Rifle sights

[Old Tom]

The pictures of the Ross rifle in another thread in this forum made me wonder why the aperture as a rear sight was not adopted earlier by the British army. As a cadet in the late 1940's I had some experience of the SMLE sights both full and small bore. As a young soldier in the early 1950's I had more experience with the No 4 with aperture sights. (I only ever shot at targets, but my memory says I was quite good at falling plates). The aperture seemed very much more effective. I have only just learned that a service rifle had aperature sights in 1914. Can anyone give any information on the services adoption of the aperture?

Old Tom

[Pete1052]

In the U.S. the M1 Rifle adopted in around 1938 (AKA the Garand) had an aperture-type rear sight located behind the bolt. Some of the World War II production of the M1903 Springfield also had aperture rear sights. The greater the distance between the front and rear sights the greater the accuracy. Parallax or something like it. I suspect that as barrel lengths became shorter in the late 19th and early 20th centuries the idea of putting the rear sight further back became more desirable.

[Thunderbox]

The British Army knew all about aperture sights - they had been around on target rifles since the 1850s. I think the reason that the No1 retained open sights was purely due to its evolutionary design: historically, rear-mounted aperture sights were not practical on military rifle, given their delicacy and the fact that hammers & breechblocks were in the way (P53, Snider, Martini-Henry) - and in any case open sights were fine for the volley fire of the time. The other great problem is that, due to the huge ballistic curve of the old slow bullets, a rear-mounted aperture sight has to be about twice the height of a mid-mounted ladder sight in order to achieve the same sighting range (some of the old black powder aperture sights are eight inches high). As the Lee action was fairly revolutionary at the time, the British Army probably thought it best not to modify it whilst the rifle was in its trials and early service career (the Lee Metfords). By the time the shortened No1 rifle was being experimented with, the Army had decided to go with aperture sights - hence the P13 design. The only reason the No1 rifle remained as the service rifle was WW1, and the prevailing conditions there suited open sights in any case. Its not clear that aperture sights - whilst better for target shooting - are actually significantly better for the snap-shooting conditions of combat. If you look at rifles that have to be used in a great hurry - e.g. African hunting rifles - they all have open sights!

[TonyE]

Until the early years of the 20th Century all British service rifles had a leaf rear sight, although the advantages of an aperture sight had been well known by the target shooting fraternity for many years.

Following the Esher Enquiry into the Boer War, and particularly the level of British marksmanship, the General Staff began in 1908/09 to look at a new infantry rifle in either .256" or .276". In September 1910 they issued a draft specification which included the requirement that the rifle should have an aperture rear sight graduated to 1,600 yards.

In the fullness of time this led to the Pattern 1913 (P.'13) rifle in .276 inch calibre (RL 18000c case) with an aperture backsight adjusted by a slide. Although the P.'13 rifle never entered service due to both technical problems with the ammunition and the outbreak of the war, in .303 inch calibre it was adopted with little other change as the Pattern 1914 rifle (P.'14).

Meanwhile, the Ross had been introduced to Canadian service with a rather delicate but accurate aperture sight. When Britain ordered 100,000 Ross Mark IIIB rifles in late 1914 one of the changes the War Office made was to have a more robust aperture rear sight, very similar to the P.'13/14 sight.

Another innovation during the war was a re-designed sight for the P.'14 rifle that had a fine adjustment on the screw thread and some rifles fitted with this sight did see service in the sniping role.

Post war, consideration was given to modifying the SMLE and the SMLE mark V was introduced for troop trials in 1922 (about 22,000 were made and issued) and this had a rather lumpy aperture rear sight. Although not introduced for universal service, experience gained led in turn to the (SMLE) No.1 Mark VI which was a prototype No.4 rifle, finally introduced in 1940.

First picture shows P.'14 rear sight

Regards

TonyE

[TonyE]

Ross Mark III (Canadian) rear sight, followed by Ross (British) Mark IIIB rear sight.

[4thGordons]

The M1917 and Pattern 1914 rifles upon which it was based (Pattern '13 too, even earlier) had aperture sights. So clearly they were "on the way in" at the start of the twentieth century. Target shooters had tang mounted aperture sights on Martini-Henrys (and Remington Rolling blocks etc) earlier. why they were not adopted earlier I do not know.

