PPCo scope with matching numbers pouch

[Roger Payne]

It's funny you mention that Surpmil. I was thinking about this idly.....& I remembered years ago seeing a couple of what appeared to be genuine PPCo rifles that had had their bases removed. When we recreate them these days the rifle body is 'kissed' to turn curves into rightangles so as to facilitate fitting the base & collimating the scope with the rifle bore, yet the couple of originals were very crudely done by what looked like hand scraping, no less. I suspect some of the methods used would surprise us...

IIRC (it was only photo's that I saw) one of the rifles lived in Canada...

[Surpmil]

A multitude of sins could hide under those bases! The drawing in TBS shows some short of groove cut into the body side of the rifle IIRC, but actual collimation of the axis of the rings to the axis of the bore requires much more precision I suspect. Could be any cold chisel work now seen was done on the Continent when scopes and bases were refitted to a second or third rifle? Was it supposed to be done? Not according to TBS I believe, but why send your battalions few rifles or scopes off to England when you might not get them back again until...?

The dovetail permits no tweaking and neither do the rings, and all those screws along the bottom of the base would pull it in tight against the body side, so without bits of shim stuck in here or there under the base, how to adjust when setting up?

[Roger Payne]

Thanks Surpmil. As we know, what was supposed to happen in theory often didn't, or at least, not all of the time! I really do not want to dismantle my sole unadulterated PPCo rifle (for obvious reasons) but I would not be surprised if there were no 'peg' to locate into the body wall at all. The whole system is hardly ideal, relying on one point of contact of not great length. Two well separated mounting points would have been much better..........but that's how they made 'em! The Whitehead mounts could be argued to be even worse a design; granted the front & rear mounts are widely separated, but with the front base anchored to the rear sight protector, which in turn is attached to the wooden forend.

[Surpmil]

Indeed, a horrendous mess; someone trying to sabotage the efforts of our snipers could hardly have done better.

A.J. Parker actually had the best solution for the A5 scope on the SMLE, but it seems their suggestion was ignored. Or perhaps the powers that be weren't able to deduce that the A5 (and B4) when mounted over-bore could be slid forward in their rings allowing the all-important charger loading?

In a mere ten years it seems Dr. A.A. Common's and Sir Howard Grubb's innovative sights had been forgotten.

I've never had a chance to examine one, but I'd expect the former at least had some method of collimation built in, given Dr. Common's already extensive work on telescopic sights, principally for the Royal Navy's guns.

Had Dr. Common not died prematurely in 1903 things might have been quite different in this department during WWI, but it seems there was no one with the knowledge and the prestige to push the project from outside the WD. Grubb had moved on to bigger projects and apparently no one thought to ask him.

Zeiss borrowed the Grubb reflex concept for their Glasvisier16 and the rest is history.

Maybe take that PPCo. SMLE body in for a few x-rays?

[Promo]

The difference of course was the adjustable, ie: collimatable and zero-able rings on the Arisaka.

For what I know adjustment on Arisaka is done by setting of the lenses. They came zeroed from factory and lack even lateral adjustment. It though seems that you are referring to the very rare and hardly ever found 4x externally adjustable scope for the Arisaka T99 sniper rifle?

[Surpmil]

That's the one I was thinking of. Rubber rings under compression played some part IIRC. Not particularly my field of interest though. A very well thought out reticule design which obviated the need for adjustments.

[Promo]

Nah, not really obviated. Just zeroed from factory and then not thought to be swapped again.