WW1 'Periscope Prism company' sniper scope???

[Roger Payne]

Surpmil, I'm so glad you chimed in with your post. I was willing you to do it!

And, Promo, whilst I didn't find the photo I was looking for, I found two more of the SMLE/Aldis/Overbore claws. One of a rear ring suitably engraved & the other of a scope with cut off rings, but the ring stub still showing the back end of the PPCo engraving. I will attempt to upload them now, but apologize in advance as these are poor quality. However, I think you will be able to see what you need to......they were also taken in a hurry on a pile of books, so I am afraid an outspoken but courageous young man by the name of Sassoon managed to get into the top right corner of both.

[Roger Payne]

Taking this line of thought a little further........if you look at the contract details (post number 65) - the entry dated 30/09/16 refers to a contract placed with Aldis Brothers to 'Fit Telescopic sights with Bartle fittings'. The contract size is 700. There is a second similar entry dated 18/10/16 for a further 700 units. So, if the 'modified PPCo rings' & the 'Bartle fittings' are one & the same, it would explain why the scopes turn up reasonably frequently.....
Immediately above the second entry is a further reference to Aldis for a contract for 2254 'sights telescopic' but with no further qualification. Although above the 18/10/16 entry, it is dated two days later.

Further, if the fitting of Aldis scopes using mounts supplied by J Bartle was carried out by Aldis Brothers themselves, they (Aldis) didn't really need to put their company name all over the rings, as it was already boldly emblazoned on the ocular lens housing. To add it again may have been seen therefore as unnecessary.

Terribly difficult to prove or disprove, but it seems very plausible. I wonder if there are still patent details extant for a J Bartle telescopic sight mount.....or if produced by Bartle at the behest of PPCo or the government, & as it is the same in principle, would it have been covered by PPCo's original patent of February 1915? Just thinking aloud....

[lmg15]

lmg15, may I be evil and add an alternative to the SMLE PPCo mounted Aldis scope: The Aldis scope for the PPCo dovetail mount were not equipped with the scope ring at PPCo, but at another company and therefore do not have the same marking on the tube as with the PPCo mount for the P.14/No. 3 (T) rifle. Or do the contracts show something differently?

Promo, that was exactly what I was thinking about in my point 1.b.2. Still an open question in my mind....

---------- Post added at 04:20 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:12 PM ----------

May I start Thursday with an apology & an explanation? To borrow Madzi's expression, I've just had a 'eureka moment', at least in a minor sense....

I was pretty certain that both the Aldis scopes destined for the P'14 & the SMLE in the claw mounts were attributable to the PPCo, at least to the confirmation of fitting. It was a shock when I looked at my example off a SMLE (one of those illustrated in an earlier posting) to find that there was no 'Fitted by....' on the scope tube. This perplexed me, until the penny dropped this morning. The SMLE/Aldis/Claw Mount scope WAS overtly attributed to the PPCo., but it was marked NOT on the scope tube. (I had not looked at the scope in question for some time & had forgotten about the location of markings). The chapter & verse on the scopes destined for the SMLE was engraved on the leg of the rear mount. I cannot remember from memory if it was in precisely the same format as engraved on the tubes of the scopes destined for the P'14, but I think it was, or it only differed slightly. Significantly, the date engraved on these, at least on the sole example of which I am aware, is 1919. This again, was behind my earlier comment that I believe the two systems were set up approximately contemporaneously, or perhaps the SMLE system immediately after the P'14's.

Roger, very interesting! On reading this, I rushed to have another look at my example under a magnifying lamp, but alas, it is blank, the same as Roger C's. D.

---------- Post added at 04:25 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:20 PM ----------

Strewth, I've read this all three times.....some is sinking in, other bits are just confusing.....but all in all a wealth of knowledge with a bit of supposition.
Just need someone to put it all in a logical sequence.

