Longbranch Rear Site

[REDHAWK]

Would like to know when the MkIII rear site was first put into use. Was there any calibration change in the MkIII other than app. hole dia.

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.

[Claven2]

The MkIII which eventually became the C MkIII would have come into use in in late 1943. By 1944 many rifles would have been so equipped. In late 44 or early 1945 they started stamping them CMkIII to differentiate it from the British MkIII which was slightly different and had a stamped base with a spacer, not a milled base like the Longbranch version.

the Mk1 sight was used in 1941 and the first half of 1942. Late 42 and early 43 rifles would almost exclusively have bene issued with the Mk2 flip sight.

[Cantom]

The MkIII which eventually became the C MkIII would have come into use in in late 1943. By 1944 many rifles would have been so equipped. In late 44 or early 1945 they started stamping them CMkIII to differentiate it from the British MkIII which was slightly different and had a stamped base with a spacer, not a milled base like the Longbranch version.

the Mk1 sight was used in 1941 and the first half of 1942. Late 42 and early 43 rifles would almost exclusively have bene issued with the Mk2 flip sight.

I'm glad you brought this up. I was wondering exactly the same thing. I am acquiring a 1944 Long Branch with a mk 2 flip sight. I have a Mk 1 sight from LB that I'm planning to install...not crazy about the mk 2. Sacrilege or acceptable? (of course I'll keep the mk 2 as well)

Also, I have a Mk III sight with CA stamped on the back. It has a much smaller peep hole than the Cmk3 sight. What rifle used that sight? I think it's Canadian.

[Claven2]

It's probably Canadian as well. The MkIII and CMkIII underwent some minor changes that didn't change the designation, aperature hole size being one of them.

A Mk2 or Mk3 sight is appropriate for a 1944. A Mk1 sight, while superior on the range, is not really correct.

[Lee Enfield]

It's probably Canadian as well. The MkIII and CMkIII underwent some minor changes that didn't change the designation, aperature hole size being one of them.

A Mk2 or Mk3 sight is appropriate for a 1944. A Mk1 sight, while superior on the range, is not really correct.

To add a little:

Just remember that all of the MkI, MkIII series sights were originally issued with the small apertures.

IIRC it was a post-war British project to ream the sights "battle apperture", most (all post-war?) of the Fazakerly ones will have been produced with large apertures (actually I somewhere have a copy of the post-war Canadian instruction where it says that all new sights will be so reamed, but old ones are to be left alone).

[Cantom]

To add a little:

Just remember that all of the MkI, MkIII series sights were originally issued with the small apertures.

IIRC it was a post-war British project to ream the sights "battle apperture", most (all post-war?) of the Fazakerly ones will have been produced with large apertures (actually I somewhere have a copy of the post-war Canadian instruction where it says that all new sights will be so reamed, but old ones are to be left alone).

Thanks, that's interesting. So my small aperture MkIII sight is probably wartime production from 44 or 45?
My 49 has a much larger hole on the Cmk3 sight. It does seem to me that you might lose a bit of accuracy but the target acquisition would be a hell of a lot quicker with the big hole.