Battlesight apature...

[amadeus76]

So I replaced the stamped rear sight on my Lee-Enfield No.4 with a milled No.4/No.5 adjustable sight as I was told is more proper. And one of the big thing that stands out is the larger peep on the sight when it's down. Is there a specific reason the peep sight was enlarged? It's almost like ghost sight on a shotgun.

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.

[CINDERS]

Quick target acquisition I feel, when you use the battle sight it is sighted for the spike bayonet to be affixed on the rifle. If you want to try this zero the the rifle with the micrometer sight at 300yds then affix the spike bayonet then with the sight still raised fire a couple of rounds to see where they strike. Then drop the sight to the battle sight with the spike still attached and have a couple of shots.

[browningautorifle]

Lee-Enfield No.4 with a milled No.4/No.5 adjustable sight

Of course you know those are two different sights? The #5 is graduated to 800 yds only... And yes, the large aperture is for quick target acquisition.

[Parashooter]

Of course you know those are two different sights? The #5 is graduated to 800 yds only...

Watch the orthography, Wolfgang: aperture.

[amadeus76]

http://www.milsurps.com/images/impor.../2943p13-1.jpg
Watch the orthography, Wolfgang: aperture.

Dan it... I was led to understand they were the sight was interchangeable for the No.4 and No. 5.

[amadeus76]

I found a "Lee Enfield No4 'Savage' Singer Pattern Rear Sight" that looks correct. It's marked out to 1300m and looks just like the above photo except the upper right hand corner is marked with an 'S' instead of an 'F'... Would this be correct?

[Parashooter]

Dan it... I was led to understand they were the sight was interchangeable for the No.4 and No. 5.

I found a "Lee Enfield No4 'Savage' Singer Pattern Rear Sight" that looks correct. It's marked . . . with an 'S' instead of an 'F'... Would this be correct?

They are all correct. Whoever made the sight is totally academic.

So the 800m sight is correct for the rifle? I'm so confused...

Seems to me amadeus misconstrued Capt. Laidler's "all" as "all types" rather than "all makers". Perhaps he missed "Whoever made the sight is totally academic."

I suspect the basic problem is varying definitions of "correct". To a practical armorer, any authorized part (regardless of maker) that fits and functions appropriately is "correct". To a rabid collector of the part-swapping persuasion, only items that would have been present at original manufacture are "correct". To me, a "correct" military arm is one in a condition it had while in active service, including any repairs by military armorers.

[Eaglelord17]

I suspect the basic problem is varying definitions of "correct". To a practical armorer, any authorized part (regardless of maker) that fits and functions appropriately is "correct". To a rabid collector of the part-swapping persuasion, only items that would have been present at original manufacture are "correct". To me, a "correct" military arm is one in a condition it had while in active service, including any repairs by military armorers.

This is a issue I have recently taken to changing my own terminology for to try and prevent confusion as so many people have different meanings as to what a phrase means. I now use the phrases all matching, factory original, and factory correct.

All matching simply means the parts are matching even if they have parts in there which were replaced in service according to what the requirements of remarking were (for Germans it was renumbering the parts, for the Lee Enfields, it depended on the part if they would stamp the number on it, etc.). A all matching rifle can have been through refurbishment, rebuilds, etc.

Factory Original means the parts are exactly as the firearm would have left the factory. They also have to be all matching and original to the firearm for this phrase to be correct. Depending on what the firearm is will have a big effect if this is common or not. For example many South American Mausers are Factory Original firearms, however there is very few American M1 Garands which this would apply to.

Factory correct means the parts are as they firearm would have left the factory. However they do not have to be all matching and original to the firearm. You see this more with American milsurps as everyone is trading parts to try and make a 'correct' rifle.

[Peter Laidler]

They are all correct. Whoever made the sight is totally academic.

[amadeus76]

They are all correct. Whoever made the sight is totally academic.

So the 800m sight is correct for the rifle?

I'm so confused...