Rifle No. 3 (fomer P14) with Warner & Swasey scope

[Riter]

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.

Information

Warning: This is a relatively older thread This discussion is older than 360 days. Some information contained in it may no longer be current.

[JGaynor]

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"

[JGaynor]

Figured it out

[Promo]

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.

[Surpmil]

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.

[Promo]

the remaining No.3 Mk.I(T) rifles

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.


BTW, I don't think he'd loose an eye. That eye relief is how it is supposed to be with W&S scopes.

[Surpmil]

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.


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.

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.

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.

[Promo]

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.

[Surpmil]

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.

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?

[Promo]

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:

The photo is posed and if the rifle was fired as shown the shooter would lose an eye.

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.
Though please now let us get back on topic since this discussion is not what the original poster has asked upon.