Yes muffet - a good point. I think there is a lot of new evidence trickling from some excellent collections, and a fair bit of thinking out loud. Once this thread has exhausted, the best points and photos could probably generate a new book....ATB, D.

[lmg15]

Fellow forum member Bindi2 has asked me to post pictures of his Aldis scope in here, along with the scope rings he has. I have already told him these scope rings are Evans scope rings. The focal adjustment of his Aldis scope is something I've never seen before, maybe someone else has?

PS: Rob, finally someone dared to say this! I'll however let others speak on it..

Edit: forgot to address this today:

This is GREAT information. IF PPCo also marked the SMLE overbore mount somewhere with their name, it would make it nearly impossible that PPCo also mounted the Aldis scopes to the "PPCo dovetail" mount and NOT put their name on it anywhere. The plot thickens.. And Roger, if you find any picture of this, please do share it. That would be great to see, thanks!

Promo, thanks for facilitating pics of Bindi's very interesting scope, and Bindi, nice scope! I have never seen this style of focal adjustment keeper plate before. You would think it would make adjustment in the field easier. The scope is set up for a mount with windage and looks like a post war re-graduation of the range drum to small bore use. Maybe the plate is part of Aldis's post war commercial offering? If so, then it implies that in post war Govt disposals to the trade, Aldis bought up scopes they previously supplied to the WO. If not, then could this have been an improvement that was fielded?

Regarding the PPCo dovetail mount on the Aldis scopes, you really do have to wonder why they are not marked accordingly if they were done by PPCo? I am not sure what I think at the moment as there are convincing factors either way. Also I am returning to one of my earlier notions that these rings were made comparatively late in the war for Aldis scopes. My original thoughts were that they were simply replacements for broken PPCo scopes that would allow the rifle itself to be re-used, especially if the rifles were selected for "1 in 3000 accuracy". However, I think that many of the scopes were set up on new rifles fitted with new factory matched scope ring/rifle mount sets. A very late made Aldis No.3 came to my attention that has matching number scope rings and rifle mount, and a higher scope serial number than most of the Aldis No.4 scopes I have encountered. None of it looked re-hashed in the slightest. All that said, I do believe that the timing of the order for the 750 lateral prism sets from Aldis will be key to knowing when production of this variant commenced.

Regarding surpmil's point about PPCo company ownership, I remain confused as anyone. Who were the shareholders? A bunch of private citizens or the Govt? Are they talking takeover of ownership or just management? If the Govt owned PPCo, when was the take-over? If Govt owned, then I can accept the idea that PPCo made dovetail mounts might have omitted the patent acknowledgement and company name if they wanted to. Maybe as a company in crisis under wartime pressures, details like this slipped between the cracks? On some of the 1918 /1919 overbore scopes they made efforts to mark the scopes, and on others, they do not. Curse your inconsistency PPCo!!

[lmg15]

Taking this line of thought a little further........if you look at the contract details (post number 65) - the entry dated 30/09/16 refers to a contract placed with Aldis Brothers to 'Fit Telescopic sights with Bartle fittings'. The contract size is 700. There is a second similar entry dated 18/10/16 for a further 700 units. So, if the 'modified PPCo rings' & the 'Bartle fittings' are one & the same, it would explain why the scopes turn up reasonably frequently.....
Immediately above the second entry is a further reference to Aldis for a contract for 2254 'sights telescopic' but with no further qualification. Although above the 18/10/16 entry, it is dated two days later.

Further, if the fitting of Aldis scopes using mounts supplied by J Bartle was carried out by Aldis Brothers themselves, they (Aldis) didn't really need to put their company name all over the rings, as it was already boldly emblazoned on the ocular lens housing. To add it again may have been seen therefore as unnecessary.

Terribly difficult to prove or disprove, but it seems very plausible. I wonder if there are still patent details extant for a J Bartle telescopic sight mount.....or if produced by Bartle at the behest of PPCo or the government, & as it is the same in principle, would it have been covered by PPCo's original patent of February 1915? Just thinking aloud....

