British issue Winchester A5 and unknown scope with Enfield inspected mount

[breakeyp]

Thanks to Dr. Payne, I was able to identify the Winchester A5 (the longer one) telescope as being British WWI issue. It has the red paint filled rifle number engraved on the tube body.

The A5 tube has an interesting screw addition to the tube. A boss and screw has been added--issue or post issue??????

The shorter (2 inches shorter than the A5) telescope is unmarked. The rings are Enfield inspected and broad arrowed. Does anyone have a guess as to who made the shorter scope?

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.

[jmoore]

I want to say that the shorter one is a later (still pre-WWII) Winchester scope placed in A5 rings. I don't think its a B5.

Here's a link to an article (PDF, so it'll take a while to load) which states that some of these later scopes went to England during WWII. Maybe it replaced an A5 tube?

http://asoac.org/bulletins/93_rausch_scoped.pdf

[Badger]

The mount shown on that short A5 scope is very rare if the markings are authentic, which they appear to be. The mount could originally be off a 1916 ShtLE (Short Lee-Enfield) No.1 MkIII* Sniper Rifle c/w Winchester A5 (5 Power) Offset Scope (Mfg by RSAF Enfield), as shown in an "all correct" example along with a 240 picture photo montage in the United Kingdom - Knowledge Library

(Click PIC to Enlarge)

(Click PIC to Enlarge)

Regards,
Badger

[Surpmil]

On the A5s I've seen/had that is where there are two ovoid holes in the tube inside of which is a recessed screw head.

The forward of the two holes is the screw for locking the erector cell (focussing the reticule). The hole close to the eyepiece was for a locking screw that supposedly held the reticule block in place.

The screw has a reverse-bevel on the head and is supposedly locked in position by turning it counter-clockwise so that the bevelled shoulder of the screw presses against the inside edges of the ovoid hole in the scope tube. The reticule block is very thin steel and the screw soon strips out with a bit of encouragement. [Slight correction as pointed out to me by valleysniper: the screw of course does not contact the tube, but spreads the split ring or collar which in turn bears against the inside of the tube. As per the photos below of course.]

A pretty mickey-mouse system, but then the A5 is a mickey-mouse scope...even for 1914.

The only good part of the design is that the reticule is on a piece of very thin brass which slips into the steel housing and can be replaced or changed fairly easily.

No doubt the block is an attempt to make this system a little more solid by either replacing the screw or adding another, depending on where the hole is. On this scope the holes are 7 o'clock. On the B4(?) scope above (the lower one) they seem to be at about 11/12 o'clock which makes more sense as the scope wouldn't have to be taken off the rifle to fiddle with them. Of course rain and moisture would pour right in the holes, whereas at 7 o'clock you've got a chance to catch the drops before they roll down that far!

One last thought: perhaps the reticule was moved forward on the scope above for some reason as your block does seem to be a bit farther forward than the rearmost hole on the scope I am looking at.

[Devils Own]

G'Day folks

This thread is really relevant for me this week.

I took out my SMLE MKIII with A5 at the weekend and shot about 200 rounds on the falling plate - so it was fairly tested. After a while something came loose in the tube and started wobbling about and blocking the view. Tuirned out that the reticle retaining ring had come loose and free. The stupid little screw holding it in place had obviously not done its job. It's a piece of history but as Surpmil says, it's a Mickey Mouse scope. I would have been happier with a 9c aperture sight in a trench. Even with the slippage through the mounts, the recoil would play havoc with the construction - I can easily see why breakeyp's scope has the modification if it was getting any kind of major use it wouldn't have stayed in place. I might add a little something myself.

Thanks for posting those pics Surpmil, they'll be really helpful to me for putting it back together again. Fortunately the cross hairs didn't get bent.

Cheers

Steve

---------- Post added at 10:34 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:31 AM ----------

Re: the first post: Is it not unusual to have both the red paint number and the ownership markings on the mount?

Steve

[Roger Payne]

G'Day folks

This thread is really relevant for me this week.

