Pictures of old Neil optical sights

[Warren]

Hmmm, would this be a two kidney trade??
The one on the right is named to a "sharpshooter" from the 8th Cheshire Regt. along with his regimental number. I was able to dig out his file from the British War Office records.

[boltaction]

Hmmm, would this be a two kidney trade??
The one on the right is named to a "sharpshooter" from the 8th Cheshire Regt. along with his regimental number. I was able to dig out his file from the British War Office records.

Looks like I need to write a last minute letter to Santa. Could I arrange for you to receive someone else's kidneys, perhaps?

Ed

[Surpmil]

I took some pictures of my Barnett rear sight and its marked 200, 400, 500 and 600 Yards in opposite to markings on yours. Mine's marked same as example in Skennertons British Sniper page 22 which is of sealed pattern. Now why should yours be marked in a totally different way and have a crosshair reticle instead of sighting dot? Wheaty whats your example like?

I think I know the answer your Ulster Division sight is for an Ozzie Lithgow SMLE as everythings upside down there isn't it?

Merry Xmas to all.

I think you must have the improved version there Valleysniper. The first type above has two positions only, and it looks like the top of the sight leaf is to be aligned with the 200 yard mark and the 500 yard mark with the bottom.

This was probably found confusing by soldiers and so crude an adjustment that it did not inspire confidence compared to the better quality sights. Sales may have slumped and so the good Capt. tried to improve things somewhat.

My previous comment about the aperture describing an arc were not strictly correct with the two position sight as if the axis pin was equidistant to the two positions, there would be no difference in the windage, but with those markings on yours, it's definitely going to be out in the "in between" settings.

In yours of course the top edge only is used for alignment. Alignment on what I don't know as there don't seem to be any particular marks to align with, just somewhere close to the number I suppose. Perhaps users were meant to scratch in their own lines after zeroing their rifles. Or perhaps no one even thought of that, but that's what they ended up doing in the event.

Certainly looks very vulnerable to bumps and jars and being brass would be easily bent or snapped off.

Your later pattern also seems to have four holes drilled in the steel backing plate rather than the one large hole with the aperture moving over it. I'm no optician, but that seems to me a very bad idea as each hole is only exposed to a tiny portion of the lens and the curvature of the lens varies as the leaf is adjusted in and out from the center of the lens. The lens should move with the leaf.

All in all, not much better than nought IMO!

Anyone recognize this one, while we're on the subject?Attachment 29241Attachment 29239Attachment 29240

It fits nicely over the barrel of a CLLE.

[Peter Laidler]

Has anyone ever actually used one of these things on a range as a sort of test to its serviceability? Was it ever an issue or an opproved local-purchase unit purchase as such. I've never seen official reference to such a beast. Or was it just a thing you bought yourself to take into the front line? Or just bought yourself to use oin a range somewhere?

I ask because this practice of 'buy-it-yourself-to-take-to-war still goes on. I saw a big list of things that soldiers had purchased privately to take to war in 'Asia', from survival kits that were worse than useless to under body armour wear that was eaually useless to.......... well there was all sorts. Most wouldn't last 5 minutes or had already failed trials in favour of the equivalent that was already issued, such as pouches and goggles and super-dooper go anywhere but last 2 minutes boots! The bit of kit that would be MOST useful, people don't purchase. And that's your own mine proof vehicle

[Valleysniper]

Peter

I have never actually test fired any of the 3 types of Galilean sight sets I have, Barnett, Gibbs, Lattey yet, but I do propose to in future at least the Gibbs & Lattey.

To quote from Martin Peglar’s Out of Nowhere book on WW1 use of Galilean sights:

“Colonel Freemantle , in his manual on sniping devoted some four pages to their description and use, something he was unlikely to do for an item that had no practical use in the field. War Office figures for late 1915 and early 1916 show 9,000 Lattey, 4250 Neill, 775 Martin & 100 Gibbs had been supplied to frontline regiments”

Some empirical testing was done with both a Lattey and a Martin on a 1916 production SMLE to gauge how effective they might have been and the results were interesting, Generally the sights proved surprisingly effective when used in good weather. Target acquisition was good, particularly as movement could be detected easily on either side of the foresight, which, unlike a telescopic sight tube, does not block the shooters peripheral view. They did improve the shooter’s ability to pick out targets in poor light, although with nowhere near the efficiency of a telescopic sight. On the downside, vision was impaired by moisture, which settled on the foresight, and the field of view was poor, although the clear vision on either side of the objective lens did counteract this to a certain extent. They were also prone to working loose due to recoil, but if used within their limitations, they were certainly an improvement on the human eye and in ideal conditions would enable a competent rifleman to make a head shot at around 300 Yards (270 Metres)”

Skennertons The British sniper book also states that in the War Department search for suitable optics for military use up to 1st February 1917 1400 Lattey lens sights were obtained.

The total demand for Optical Munitions to 2nd November 1918, included:

Sights, Telescopic for rifle 13,464
Sights, Optical for rifles (Galilean) 75,900
Sights, Unit telescopic 11,815

Skennerton also quotes on Galilean sights description and use from a March 1915 Trade periodical Arms & Explosives, but I will not print all that text as well.

There is as far as I know only one picture known to exist of which shows maybe one or 2 such Galilean sighted SMLE’s in use.

[Warren]

I'll try and get one out in the next week or so and try it. PROVIDED the road to the range is passable. What started out a a green Xmas has now turned into 10 inches of snow (25.4 cm for those so disposed).
A very Merry Christmas (belated) and a Happy New Year....

[Nigel]

Here is a letter from Mr R W Barnett defending the use of his sight (also called the Ulster sight) which appeared in the Sept 4th 1915 edition of The Field. There is also a useful picture of the sights and instructions in their use. If anyoine wants to use them in an article or publication - please credit Nigel Greenaway for having found it !

[Patrick Chadwick]

Front Lens + 1.00 Dioptre Sphere Rear Lens - 2.50 Dioptre Sphere

Good grief, it's a telephoto lens set!

To mount the sight, you have to drill a hole through the portion of the forestock which is behind the slot.

Are you sure? I suspect that it mounts under the safety catch, replacing the safety catch washer. Otherwise, there would be no way of ensuring that it was at the correct height and had the correct horizontal offset?


Patrick

P.S: I have just seen that the previous post appeared while I was composing this. Still, it's nice to know I guessed right!

[boltaction]

Good grief, it's a telephoto lens set!



Are you sure? I suspect that it mounts under the safety catch, replacing the safety catch washer. Otherwise, there would be no way of ensuring that it was at the correct height and had the correct horizontal offset?


Patrick

P.S: I have just seen that the previous post appeared while I was composing this. Still, it's nice to know I guessed right!

The rear portion mounts under the safety catch, but the front portion mounts to the slot in the front nosecap, and is held in place with the long screw which goes through the forestock, and does require a hole to be drilled.

Cheers

Ed