reason referred to as a "G.Z.", a term used only on the pre-WWI prismatics), with it's dual drums/knobs, sliding lens hoods and markings engraved on the edge of the drum. This may be the first instance of that, so perhaps something was learned from him that went into the No.32 after all. I don't believe Zeiss ever offered that feature on the Zielvier for civilian or military use. Very odd, as the functionality of it must be obvious to anyone.
So either the S.A.C. knew that development of the Ainley rifle was still under way and they were fobbing Acland off with excuses, or unknown to the Committee, RSAF(E) was riding their .276 P.13 hobby horse right to the end of the road, despite Sir Charles Ross and his .280 bête noir being long gone.:rolleyes:
And by way of context, here is a clipping from 1938.
That is highly interesting! The Zeiss G.Z. 4x scope was a special variant of the Zielvier scope with additional lateral adjustment. The largest quantity was sold to Russia, but Finland also bought 25 of these scopes for the M.28/33 (sometimes also M.33) sniper rifle for the homeguard. It seems that this scope dates very shortly post the Finnish contract scope. The scope on this rifle has serial 47.060 whereas my Finnish scope has serial 47.018. I also noted the scopes elevation ring has the markings on the outside of the cylinder and not atop, completely different from the other G.Z. 4x scopes.
Attached pictures of two of my G.Z. 4x scopes, to show that this was not a typo but this was the correct model designation.
PS: The PE scope has its design based in the Busch Visar scopes and not the Zeiss scopes.
What did the "G.Z." represent in this case Promo?
As for the design of the PE, I was thinking of the adjustments, not the optics, as I've referred to that connection here before. ;) https://www.milsurps.com/showthread....l=1#post468270
We can't see much, but the mounts bear some possible resemblance to those supplied to the Soviets in the early 30s and mounted on Ross MkIIIs and Mosin-Nagants.