No4 backsights........

[Peter Laidler]

I can't be the only one, but has anyone else noticed that some backsights except the Mk2 flip-over variants have 2 different size battle sight apertures. The two sizes are .1" and .2". The differences are apparent on the Mk1's, Mk3's and 4's including the Canadian variants too.

Have a look if you have a box full to rummage through.......... I've never noticed before and can't find any reference to two different sized battle aperture holes in my paperwork

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.

[jrhead75]

I've got a couple...I'll try to dig them out tonight and give them a measure.

[Mk VII]

Yes, I've got several here with different ones. At a guess the small ones are earlier.

[Peter Laidler]

Anyone else got them? Look for different hole sizes. I'm not sure about the late and ealy notion because I have a big box of sights with big and small hole Mk1's and big and small hole Mk4's PLUS big and small hole LB Mk4's too...................... What's going on?

[jrhead75]

A quick survey of my No.4s with other than Mk2 backsights...a Mk4 w/big hole, a Mk3 w/little hole, two Canadian MkIs with small hole, a British MkI (on a No4 Mk2) with big hole. Also, FWIW, 2 No.5s with milled backsights... big hole.

[Roger Payne]

DPL,
There's a bucketful of them stripped into component parts in my garage...................how much time have you got?!?

ATBDRP

[Peter Laidler]

...................... er........ so much to do and soooooo little time DRP! Have you any ideas about the size of the hole? Not medically speaking I hasten to add! I'll have another look through all the old ACI's and stuff today but it's strange that hole size doesn't feature

Anyone that's a dab hand with a camera care to illustrate the point...............

[jmoore]

If there's nothing by friday, I'll try and get some photos. Other dramas have dominated this week. Haven't even had a chance to measure any sights, yet.

[Lance]

Greetings All

Sorry for the delay. As a collector of No. 4 sights, the battle aperture hole size has always been a bit of a mystery. The smaller hole size is found on all early made examples of milled and stamped No. 4 and No. 5 sights. It appears around mid-war they increased the hole size, but this theory does not hold true for the Canadian CMk3's as their hole size remains small through the Canadian Arsenals transition, changing to the larger hole around 1950.

If anyone needs a detailed pic of a specific sight drop me a note, if anyone has a SM42, SM43, N67 singer style milled sight and can part with it please let me know!

Photo #1 (sorry slightly out of focus)

Small hole: SM41, LB, S,
Large hole: B

Photo #2

Large hole: B, F, F, P cirle, F CR403, P CR403

Photo #3

Stamped: Mk II small hole unmarked; Mk3 large hole Faz; Mk 3 large hole unmarked; Mk 3 large hole M47

Photo #4 (No. 5 sights)

N67 small hole, N67 large hole, B, F, P

Photo #5 (No. 5 sights)

B, F, P, B, RFI, stamped small hole unmarked

Photo #6

Mk III small hole LB, Mk III small hole CA, CMk3 small hole CA, CMk3 large hole unmarked

[Patrick Chadwick]

Thanks to Lance for a wide range of combinations of models and sizes!

As nobody seems to have noticed this before, this suggests that for our kind of shooting, the battle sight aperture is totally irrelevant. No great surprise there.

So an intersting source of information would be ... those who actually used the No. 4 in conflict.
Did they actually use the battle-sight aperture?
Was there some kind of "user feedback" that led to a (partial) change?
Or, knowing how the real world operates, did some desk-driver think it was A Good Idea?