Printable View
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.