The British Army's GS Telescope - description

[MikB]

Because the design of the eyepiece very often doesn't match the Mk. no of the main scope, I've come to the theory that the army stored the eyepieces separately from the scopes and issued the first that came to hand indiscriminately. If your eyepiece was originally for a Mk.IV it'll have a plain metal shutter. The small round 'moderating glass' insert was nominally from Mk.IV** or later. 

[4thGordons]

I don't see a number on the eyepiece.

It is marked R&JB with a broad arrow and "Low" as shown on the pics. The shutter is indeed a simple flat metal piece so I assume this is one of the original eyepieces.

Chris

[4thGordons]

On 28/01/2024 at 13:00, MikB said:

Because the design of the eyepiece very often doesn't match the Mk. no of the main scope, I've come to the theory that the army stored the eyepieces separately from the scopes and issued the first that came to hand indiscriminately. If your eyepiece was originally for a Mk.IV it'll have a plain metal shutter. The small round 'moderating glass' insert was nominally from Mk.IV** or later. 

Apparently these telescopes are like busses -- 

Another has appeared - it is a different maker RYLAND and SON Ltd, dated 1916 and numbered No17332

This one has a R&JB (Low) eyepiece - unnumbered but with the round moderating glass you mentioned, so presumably a later piece

Condition is much more heavily tarnished - almost black on the smallest draw (with the eyepiece - I don't know if this is the first or last! draw!) what is the standard recommendation on cleaning/polishing the brass on these?

I disassembled it and cleaned the horribly dirty lenses and reattached the internal prism (that was rattling around inside but just needed screwing in to its housing. The view is probably as good as my other one. One question - the draw with the eyepiece is significantly looser than the others, is there any way of tightening it up (perhaps adjusting the piece it fits into?) 

The leather on this one is much lighter almost greenish grey than is usually the case (although the strap loops appear to be the standard brown)  - I am not sure if that is the effect of 100+ years of sunlight or if it started off a very different color, I tend towards the latter because of the colour of the cap and the loops.

Now the hunt will be on for a tripod.

Chris

 

Edited 8 February by 4thGordons

[Chasemuseum]

I think the green-grey is a deterioration of the leather, and that it would have been a tan brown when new.. 

[MikB]

The leather would originally have been mid-tan, but it really is anybody's guess what it's been exposed to in the 100+ years since. I've not often seen leather so discoloured but without other grievous damage. I couldn't readily see the stitching - is the barrel cover glued-on? The tan colour of the strap loops suggests later restoration.

I don't recognise any internal prism as standard - as far as I know there should be just a contact doublet as objective, a two-element brass cell as an erector and another such as eyepiece, these at opposite ends of the smallest draw.

Somebody may have decided to reblack the tubes. In the original, the engravings were usually cut through the blacking, and it's pretty difficult to restore the original appearance later.

I don't think Ryland Tel.Sigs. are very common, and perhaps that suggests that serial numbers were allocated centrally. I once had a (WW2) Scout Regiment made by them which was optically rather poor, so I have - maybe unfairly - tended to avoid them since.

Drawtube jointing sleeves (sometimes called glands) were normally lined with a felt a bit like a stiff-piled velvet. I've used pieces of four-by-two flannelette patches as replacements with good success. The sleeves have tabs cut in the threads which you can adjust by careful bending. I found the best way is to make the friction fit decline from the largest draw back to the smallest, so that you can focus using the smallest alone.

[4thGordons]

4 hours ago, MikB said:

a two-element brass cell as an erector and another such as eyepiece, these at opposite ends of the smallest draw.

 

Apologies for my incorrect terminology I believe this is what I meant! it was rolling around in the main body having come unscrewed from the end of the draw.

Thanks for the rest I will take pics of the stitching when I get home this evening and check if the cover is glued on.

Having very limited experience and just the two examples I can't really make a comment as to the quality of the Ryland scope beyond the fact that side by side to the other one they are pretty similar not sure I could pick either as clearly "better" or "worse".  

I wondered about judicious bending of the sleeves. While I can focus well on the first example using just the smallest draw - on the Ryland it is very easy to move it to focus but any slight movement/bump causes it to move and thus lose focus so just a slight tightening would be good. I will examine it and see.  Thanks for info.

Chris

[4thGordons]

On 08/02/2024 at 16:31, 4thGordons said:

Now the hunt will be on for a tripod.

