WW1 'Periscope Prism company' sniper scope???

[Promo]

First to start with, I re-read the whole thread to try to understand as much as possible - not easy with so many technical words for being a non native speaker, but I think I now got most of the discussion and would want to throw in a few aspects from my side:

That brings us to the question of whether the PPCo system was the best in practicality and execution, but without some objective evidence, it is hard to say whether the Patt.18 system of mounts was a practical improvement over the German shallow claw mounts. That would probably come down to things like no wandering zero and repeatability (ability to keep MPI after when the scope is mounted/dismounted from the rifle over and over), when compared with its German counterparts.

It is a bit simple to reduce the Germans to a "single claw mount". The Germans I think at least have had 10 different scope manufacturers who then had at least one or more scope models each that were officially introduced with then again each at least one or even more different scope mounts. A simple sample - you can find the Goerz on the Single Claw mount additionally in Bavarian or Prussian configuration (one with a different front scope ring that have had a provision to hold the leather eyecup, additional difference was the elevation adjustment where the Bavarians thought 6(00) was enough), and Goerz supplied two scope mount themselves with different magnification powered scopes! The variety is basically never ending and it would not be fully correct to reduce the claw mount system to one manufacturer only. Hensoldt scopes were brought into war rather late. The earlier German sniper rifles were set up by gunsmiths; those have screw heads fully aligned with the barrel/90° to the barrel, numbered to the base and with very early sniper rifles even the full scope base was engraved. You could find them with one or two claws, both at the front or at the rear (and combinations between these two), sometimes even with pivot pins at the rear, sometimes with spring held buttons at the rear, sometimes with levers in the opposite direction. So to not make it too complicated I'm simply trying to make it as clear as possible that a direct comparison with the wording "German Claw Mount" is way too general.

An aspect that has not been mentioned in this thread: the Aldis scopes that were mounted to the P.14 rifles with the PPCo overbore mount to my knowledge ALL carry "MOUNTED BY THE PPCo" engravings on the scope tube. So it is clear that PPCo did the conversion of rifles to sniper rifles themselves, as well as that they must had considered the P.14 overbore mount as "their own" sniper mount. I am however a bit wondering why they did this with the P.14 scope mount, but not with their own dovetail mount when using Aldis scopes? On the other hand, it is consistent on the P.14 PPCo mount as well as the SMLE PPCo dovetail mount that the scopes always have the rifle number (only! No additional "Rifle. No.") on them, either on the rings or on the scope tube itself.

The big advantage of the P.14 scope mount is the overbore configuration. Not only because you don't have to consider the small offset of the scope when shooting, but also because it is much more comfortable. And additionally the P.14 rifle shoots really great. And whoever handles a SMLE and then a P.14 (or vica versa) would surely agree that the SMLE is rattling and some parts are not "that tight" whereas the P.14 simply is handsome and even the bolt closes tight.

PS: when speaking of the P.14 .. remember that handful Irish sniper rifles that were made around 1940? I've always wondered how in hell it could had made sense to BSA to manufacture scopes? Or why would someone source them parts and let them put their name on the scope? Was PPCo already non-existing at that time, or why else would they allow someone else copy "their" mount and 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.

[lmg15]

First to start with, I re-read the whole thread to try to understand as much as possible - not easy with so many technical words for being a non native speaker, but I think I now got most of the discussion and would want to throw in a few aspects from my side:

It is a bit simple to reduce the Germans to a "single claw mount". The Germans I think at least have had 10 different scope manufacturers who then had at least one or more scope models each that were officially introduced with then again each at least one or even more different scope mounts. A simple sample - you can find the Goerz on the Single Claw mount additionally in Bavarian or Prussian configuration (one with a different front scope ring that have had a provision to hold the leather eyecup, additional difference was the elevation adjustment where the Bavarians thought 6(00) was enough), and Goerz supplied two scope mount themselves with different magnification powered scopes! The variety is basically never ending and it would not be fully correct to reduce the claw mount system to one manufacturer only. Hensoldt scopes were brought into war rather late. The earlier German sniper rifles were set up by gunsmiths; those have screw heads fully aligned with the barrel/90° to the barrel, numbered to the base and with very early sniper rifles even the full scope base was engraved. You could find them with one or two claws, both at the front or at the rear (and combinations between these two), sometimes even with pivot pins at the rear, sometimes with spring held buttons at the rear, sometimes with levers in the opposite direction. So to not make it too complicated I'm simply trying to make it as clear as possible that a direct comparison with the wording "German Claw Mount" is way too general.