Roger, your theory about Aldis fitting the dovetail mounts does sound feasible, but patent acknowledgement could be even more desirable when mix and matching Aldis and PPCo products, especially from PPCo's point of view if PPCo actually owned the mounts patent. Would they also be paying royalties for the German scope patents?

So who is this Bartle character? Is it possible that PPC only "designed" the scopes, and used a Bartle design for the mounts from the outset? Getting the patent details would be interesting, to see whether it is entirely credited to PPCo, or whether Bartle's name crops up as the designer. That would make sense if Bartle was then able to collaborate with Aldis for the contract.

The timing and size of the Aldis scope contracts is also a thing to consider, especially as it is so late in 1916. My own under-populated spreadsheet and rounding to the nearest hundred or so, you could get something like this:
66000 to 67500 made in 1915. Mainly No.1 and No.2 scopes
67500 to 70600 made in 1916 - Mainly No.3 scopes with a couple of No.2s at the beginning and a No.4 near the end.
70600 to 71600 made in 1916 - Almost all No.4 scopes with a couple of No.3s mixed in.

So in 1916, Aldis had made roughly 3000 No.3 scopes, plus another 1000 No.4 scopes, and I have not seen any Aldis sniper scope dated later than 1916. If the 18/10/16 order was for sniper optics, then they would have had to fit a lot of production into two months. PPCo also made optics for other guns as well, so maybe the 2254 scopes in this order were not sniper optics?

The other thing is that almost all No.4 scopes produced have the lateral adjustment prism fitted, implying fitting in a non-windage adjustable mount. Most of the No.4 scopes in my spreadsheet are fitted with the "PPCo" (Bartle??) dovetail mount from earliest noted scope serial 70889 onwards, but with Roger's possible overbore scope in that serial rage. Starting to make sense?

The only two scopes actually fitted with the overbore claw mounts I have seen are 1916 dated No.3s serials 70501 and 70533. I am not sure what can be read into those numbers. Possibly just that the next handfuls of scopes for the overbore job were sitting on the same section of storage shelf?

Brains are dribbling out of my ears now, must go.

ATB, D

[Roger Payne]

Morning D! Some fascinating material there.

I see your point about the patent issue/marking with the 'modified PPCo/Bartle?' dovetail rings fitted to the Aldis scopes with prism modification, but under wartime pressure who knows....... I think one could just as easily argue it either way with equal conviction, especially if PPCo contracted out the work to someone else who felt no great ownership of the product. Incidentally, I have stumbled across an old photocopy of Patent 3027 of February 1915 for the the dovetail mount system of PPCo., but there is no mention of a J Bartle, I'm afraid. The PPCo are referred to as 'manufacturing opticians' & the only person mentioned by name is the familiar A B Rolfe Martin, who is described as 'engineer'.

With you in your comments on the 4th Patterns being fitted with prisms (I have only ever seen one that wasn't & I am pretty sure that one was a post war mix & match affair - I'd be fascinated to know if you've seen any military 4th Patt scopes without prism facility that you think have always been like that), & that being indicative of use on a non-windage adjustable mount system. It all makes sense. From your observations & spread sheet are you suggesting that the SMLE/Aldis/Modded PPCo/Bartle?? mount system appeared later than might have been up to now suspected?

Concerning the Aldis with over bore claw 'Enfield designed' type mounts for the SMLE. Agreed, surviving examples suggest marking was patchy, but it is certain that a proportion were. My own set isn't but whilst finished, the rings were never fitted to a scope. We know that in principle some of these mount systems were marked & the two I have photographs of clearly show a date of 1919. We do not know exactly when PPCo were taken over by the government, but one could speculate that it was late & that this mount system may even have been part way through its production run at the time. Maybe when the PPCo lost its 'independence' & just became another government facility it was considered unnecessary to mark them?? I really don't know, but again, could that be possible? One should also perhaps bear in mind that the Allies were still on a war footing until the Treaty Of Versailles was signed in June 1919, the Armistice being exactly that....an armistice.