Chris

 

I would like to offer massive thanks to @museumtom for setting me up with this! After a bit of a nervous wait  - yesterday's post delivered this wonderful example. All complete (including the hardwood block for the clamp and with the leather and canvas straps) 1914 dated and unit marked and in wonderful functioning condition. Thanks Tom!

[Chasemuseum]

Looks good.   Always nice to see the tripod thats not been cut down.

 

Yes the military did cut them down for use by snipers, but lots, lots more were cut down for use as spotting scopes at the rifle ranges between and after the wars. 

[6th Hauraki KIA KAHA]

Looks great thanks for sharing...

[Dave66]

Fantastic, lovely example…nice to see the original strap etc.

Dave.

[museumtom]

Happy to be of service Chris. These were left behind after the British left here country in 1922. There are still a few about.

[4thGordons]

On 27/02/2024 at 20:53, Chasemuseum said:

Looks good.   Always nice to see the tripod thats not been cut down.

 

Yes the military did cut them down for use by snipers, but lots, lots more were cut down for use as spotting scopes at the rifle ranges between and after the wars. 

Question - was there a standard length / specified length that they were cut down to? I know I can experiment (and probably will) but I just purchased a Siemens Bros. 1914 Mk V Signal Stand (tripod) head complete but without legs and I thought I might make up a shortened one for range use, in addition to the one shown above 

 

 

[Chasemuseum]

As the cutting down was never known to be official these seem to vary a lot in the 12 to 18-inch range. Think of what is convenient when you are lying prone on the mound at the range and doing competitive shooting, to see where the target has been marked up after each shot.

 

The operators of the target drop the target, and put a coloured cardboard disc with a pencil in the hole and patch the previous hole and then raise the target. Then you lean over from your rifle and check the spotting scope to see where the round landed. Depending on the competition rules you will typically have 2 sighters to adjust your sights or aim point before the competition score count begins.

Edited 12 April by Chasemuseum
typo

[MikB]

As above - you do need a decent telescope to see the spotting disc and the scoring rings at ranges over a hundred or two yards, and you can challenge the markers if you think they've signalled a wrong score. Varying conditions of light, and especially running mirage in warm weather or wet lenses in rain, mean that the holes alone and the rings can be very difficult to see at the 500 - 1000 yard distances. 

Because fairly plentiful and inexpensive military surplus was the main source of practical telescopes and stands between the end of WW1 and the widening of availability of consumer optics in the 1960s, it's easy to see why so many of the WD tripods got cut down during that period. There were specialist target-spotting stands available, but they were expensive and hard to find.

[4thGordons]

Just saw a scope that was marked differently - seemed to be identical in design and manufacture to those above - fitted with a "low" power eyepiece but marked:

    

I understand that John Barker and Co Kensington W8 was a fairly well known Department Store.

and Broadhust. Clarkson and Co was a telescope manufacturer but my question is - is this an ex military GS Telescope reconditioned for private sales at a later date (inter war or even possibly post WWII?) or was this a GW period  private purchase item for officers? Or ........

I can find no official markings (broad arrows etc) on scope or eyepiece indicating it was ever an issue piece

Chris

[Chasemuseum]

Most likely manufactured for sale to an officer as part of his personal equipment.

[reese williams]

There were a lot of scopes put together for the civilian market after the war from new, unused, left over parts that remained in stock after the war department contracts were finished/cancelled. 

[4thGordons]

Thanks both,

2 hours ago, reese williams said:

There were a lot of scopes put together for the civilian market after the war from new, unused, left over parts that remained in stock after the war department contracts were finished/cancelled. 

That is what I was wondering about actually, specifically use of "reconditioned for"  on the labelling seemed to imply that it was a previous service scope that had been redone for public sale (or sale to officers) I hadn't considered the idea that it was assembled from parts etc

However, both of these options would seem to imply that it inter - war - I was trying to work out from the histories of the two companies if I could narrow the time - span down but I don't think I can

Chris

 

[FROGSMILE]

25 minutes ago, 4thGordons said:

Thanks both,

That is what I was wondering about actually, specifically use of "reconditioned for"  on the labelling seemed to imply that it was a previous service scope that had been redone for public sale (or sale to officers) I hadn't considered the idea that it was assembled from parts etc

However, both of these options would seem to imply that it inter - war - I was trying to work out from the histories of the two companies if I could narrow the time - span down but I don't think I can

Chris

 

