Battlesight apature...

[CINDERS]

The No.5 rifles barrel is shorter in length than the No.4 hence the difference in range marks so the 800 yard sight is not correct for your No.4 rifle, just sell the No.5 sight on flea bay and pick up a 1300 yard one there's oodles out there just shop around till you get a good one or try your local gunsmith goodness knows they horde stuff more than me

[Peter Laidler]

If I might be so bold, I'd like to jump in here feet first as it seems as though I'm being made to look like a bit of a chump.

Amadeus told us in thread 1 that he has a No4 Mk1. And he's replaced it with a No4/5 type Mk1 sight. So far, so good. The question was why is the battlesight aperture enlarged - which Cinders, Bar and Parashooter answered.
Thread 5 and 6 he tells us that his 'new' sight is marked to 1300 yards BUT it is marked S instead of F. Again, so far, so good as we know he has a No4 with the correct 1300 sight. Any reference hereafter to a No5 800 sight is academic. So I tell him - in easily understood words that any No4 sight is correct and the manufacturer is academic.

So now....... thread 8, he is confused. And as a result it almost as though I have confused the issue. Chaps...... I haven't! I have done enough No4's, No4 sights, No5's and sights to last a lifetime

[CINDERS]

[browningautorifle]

So now....... thread 8, he is confused.

I know why...when replying, if you don't use a quote and people don't read through to put things in context...they can lose their focus. Peter didn't confuse anything, just answered a question directly.

[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.

[Mk VII]

And we have document evidence of the MoS asking if the milled sight is being produced at Savage because they want some for the early No.4(T)s. (Shortage of them at Home.)

[amadeus76]

Ok... This threads gotten more life than I expected. Anyway, I've sent the No.5 sight back and found a correct No.4 sight on ebay that I'll probably buy. It's in Britain so hopefully it arrives by the time I get back from NTC.

[Paul S.]

... 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.

In a word yes, there is a specific reason. It is having an adequate field of vision and rapid target acquisition during combat, hence the name, 'Battle Sight'. Having been there and done that for real, I can tell you that you really do want to see what is out 'there' and be able to aim quickly.

[amadeus76]

In a word yes, there is a specific reason. It is having an adequate field of vision and rapid target acquisition during combat, hence the name, 'Battle Sight'. Having been there and done that for real, I can tell you that you really do want to see what is out 'there' and be able to aim quickly.

I realize that and I've been there too. The reason I asked about how large it was is because it's even bigger than the one on the stamped sight I have.

[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.