Re the 18/10/16 order, yes, that is why I added the rider about no further qualification. Aldis became heavily involved in making sights for fighter aircraft, among other things, as the war progressed. Yet another question to muse over is whether Aldis really did stop production by the end of 1916 or shortly thereafter; whether they had got ahead of themselves & had a plentiful supply of components to continue assembly of instruments; or whether manufacture continued after but they never troubled to amend the date beyond 1916......

Addendum. I've just had another rummage through some 'archived' (that's a somewhat fanciful description) papers & found among them the sheet containing the SAC minutes from 27/08/17 in which the then under development P'14 sniper's rifle was the subject of discussion. It would seem that at this stage there was still some debate as to whether the the new scope & mount system would incorporate a prism for lateral adjustment or use the German system with the adjustment on the mount (we touched on this earlier in this thread). There seems to be perhaps a leaning towards the prism, & it is mentioned in the text to the effect that no telescopes had been so far fitted with prisms, but that 315 had had the (prism) cell fitted, & that the installation of the prism was not considered a major problem should it be decided to proceed with this system following evaluation of the new rifles in France. It at least gives us a 'baseline date' before which we can probably reasonably conclude there were no prism fitted third or fourth pattern Aldis scopes (unless it refers only to no scopes having been modified for the prism from a quantity of scopes set aside with the intention of fitting them to the P'14, specifically!). This, I admit, sits a little awkwardly when one considers that the Aldis with 'Bartle? mount' contracts are about ten months earlier.......though if there were lengthy delays from contract to implementation, the presumed Bartle mounts in consort with prism fitted Aldis scopes could still be compatible, although the prism would have needed to have been under discussion & assessed as feasible to fit for a while. Unless anyone knows differently....?!%$?

Plus of course, the contract details are not complete..........so you could say we're not playing with a full deck!

My brain hurts too

[Bindi2]

Your brains hurt so does mine just trying to keep up with all the info you guys are putting up.

[Surpmil]

Fellow forum member Bindi2 has asked me to post pictures of his Aldis scope in here, along with the scope rings he has. I have already told him these scope rings are Evans scope rings. The focal adjustment of his Aldis scope is something I've never seen before, maybe someone else has?

PS: Rob, finally someone dared to say this! I'll however let others speak on it..

Edit: forgot to address this today:

This is GREAT information. IF PPCo also marked the SMLE overbore mount somewhere with their name, it would make it nearly impossible that PPCo also mounted the Aldis scopes to the "PPCo dovetail" mount and NOT put their name on it anywhere. The plot thickens.. And Roger, if you find any picture of this, please do share it. That would be great to see, thanks!

I would say the drum on that scope is a post-war replacement, and that the focus adjustment cover is also. Whoever did it has gone to the effort of scavenging a portion of another Aldis sight (artillery type) and adapting that to fit with a replacement knurled screw. There was certainly no need for Aldis to add their name on that part, nor to make it so massively heavy, nor to change the pattern we have documented before and after this scope in serial number. The scopes that were re-used in Australia seem to have had long, hard lives to judge by the state of the finish on them (used to have one such myself). I suspect this is another example of that. To wear off that very durable black baked-enamel on the ocular housings is the work of years of steady use!

I suggest an Aldis sight similar to this was the "donor" - most of these relatively useless artillery sights were broken up for scrap and lenses post-war after all.

Taking this line of thought a little further........if you look at the contract details (post number 65) - the entry dated 30/09/16 refers to a contract placed with Aldis Brothers to 'Fit Telescopic sights with Bartle fittings'. The contract size is 700. There is a second similar entry dated 18/10/16 for a further 700 units. So, if the 'modified PPCo rings' & the 'Bartle fittings' are one & the same, it would explain why the scopes turn up reasonably frequently.....
Immediately above the second entry is a further reference to Aldis for a contract for 2254 'sights telescopic' but with no further qualification. Although above the 18/10/16 entry, it is dated two days later.

