John Rigby & Sons No. 1 Mk.III Sniper

[Promo]

For the beginning only a handful pictures of what I now finally have here with me in Europe and is now the pride of my British WWI snipers: the (to me) only known survivor of the John Rigby & Sons SMLE sniper rifle.

The particular piece came from the estate of Bob Faris and was bought at Poulin Antiques in an auction. This rifle originated from the Enfield Pattern Room since it was listed to had been part of it in 1927.

I have not had time yet to fully inspect it in detail. One thing I however noticed was the cut on the left rear sight protector, what makes me believe it originally had a scope which had the lateral adjustment in this place (aren‘t they called „capstans“ or something like this?), like the PPCo scope. I however do not have a PPCo scope without mount to see if it would fit!

Edit: added the additional pictures I've done also to this starting post.

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.

[Surpmil]

That's a very interesting piece alright. Looking at the photos I can come up with some guesses, but there are some apparent contradictions as well.

For example the sight protector, even though modified appears to impinge on the axis of the rings, so that a scope of that diameter simply wouldn't fit. Nor I think would one of much less diameter!

There is a blob of what looks like solder on the upper edge of the front ring and it looks like something was soldered in judging from the "white" interior of the ring.

But the rear ring with those two small dovetails? Possibly a couple of leaf springs would have been inserted to hold the scope tube centered in the ring? There does appear to be more wear on the inside bottom of the rear ring than around the sides and from the finish, whatever was inserted was not a close fit. What are the inside diameters of the two rings?

I'm thinking there must have been a collar or something similar soldered into the front ring, in which the scope, whatever it was, could move.

Would you mind posting photos of the front and rear edges of both rings?
Perhaps the scope fitted was some sort of simple straight tube affair and the windage and elevation adjustments were via screws in that now missing collar?

The rear ring is obviously made for easy removal of the scope, so presumably the front ring permitted that also. I can't see any provision for adjustments in the rear ring, so presumably adjustment was either in the scope itself or in the front ring.

But we come back to the impinging sight protector.

Could this have been a kind of "swing-away" mounting, with a design that brought the scope closer to the centerline of the bore without obstructing the charger loading or use of the battle sights so beloved of the authorities?

In that case, the front ring need only have been the pivot point for a leg which could have had a stud which would set into a matching conical or ball shaped socket, in turn soldered into that front ring. Such a system WOULD have cleared the modified backsight protector shown.

If the socket on the front ring was set into an eccentric or if one was somehow incorporated into the rear ring, that would allow zeroing for windage, with the same caveat as the prism on the Patt. 18 scope of course: that elevation would need to be reset when the windage zero was changed.

It would have made sense for there to be work in this direction since from very early on there were numerous complaints about the off-set scopes from France, while the authorities refused to permit overhead mounts until quite late in the war. A mount which allow the scope to be swung over to clear the charger guides and the metallic sights would have satisfied all parties, if it held zero!

There is one known example of a H&H design which may be a similar principle.

It appears the two ring bores are not aligned with each other, which is hard to fathom if this was a conventional mounting.

[Promo]

Rob, already the original drawing (here shown in a certain detail only and having removed the dimensions) mentions that the rear sight protector is cut to clear stud, see the attached drawing. It might also be the angle that the two holes are not in line, it is possible to slide in a scope and clamp it so for sure correctly aligned. And the drawing shows what appears to be a PPCo. Scope.

[Simon]

The scope is indeed a PP Co and the dovetails in the rear base / clamp would originally have had small pieces of Rubber inserted in them. As natural Rubber perishes and falls apart over time this would explain their absence.

Fantastic piece Georg, congratulations.

[Warren]

I had a PPCo Rigby marked scope some years ago and it went to a German collector.
The scope looks like it might have fit on this rifle as there were no other type of mount attached to the scope and it did not have the normal type slide on mount.
There was a rifle number engraved on the tube instead of the ring where the numbers are normally found.
MIGHT have a picture of it somewhere.

[Promo]

A fellow member here already showed me his "PPCo Style" scope which bears Rigby engravings on the scope tube, and he had just mentioned he would part with it. So I think I am on a good way to bring back the rifle to former glory!

Rob, for you I checked in detail the front ring yesterday. What I originally also had thought would be remnants of silver solder turned out to be scratches in the blueing. The scope rings diameter is exactly 1". The drawing I had attached also shows there originally had been a "positioning stud" added to the scope tube. If you look at the detail shot of the rear scope ring you can see where this stud would lock into.

I think this mount design is quite clever! After all this is the very first mount I am aware of where there are no "rings" and "bases", but the two united in one design and the scope itself (and only) removeable from the rings/bases. And even up to now I do not know of any other scope mount design with this solution!

Warren, would highly appreciate if you are able to find a picture of the scope you had sold.

[CINDERS]

Hope it all works out for you Promo..

[Promo]

Attached the detail picture of the front ring showing that there are scratches and no silver solder!

I'm currently not sure if Rigby really used the PPCo scope, or if he had used the German scope which served as pattern for the PPCo scope. Note the military pattern PPCo scopes all had an enlarged brass housing at the front (doesn't matter if longer or shorter cone ocular housing), which would not work with the scope mount as on my rifle (plus the drawing shows it differently).

So it is my guess that Rigby had used the same scope he was using on his civilian sporting guns since the shape is exactly identical to the one on the drawing, compare it yourself:


Versus the Military Pattern PPCo scope:

[Surpmil]

Very interesting, but looking at the photos I still don't see how the sight protector would clear the tube, but apparently that is just the photos, or me!

If the scope was soldered into the front ring, why have a quick-detach mechanism in the rear ring?

And the locating stud you mention Georg, no doubt fitted into that recess inside the rear ring which is half in the upper and half in the lower parts of the ring, although the stud looks to have grown from a simple round into something more like the shape of a No.32 erector cell locking segment, and perhaps a plate soldered to the scope tube with a screw or rivet to hold it?

The drawing shows an angle of declination in the mounting of 0".2', so that explains the difference in alignment I noticed. Not sure how to read 0".2' though!

Whatever was in those dovetail grooves inside the rear ring might have been an afterthought when it was found that just the nut and screw were not enough to hold the scope in zero.

I wondered about pieces of rubber as Simon refers to, or some sort of fibre in those dovetails, but if the front mounting was rigid and non-detachable what would be the point of allowing movement in the rear mounting? It would merely allow the front mounting to "work" from the vibration of the scope when the rifle was fired.

So, we come back to the mystery of the front ring attachment: it must have been detachable or the rear ring design would be a pointless and expensive complication. Not that there haven't been pointless & expensive designs fielded of course!

I wonder if the scope was taken off to be refitted to a P14 by Alex Martin in 1940/41?

The forend and handguards look like a very early pattern for the SMLE; what year is the rifle if you don't mind telling?

[henry r]

I'd take a guess at 0 degrees .2 minutes. though measuring .2 minutes is another thing.

in the last post he mentions "no" silver solder, so the removable scope is still feasable.

looking at the set up I'd say the scope is dropped into the rear mount while rotated anti clockwise 30-50°, slid forward into the front ring, then rotated back to verticle.

it must have taken a lot of work to keep the rings collumated when made. that being said i like it better than the A5 mounts that mount to the sight protectors.