Their records will be at “Companies House”, Chris (a long standing institution), and archives should include quite a lot of detail about their product lines and sales figures.  I imagine that military surplus items being reconditioned for sale will have been worthy of record.  I don’t know how much they charge for an inquiry, but it might be worth at least getting a quote: https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/companies-house

Edited 24 April by FROGSMILE

[MikB]

3 hours ago, 4thGordons said:

Thanks both,

That is what I was wondering about actually, specifically use of "reconditioned for"  on the labelling seemed to imply that it was a previous service scope that had been redone for public sale (or sale to officers) I hadn't considered the idea that it was assembled from parts etc

However, both of these options would seem to imply that it inter - war - I was trying to work out from the histories of the two companies if I could narrow the time - span down but I don't think I can

Chris

 

I tried to get some details of telescope production (especially Scout Regiments) from Broadhurst Clarkson (and now Fuller) some years back. BC&F replied that Broadhurst destroyed all records in the 1970s. I think he'd effectively bought out Clarkson when the company was formed in 1908, but kept the name on for its marketing value - and I believe he was himself reluctant to sell out to Fuller. 

I also think, like Reese, it's likely the scope from John Barker is inter-war. London Postal Districts (eg. W.8) didn't get subdivided into numbers until 1917, at which time military demand for telescopes would still be too great to flog 'em out into the civilian market through department stores and 'gentlemen's outfitters', although this practice had a long history. BC & Co possibly persisted much longer with their address as London E.C. - I've never seen it marked as E.C.1. as it theoretically should be for after 1917.

So I'd guess this dates to a time when deerstalking for the well-to-do had revived, in perhaps the mid-20s.

Edited 24 April by MikB

[peregrinvs]

3 hours ago, FROGSMILE said:

Their records will be at “Companies House”, Chris (a long standing institution), and archives should include quite a lot of detail about their product lines and sales figures.  I imagine that military surplus items being reconditioned for sale will have been worthy of record.  I don’t know how much they charge for an inquiry, but it might be worth at least getting a quote: https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/companies-house

I very much doubt Companies House would hold anything on a company that old. Their main thing is information on live or recently dissolved companies.

I would start my research with National Archives:

https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/help-with-your-research/research-guides/companies-and-businesses/

Edited 24 April by peregrinvs

[FROGSMILE]

34 minutes ago, peregrinvs said:

I very much doubt Companies House would hold anything on a company that old. Their main thing is information on live or recently dissolved companies.

I would start my research with National Archives:

https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/help-with-your-research/research-guides/companies-and-businesses/

Thank you for that information.  I remember learning of Companies House and a rough outline of its role several decades ago, but it was only in passing and I didn’t pick up that it operated within a limited time window.

Looking at what the National Archives offer on closed businesses it does look like they only hold financial and legal matters with no mention of product lines as I’d initially thought would be the case.  In hindsight I can see that from a storage perspective (pre digitisation) there would’ve been a reluctance to maintain volumes of such paperwork that would have quickly overrun the storage capacity.

Edited 24 April by FROGSMILE

[peregrinvs]

1 hour ago, FROGSMILE said:

Looking at what the National Archives offer on closed businesses it does look like they only hold financial and legal matters with no mention of product lines as I’d initially thought would be the case.  In hindsight I can see that from a storage perspective (pre digitisation) there would’ve been a reluctance to maintain volumes of such paperwork that would have quickly overrun the storage capacity.

AFAIK there has never been a requirement for companies to file information on their products beyond a brief business description. How much of such information survives elsewhere tends to be a matter of luck and the further you go back in time the less likely it becomes.

[FROGSMILE]

35 minutes ago, peregrinvs said:

AFAIK there has never been a requirement for companies to file information on their products beyond a brief business description. How much of such information survives elsewhere tends to be a matter of luck and the further you go back in time the less likely it becomes.

Yes I can see how that makes sense.  Again, thank you - it’s been interesting to mull it over.

Edited 24 April by FROGSMILE

[Chasemuseum]

How companies keep records is very much in the mindset of management. Many companies used to keep detailed records going back to foundation. With the takeover boom in the 80s that changed a lot and keeping old records was often seen as an unnecessary expense. Companies that I used to deal with went from having huge archives (and not minding doing the research leg work for legitimate information requests) to destroying everything. Now that so many records are electronic only, the ability to access historical data is actually getting worse. I am currently doing work on a building built in 2018 and most of the records are only the preliminary materials rather than what was actually built which was substantially different.