I took out my SMLE MKIII with A5 at the weekend and shot about 200 rounds on the falling plate - so it was fairly tested. After a while something came loose in the tube and started wobbling about and blocking the view. Tuirned out that the reticle retaining ring had come loose and free. The stupid little screw holding it in place had obviously not done its job. It's a piece of history but as Surpmil says, it's a Mickey Mouse scope. I would have been happier with a 9c aperture sight in a trench. Even with the slippage through the mounts, the recoil would play havoc with the construction - I can easily see why breakeyp's scope has the modification if it was getting any kind of major use it wouldn't have stayed in place. I might add a little something myself.

Thanks for posting those pics Surpmil, they'll be really helpful to me for putting it back together again. Fortunately the cross hairs didn't get bent.

Cheers

Steve

---------- Post added at 10:34 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:31 AM ----------

Re: the first post: Is it not unusual to have both the red paint number and the ownership markings on the mount?

Steve

Steve,
It seems the photos from surpmil couldn't have come at a better time! I would also agree that of the relatively few military issue A5's I've seen I have never as yet come across an example withboth the red infilled serial number AND the examiner's marks together. However, that's not to say they don't exist. It is also possible that the rings are not original to that particular scope, of course.
I would concur with milsurp that the lower scope is not a B4. I have one & it is clearly marked up on the tube in the same fashion as the A5's.

ATB

[breakeyp]

Thanks to all for the help. Thanks Mr. Moore for the Winchester scope article. My dial up could not handle it and I finally got my lady friend to copy it for me. At first read, it would appear that my unmarked scope is a Winchester made up just pre WWII and that the British Gov't purchased all Winchester had for WWII. When I get the chance, I will compare the inspection markings on the rings vs. markings on WW1 and WWII Colts to see if the rings are WW1 or WWII.

[Surpmil]

From my reading of the article, the scopes purchased in WWII were not A5 or B4 models as all the remaining parts, jigs, drawings etc. had been sold to Lyman in 1928. What was sold was .22 rifles with various cheap versions of the A5 - if that's not a contradiction in terms - fitted to them which were made by a relatively unknown NY firm.

Hard to say what those were used for - sniper training? The "British Resistance Movement" under Brig. Colin Gubbins? SOE?

I should amend my remarks about the second scope in the OP. It cannot be a B3 or B4. Perhaps one of the models referred to in the article linked about, but inserted into earlier rings.

[jmoore]

You do have to keep an eye on that screw, but generally they just start to go out of focus first. Mine have a witness line to make sure things are staying in place.

[jmoore]

Here's a bit ripped from the article referenced above.

http://asoac.org/bulletins/93_rausch_scoped.pdf :

Watrous noted that “The balance of Winchester’s 2 3/4
and 5 power ‘scopes on hand were used on special M/67
and M/69 rifles and sold to the British Government early in

World War No. 2 for home guard use.”

6 In addition, Pugsley

noted that “Due to war restrictions none [telescope sights]

were used during World War #2.”

3 Many of the factoryscoped

.22 caliber Winchester rifles this writer has observed

have British proofs. It appears that scopes remaining in
inventory were supplied with cataloged models and other
guns that went to Great Britain. This was a great way for
Winchester to unload discontinued inventory at a profit. Of
the 17 Winchester factory-scoped rifles in this writer’s collection,
four have British proofs: a Model 697, a Model 677
(along with military broad arrow and Royal Navy “N”), and the
Models 61 and 62 discussed above. In addition, two factoryscoped
Model 67 rifles are serial numbered in a style usually
associated with Australia.
Winchester conducted a parts cleanup and assembly of
rifles in early- to mid-1941 and shipped the guns to Britain.
The production numbers for the Models 677 and 697 provide
evidence to support this supposition. While the Model 677
was withdrawn from the market in 1939,

6 925 guns were

assembled in 1941.

7 This one year accounted for over half the

Model 677 production. The production numbers for the

Model 697 are similar. Five hundred forty-seven guns were
assembled in 1941,

13 over a third of the total production.

Based on the production numbers in prior years, it is obvious

that these guns were not assembled for the U.S. market...

The problem identifying the scope in question (the lower one) is that Winchester contracted them out, but the only marks on them are the nominal power. It is a "Winchester" scope, just not mfg. until about WWII!

All you can do to catagorize this specimen is to describe it. The scopes are, in actual fact, nameless!