Further, if the fitting of Aldis scopes using mounts supplied by J Bartle was carried out by Aldis Brothers themselves, they (Aldis) didn't really need to put their company name all over the rings, as it was already boldly emblazoned on the ocular lens housing. To add it again may have been seen therefore as unnecessary.

Terribly difficult to prove or disprove, but it seems very plausible. I wonder if there are still patent details extant for a J Bartle telescopic sight mount.....or if produced by Bartle at the behest of PPCo or the government, & as it is the same in principle, would it have been covered by PPCo's original patent of February 1915? Just thinking aloud....

It sounds very plausible and as per my previous, if the patents on the PPCo. mount were an asset of the company rather than the property of an inventor (in or out of the firm), which they licensed, then they no doubt went with the company when taken over and thus the ministry could do what it liked with them. Unfortunately UK historical patents are all over the place it seems and not accessible online, so some curious person will have to go to the British Library and rummage through the dusty ledgers!

Yes muffet - a good point. I think there is a lot of new evidence trickling from some excellent collections, and a fair bit of thinking out loud. Once this thread has exhausted, the best points and photos could probably generate a new book....ATB, D.

Or at least an updated edition of a previously published book!

....
Regarding surpmil's point about PPCo company ownership, I remain confused as anyone. Who were the shareholders? A bunch of private citizens or the Govt? Are they talking takeover of ownership or just management? If the Govt owned PPCo, when was the take-over? If Govt owned, then I can accept the idea that PPCo made dovetail mounts might have omitted the patent acknowledgement and company name if they wanted to. Maybe as a company in crisis under wartime pressures, details like this slipped between the cracks? On some of the 1918 /1919 overbore scopes they made efforts to mark the scopes, and on others, they do not. Curse your inconsistency PPCo!!

PPCo. was clearly a private venture to begin as it was taken over for non-performance during the war, and had it been a government venture need not have been taken over. As for the shareholders, that info and more may be somewhere in the UK yet, but one would need to be "on the ground" there to do the research. I found no trace of them in either of the two publications of the British Scientific Instrument Makers Assocation that I have, nor in an online newspaper archive. The buildlng in Kentish Town where their offices were was torn down in the 1980s IIRC. A decade or two ago, I would have said go and ask around the area and you will probably turn up some old person who knew about the business, but very unlikely now. Best bet is track down the directors through a registry of companies that must exist somewhere in a UK archive and look for their descendants and see if they have anything in the family trunks, so to speak.

Roger, your theory about Aldis fitting the dovetail mounts does sound feasible, but patent acknowledgement could be even more desirable when mix and matching Aldis and PPCo products, especially from PPCo's point of view if PPCo actually owned the mounts patent. Would they also be paying royalties for the German scope patents?

Do you mean for the windage adjustment system? I doubt it was patented as similar methods were common on theodolites before and after WWI. As for the rest of the scope, nothing patentable there AFAIK.

So who is this Bartle character? Is it possible that PPC only "designed" the scopes, and used a Bartle design for the mounts from the outset? Getting the patent details would be interesting, to see whether it is entirely credited to PPCo, or whether Bartle's name crops up as the designer. That would make sense if Bartle was then able to collaborate with Aldis for the contract.

Could be almost anyone, but probably either an engineer at PPCo. or Aldis or somewhere within the Ministry (of Munitions?) who proposed the adaptation of the PPCo. mounts to the Aldis scopes?

I find it more curious where the prism concept itself originated, though probably it was nothing new optically.