An aspect that has not been mentioned in this thread: the Aldis scopes that were mounted to the P.14 rifles with the PPCo overbore mount to my knowledge ALL carry "MOUNTED BY THE PPCo" engravings on the scope tube. So it is clear that PPCo did the conversion of rifles to sniper rifles themselves, as well as that they must had considered the P.14 overbore mount as "their own" sniper mount. I am however a bit wondering why they did this with the P.14 scope mount, but not with their own dovetail mount when using Aldis scopes? On the other hand, it is consistent on the P.14 PPCo mount as well as the SMLE PPCo dovetail mount that the scopes always have the rifle number (only! No additional "Rifle. No.") on them, either on the rings or on the scope tube itself.

The big advantage of the P.14 scope mount is the overbore configuration. Not only because you don't have to consider the small offset of the scope when shooting, but also because it is much more comfortable. And additionally the P.14 rifle shoots really great. And whoever handles a SMLE and then a P.14 (or vica versa) would surely agree that the SMLE is rattling and some parts are not "that tight" whereas the P.14 simply is handsome and even the bolt closes tight.

PS: when speaking of the P.14 .. remember that handful Irish sniper rifles that were made around 1940? I've always wondered how in hell it could had made sense to BSA to manufacture scopes? Or why would someone source them parts and let them put their name on the scope? Was PPCo already non-existing at that time, or why else would they allow someone else copy "their" mount and scope?

Promo, thanks for your insights into the German mounts. I have only just managed to get my own German rig together after 20 years of hunting (1915 Spandau with Gerard B3x), and get your point about the mounting differences from the holistic perspective. What I was referring to was the typical overbore claw mounts often seen on the Gerards & Oigees, but particularly on the Hensoldt Dialyt, being the two widely spaced claws at the front, and the two small claws on the rear leg offset to the left. The main point I was trying to get at is the claws on the front scope mounts are comparatively shallow, and are intended to move slightly in the rifle mount slots to enable windage adjustment. On the other hand, the PPCo overbore mounts of Enfield design are intended to be locked in there as rigidly as possible without any movement whatsoever.

I am always interested to see how particular countries design things to address universal engineering challenges ( BTW, the French are usually the ones on left field). There are many examples where there is incredible focus on theoretical design advantages which absorb huge amounts of machining time and skills to make, but do not actually translate into any practical benefit. These are the sort that could have been done the standard and unimaginative way for a weight penalty of half an ounce, and would be twice as quick to produce etc. There is intrinsically a lot more engineering and manufacturing effort in the Pattern 1918 system than for the equivalent German scopes, but did that translate to tighter groups at 600m? Also how do you separate the rifle's performance from that of the scope mounting system? I would not know from practical experience, but would be keen to know if anyone has done the comparison between P14(T) and German WW1 snipers various. There are comparison trials referred to in the development of the P14(T), but I would have no idea how detailed the surviving records are.

[Surpmil]

Regarding the 79 Irish contract Patt.18 scoped rifles, as PPCo. became a "ward of the Crown" their assets would have been public property and disposed of as such. One guess would be that Aldis Bros. as the related and likely to survive firm were perhaps entrusted with the bits and pieces left over from PPCo. It might well be that Aldis simply purchased what they wanted with the same object on their own initiative, but knowing the generally very conservative approaches taken and the fact there was a great glut of machinery, workers and surplus materiel, how much would anyone have paid for the stuff in 1919/20?

It's equally possible that the finished and unfinished Patt. 18 scopes and mounts were as you say Roger, taken into store at Enfield for use in the maintaining of the rifles and scopes still in service, as it was to be the standard sniping rifle of the Regular Army as we all know.

Considering both recent history and possible future history from the standpoint of the mid-1930s, it does seem more than a bit odd for a government factory to be supplying sniper rifles, or at least just the scopes, to the Irish Free State, so-called! But, odder things have happened, and not long after that... However, would it have been possible for Enfield (that is the WD) to release 79 scopes of the service pattern to BSA for fitting to those rifles? Or if not, did Aldis supply them, and if they did, what if any are the implications of that?

The fact that presumably at least six Patt.18 scopes were found a little later in the decade for fitting to the Ainley rifle prototypes, does suggest there were some on hand "in the system".

One almost has to wonder where those thousands of WWI scopes really ended up, considering how few we see around today and how unlikely it is that such things are destroyed once out of government hands.

I can't help wondering if a good number were actually scrapped post-WWI as not finding any buyers? Who in the generally parsimonious gun trade was likely to buy such stuff in any quantity at that time, considering, as they no doubt did, how many of their past and future clients were either dead or unlikely to ever need or want to buy another gun or rifle, particularly one with a telescopic sight?

One also wonders if the Alex Martin fittings of WWII did not meet a similar fate to the Ross MkIII sniper rifles and scopes, being withdrawn from service during the war, when scrap reclamation policies were followed quite rigorously? How many of that 421 survive, even bearing in mind that some were clearly lost in service as early as Crete in 1941.