Trilux Sight pouches

Both versions of the trilux sight pouch would seem to be relatively uncommon on the collector's market which perhaps suggests that not that many were ever made, back in the day. This got me wondering which soldiers got issued with a Trilux sight and how was it decided who did and who did not get issued with one and also what sort of numbers were issued. All that I could find online is that the Trilux sight was issued to "army marksmen" which doesn't really tell me much as it gives no clue as to numbers and I have no indication if this information is accurate in any case.

Thanks for any replies and information on this.

We were only ever issued them in Ireland, never saw them anywhere else.

I have one for my SLR, I also have an L5A1 night vision scope, Hythe sight to complete the line up

Only the very few SUITS were issued, generally to the very few unfortunates. But the pouches seemed to be, well....., everywhere - and used for...., well..., everything! Those very few were the the very unlucky.

There was a favourite saying among the crunchies that Q. '.....how do you make a ****-poor shooter"? You start off with an expert shooter and give him a SUIT sight"!

SUIT = Shooter Usually In Trouble

Those of us who have struggled with these over the years, and eventually fixed, or at least learnt to deal with, issues ranging from impossible to zero/wondering zero, to rivet failures (with the inevitable SUIT head bounce) have sort of come to love the humble SUIT.

I have three, ones never worked particularly well, one works fine with the .22 conversion kit ( but wonders in full bore) and the remaining early example works very well.

I never remove it from its top cover though, it works so I leave it well alone!

The sight is a curious design though, when you consider how beautifully thought out and engineed the Inch pattern is, the SUIT is a little heath Robinson....

To be honest, I can shoot just as well/ poorly with my MK1 eyeball and Hythe sight.

The problem wasn't with the actual SIGHT part. The sight part formed the basis of the lovely(?) L11 and L12 rubber (semi/doubtfully) armoured binos and the well liked SUSAT. It was the bluddy application - or in the case of the SUIT, the interface between the cover and the actual sight unit. And the total lack of basic savvy of the bloke who thought that putting a 1pound sight unit on a pressed steel not even reinforced top cover would cope with the inertial moments it would receive. Yep, it was mounted onto a substantial plate - but STILL on the bluddy tin top cover!!!!!!! I ask you.

Want to hear about the binos.......?

The same was with the L11 and 12 binos. Great when they were accurately collimated but dear o' deary me......, once the collimation had failed you were left with two x6 telescopes! They could only be re-collimated at well equipped Field or Command/Base workshops. That's because they were collimated using contra rotating cams - yep, two sets of them on the axis bar. The old No2 and No5 binos used the well tried and tested and waterproofable eccentrically mounted OG lens assemblies

There, some more useless not even Enfield related kit!

Please do keep it coming Peter, its all fascinating stuff to us mate!

In our lot they usually went to section commanders, who used them for observation only. Seldom did anyone actually do any shooting with them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mrclark303

Those of us who have struggled with these over the years, and eventually fixed, or at least learnt to deal with, issues ranging from impossible to zero/wondering zero, to rivet failures (with the inevitable SUIT head bounce) have sort of come to love the humble SUIT.

I have three, ones never worked particularly well, one works fine with the .22 conversion kit ( but wonders in full bore) and the remaining early example works very well.

I never remove it from its top cover though, it works so I leave it well alone!

The sight is a curious design though, when you consider how beautifully thought out and engineed the Inch pattern is, the SUIT is a little heath Robinson....

To be honest, I can shoot just as well/ poorly with my MK1 eyeball and Hythe sight.

---

Do you use it without the radioactive gas content and will they work ok without it? Thanks

Quite a few threads on this one in the past F10, basically long expired original Tritium Vials is the issue, the simple answer for me is I have just let mine be, as I only kill paper targets during the day and the sight works perfectly well (or not, that's entirely subjective) during the day without it.

You can get a replacement ugly nasty Led insert that replaces the tritium whatsit housing thingy (stop me if i'm getting too technical), or replace the original vial with a luminous fishing lure bulb....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flying10uk

Both versions of the trilux sight pouch would seem to be relatively uncommon on the collector's market which perhaps suggests that not that many were ever made, back in the day.

---

There's a third type that predates the nylon type. It was made of the same butyl rubber material as the early 1970's trials webbing set. (1975 PLCE - aka '1972 Pattern') Here's my one.

Attachment 99264Attachment 99265Attachment 99263

I have two of the nylon pouches: one olive green and the other grey. They were made of the same material as the late 1970's trials nylon 1958 Pattern webbing set.