The timing and size of the Aldis scope contracts is also a thing to consider, especially as it is so late in 1916. My own under-populated spreadsheet and rounding to the nearest hundred or so, you could get something like this:
66000 to 67500 made in 1915. Mainly No.1 and No.2 scopes
67500 to 70600 made in 1916 - Mainly No.3 scopes with a couple of No.2s at the beginning and a No.4 near the end.
70600 to 71600 made in 1916 - Almost all No.4 scopes with a couple of No.3s mixed in.

So in 1916, Aldis had made roughly 3000 No.3 scopes, plus another 1000 No.4 scopes, and I have not seen any Aldis sniper scope dated later than 1916. If the 18/10/16 order was for sniper optics, then they would have had to fit a lot of production into two months. PPCo also made optics for other guns as well, so maybe the 2254 scopes in this order were not sniper optics?

I'm updating my copy of the last spreadsheet now - is this one you got from ValleySniper also? We should blend the two of them at some point perhaps; and agree on the criteria to be recorded? I'll PM you about that.
The earliest No4 Aldis I have is around 70,000 and as you know at around 72,000 they changed the numbering system to begin at 100,000. Then, from what I have so far, it looks like they jumped it again, but need more data to confirm that.

The other thing is that almost all No.4 scopes produced have the lateral adjustment prism fitted, implying fitting in a non-windage adjustable mount. Most of the No.4 scopes in my spreadsheet are fitted with the "PPCo" (Bartle??) dovetail mount from earliest noted scope serial 70889 onwards, but with Roger's possible overbore scope in that serial rage. Starting to make sense?

The only two scopes actually fitted with the overbore claw mounts I have seen are 1916 dated No.3s serials 70501 and 70533. I am not sure what can be read into those numbers. Possibly just that the next handfuls of scopes for the overbore job were sitting on the same section of storage shelf?

Brains are dribbling out of my ears now, must go.

ATB, D

I would not be surprised if the closeness of those two numbers indicates a trial batch. I must see if I can find the photos of 70493 to compare with.

Stephen Sambrook and his contributors have already done a lot of the heavy lifting, so check the credits and bibliography if anyone has a mind to dig further!

[Bindi2]

I would say the drum on that scope is a post-war replacement, and that the focus adjustment cover is also. Whoever did it has gone to the effort of scavenging a portion of another Aldis sight (artillery type) and adapting that to fit with a replacement knurled screw. There was certainly no need for Aldis to add their name on that part, nor to make it so massively heavy, nor to change the pattern we have documented before and after this scope in serial number. The scopes that were re-used in Australia seem to have had long, hard lives to judge by the state of the finish on them (used to have one such myself). I suspect this is another example of that. To wear off that very durable black baked-enamel on the ocular housings is the work of years of steady use!

I suggest an Aldis sight similar to this was the "donor" - most of these relatively useless artillery sights were broken up for scrap and lenses post-war after all!

This scope is likely to have been mounted on a P14 then in Aussie service then to explain the heavy wear. The rebuild may have been done in service as well explaining the difference of parts but the capacity to make them.
I need to dig out my No3T and compare the two scopes.

[Roger Payne]

Stephen Sambrook and his contributors have already done a lot of the heavy lifting, so check the credits and bibliography if anyone has a mind to dig further![/QUOTE]

You're quite right surpmil.....of course. I have been skim reading quite a bit of Sambrook in between various other things today (the bulk of it concerns bigger optical equipment such as Range finders), & the author devotes much space to Barr & Stroud, but there is one reference that could unlock something that will unravel a little of the conundrum. Ref 66 at the bottom of p148, thus: TNA MUN 4/745 Section on Periscopic Prism Co., page 41 provides contract details, & OH., Vol 11, part 3, page 23 describes the take-over.

I have this evening tried to access both of these sources on line at TNA but the first is definitely not amongst their digitised & down loadable documents, & as far as I could ascertain the situation is similar with the Official History, although anyone less technologically challenged than I may have more success, as I am not 100% certain of the status of the OH. Otherwise it is a case of waiting until they re-open again & either making a visit or having them make a copy & posting it. Unless someone has access to a copy........