No4 backsights........

[Peter Laidler]

I knoiw that shooting in half light and the jungle, you always use a large aperture - like the battle sight because you need the light and ranges are usually short. So why we also have a No5 rifle sight with a small aperture as well as the large diameter is another mystery. I have to say that of all the hundreds and hundreds of No4's that I have ever seen and worked on, I have never noticed that there were two different aperture sizes.

The change, whenever it was, wouldn't have taken place without some extensive trials. But I can't find anything, even in the detailed EMER's!

[Rumpelhardt]

No first hand experience but I would think the larger aperture would work to advantage in quick target acquisition on moving targets.

[tlvaughn]

Did a quick inventory and came up with the following:

Small Hole
MkI S - 1
Mk3 - 2

Big Hole
MkI F - 10
MkI F CR403 - 10
MkI (P) - 5
MkI P - 1
CMK3 - 2
MkI CR313 EFD - 1
MkI F (No5 MkI) - 2

[jmoore]

The larger aperature is useful in low light situations, but I'm not sure what the best front reference would be. Maybe the sight protector ears? Bracket the "close in" target and let fly...

The same enlargement of the GP aperature also occured on the M16 (The old two position sights- the M16a2 uses a slightly smaller aperature)- Quite useful in the dark, but even better combined w/ a tritium illuminated front post. (From my limited experience at Ft Benning night shoots.)

[jmoore]

A big peep rear sight (folding small peep in addition) was also used on some L1a1's, yes? Can't recall exactly what front sight was used...Anybody shoot one of these in poor lighting conditions and care to report?

Probably best to do so on the FAL forum, but it seems a logical continuation.

[Peter Laidler]

I was involved in some of the twilight shooting trials using the double aperture L1A1 sights in 1968. Ideally the LARGE rearsight aperture was used with a quarter rotatable foresight blade that contained a tritium vail that acted as a luminous foresight. It was during a series of Company shoots at Ashan ranges at figure 11 man targets (supposed to represent hoard attacks by advancing VC). I think the results were abysmal but better than the normal sights. The big Whites/International and Bedford trucks taking us all to and from the firing points weren't using headlight to preserve our natural night vision and one of the trucks ran over a whole line of standard rifles from C Company smashing them to shreds. It was just one of those accident losses during training on active service and that was that. But, the sight, later known as the HYTHE sight was kept until we got some US night vision.

That's the end of the history lesson chaps...........

[Patrick Chadwick]

That's the end of the history lesson chaps...........

....Er, Peter,... does that mean that you now have time to dig around to find out if there really is an EMER that specifies fore-end bedding for a No.8 ?

(My No. 8s vote 2:0 for "No, never seen such a thing")

Patrick

[jmoore]

Oofah! Missed page 2 before replying!

If not in the EMERs, would there have been manufacturing revision drawings circulated? It wouldn't affect maintenance unless there was a decision to officially supercede use of the small peep. Aircraft parts do the same- we just have to know which "dash" number is applicable to what, sometimes older and newer components intermingle upon assembly if there's no functional issues. (Which is decided by a higher authority beforehand, obviously!)

Perhaps, since there is no giant functional difference, the higher-ups never bothered to address the issue on the maintenance end??? (Curtiss Wright was horrible about drawing updates on A/C for a contemporary parallel.)

[Peter Laidler]

I've held fire on the question of fore-end muzzle bearing bedding on the No8 because I don't want to disagree with a fellow Armourer openly. (We'll do it by PM). I haven't had time to rummage through the old EMER's yet but will do next week. So much to do, sooooo little time and all that.

I set up all of my sons ex school No8's not long ago and they were are ALL fully floating. Our local Base Workshop allow allow a degree of 'touch' but only if to alter this would entail fitting a new fore-end. Otherwise it abides by the free muzzle rule. But I'll quote the book when I can get around to it.

However, the rear is bedded exactly as per the No4 except for the draws at the rear

All the No8 sights seem to have a big hole by the way! I have had a look at the technical inspection standards and Page 3, issue 1 of Oct 1955 states that the No4,5 and 8 rifle: Aperture for battlesight diameter .020" Aperture of slide .010". Must not exceed .104" There it is. From this, the EMER being the first issue and not an updated issue, you'd never imagine that there was a manufactured smaller hole diameter.

There seems to have only ever been one part number for each of the Mk's of backsight. But to be really honest, while it's interesting (?), I'm not losing any sleep about it!

[Lance]

Here is another oddity for all you No. 5 owners to check, another weight saving mod.