No.1 MkIII SMLE Whitehead A5 Sniper Build

[Surpmil]

Thanks for the feedback!!!

It does seem to make no sense to mount that front base to the rear sight protector ear versus a solid spot on the rear sight base. The only thing I can think of is that on the 1903 Springfield they recommended spacing the bases out at 7.2". Coincidentally that is the exact measurement when you mount that front base on the rear sight protector ear.

You're quite right: the distance between the rings determines the actual change in windage or elevation for each graduation on the dials and Winchester's instructions for the scope detail that.

They would have had to make a "dog-leg" front mount to attach to the sight base.

Of course what they should have done was adopt Parker Hale's suggested mount which would have placed the scope overbore and allowed their precious charger loading, but probably "military mind" at that point thought it better not to introduce any overhead mounts lest their wisdom in previously selecting offset mounts be exposed.

And of course it would have meant removing the issue backsight; "most irregular"!

[Promo]

Bit OT, but for that it illustrates the Military views from WWI better .. basically the Austrian Army made trials for scoped M.1895 rifles. And they proofed on dozens of documents that a scoped rifle is very expensive at no additional benefits. Then after WWI had started there were desperate needs for sniper rifles because all of a sudden there were experienced hunters who were able to give astonishing results with scopes on the rifles - then they decided to purchase hundreds of sniper rifles, originally wanting to buy the only scope mount they had previously trialed - which was overbore, and for a rifle that requires ammo clips this of course means every time you reload you have to remove the scope. Fortunately for them at the same time a [German] company patended an offset mount that does not require removing of the scope to be able to reload. That company though was not able to provide as many as requested, therefore they obtained the license to produce this mounting style themselves.


To summarize, the Military never had wanted scopes because they were expensive and new. This applies to almost all countries participating in WWI. But they learnt quickly that this is a good advantage, and as a result to little time and quick demand and not enough time to properly develop and test a system either they adopted solutions which aren't this great, or a great variety of different mounts (and scopes). This IMHO also applies to the Winchester A5 scope. It is a nice target scope, but definitely not rugged enough for a trench - and I'm sure the British knew this very well, and as a result to this considered it to be necessary that there needs to be iron sight in place too. Already the pushing back to the correct position is a great disadvantage and therefore a check through the iron sights after you have shot is a much better idea.



PS: interesting in this context and when speaking on open sights I would also want to point out the official Austrian WWI order was to have the rear sight set at the maximum position because it was faster to put it to a lower setting than to a higher setting. If you look very close at Austrian WWI pictures you see very little person following this order, but almost every sniper rifle following this!

[Surpmil]

The British, Canadian and probably ANZAC snipers generally operated with an observer using binoculars or telescope. Not always of course, but usually and that is who would observe the fall of shot and report results or give corrections, in the unlikely event that a second shot is to be taken at the same target, at the same time and from the same location.

Even without an observer, I suggest that if you can't be sure of your shot taken with a scope, looking through the iron sights afterwards isn't going to help, even if you can see the target clearly and by some miracle it is a target on which the fall of the shot can seen after the impact. And in combat in WWI when the target was usually momentary or surrounded by mud and sandbags? The Russian and Italian fronts where Austria-Hungary fought were somewhat different; the former a sort of rook shoot with almost no counter-sniping or observing and the latter often in rocky areas where the bullet's impact *might* be detectable, if there weren't too many others in the same vicinity already?

The British Army certainly never wanted scopes pre-war; they ignored the highly innovative sights invented by Drs. Grubb and Common, both of which anticipated by generations, modern military sights. Despite the fact that the sights were devised in response to the problems exposed by the 2nd Boer War. Were it not for Hesketh-Pritchard and a few others rattling the cage who knows if they would ever have got any. Sam Hughes for all his faults ordered 500 in late 1914.

The typical Regular Army dunderhead of the Haig variety resented and distrusted machine guns, tanks, and pretty much any innovation at all. Fuller wasn't joking when he said the two truly conservative institutions were the Roman Catholic Church and the British Army. The fact that it was for the most part MGs, tanks (and "colonials") that allowed them to go on fighting - just - after squandering the human capital of the Empire, made no difference at all. No wonder the silly bugger said in all seriousness after it was over, "How did we win the war?"

And if anyone doubts it, look no further than machine guns. R.V.K. Applin did considerable experimental work on MG tactics, barrage fire etc. well before WWI and wrote a book on it which was ignored by the War Office; he even reproduced the German MG manual as an addendum in his book. From his account, the Americans bought most of the copies in print in 1917 and it became their "MG bible".

Anyway, McBride was one of the few who liked the offset mounting on the Ross only because it allowed the use of the iron sights without any fiddling, but then the Ross uniquely had a rear aperture sight that amounted to a target sight for the time, and a high level of accuracy overall; so not quite the same as an SMLE.

As Sgt. York and others demonstrated, a man with keen eyes and good nerves could do more with aperture sights at a greater range than some could do with a scope at shorter range, but we all know the scope's advantages on average. The Ross Mk.III was on issue to some scouts and snipers with only the standard aperture sights right to the end of the war. A similar scenario to the (F) backsight on the Patt.14.

Had there been any official interest in sniping or sights in general, they could easily have offered to purchase at a good premium the thousands of target sights and indeed the rifles with them fitted in private hands in 1914/15. The offset mounting schmozzle was just typical military mind and if anyone should have persisted in it it was the Germans whose rifles had no removable magazine and only five rounds capacity, not the British whose mags were easily exchanged and contained ten rounds.

Surprising blinkers weren't on issue, but then apparently long training and careful selection can make their use unnecessary!