The first major interwar development of the SMLE the MkV was essentially a MkIII with aperture sights added to the reciever.

Chris

Well there you are - TonyE beat me to it!

Edited 6 May , 2011 by 4thGordons

[Pete1052]

Target-type peep sights are often not good for the kinds of low-light or low-visibility situations found on the the battlefield.

[TonyE]

You beat me to it Seth!

However, I think our posts complement each other.

Cheers

Tony

[Old Tom]

Some interesting points, many thanks.

Old Tom

[Pete1052]

The first firearm I ever owned in 1965 was a Mossburg .22-caliber rifle, bolt-action with a walnut stock, blue steel and a seven-round box magazine. I was in Boy Scouts at the time firing competition for NRA and DoD small-bore marksmanship badges. Mossburg is middle-grade, inexpensive but quality manufacture. More to the point, it had two rear sights. One was a Lyman target peep sight mounted behind the bolt by the tang for target shooting. The other was an open V-notch rear sight with elevation notches mounted on the barrel forward of the chamber. Thus it was a dual-purpose rifle for a teenage boy, either target or field. You'd never find a squirrel in the woods looking through the Lyman peep target sight, but it could be removed by the owner with a screwdriver (two screws) should you want to use it for hunting. I've done both.

The V-notch open sight for field use is analagous to a combat sight on a military rifle, whereas the Lyman peep sight is for precision target shooting. There is some tension and disagreement between target shooters and military combat marksmanship trainers regarding tactics, techniques and procedures. One of the criticisms of the U.S. M1903 Springfield of the Great War is that its choice of sights was too strongly influenced by those in the target-shooting community. The marksmanship fraternity that wears amber-lens shooting glasses should have input into the design of military rifles but they should not be allowed to take over the asylum.

[MikB]

...due to the huge ballistic curve of the old slow bullets, a rear-mounted aperture sight has to be about twice the height of a mid-mounted ladder sight in order to achieve the same sighting range...

If you look at rifles that have to be used in a great hurry - e.g. African hunting rifles - they all have open sights!

Very well-put. I think these are the two decisive arguments that would've carried the day at the time.

I don't know if the SMLE would have acquired quite the reputation it had, for balance between accuracy and rapidity of fire, if the aperture sight had been universal throughout WW1. It might well have limited its usefulness in the sub-100 yard trench fight.

Regards,

MikB

[Old Tom]

Aperture v open sights; at risk of going away from the Great War. The No 4, as I recall, had a number of sight variations, all of which included a 'battle sight' with a large aperture and no range adjustment and a smaller adjustable aperture graduated to 600 yds?. I have not read of the sights being criticised, but perhaps have not read the right books.

Old Tom

[TonyE]

The No.4 is a bit off topic as you say, but it is of interest in the context of the original question.

The sights for the No.4 were:

Mark I - machined with screw adjustment in 50 yard clicks.

Mark 2 - simple "L" shaped battle sight with two positions for 300 and 600 yards.

Mark 3 - Pressed steel with slider, designed by BSA

Mark 4 - Similar to Mark III but with a better slider release catch designed by the Design Department.

All of the adjustable types were graduated to 1300 yards and incorporated a battle aperture for use to 400 yards.

The inclusion of a battle aperture was a common feature on all the British aperture sights, including the P.'13, P.'14, SMLE Mark V and the No.1 Mark VI.

I often shoot my P.'14 using the battle aperture and at 100 yards is just as accurate (which is very accurate) as the "proper" aperture setting.

After all, one is only likely to use the battle sight at relatively close range. If the enemy is 400 yards away there is time to set the range properly.

Regards

TonyE

[MikB]

...Mark I - machined with screw adjustment in 50 yard clicks.

Regards

TonyE

I'm really sorry to do this, which will no doubt make me the subject of considerable revenge ... but...

they were 50-yard marked increments, not clicks. The clicks were smaller - don't know the value but would guess around 1/2 minute.

With the trajectory steepening at longer ranges, the 50 yards from, say, 1200 to 1250 would require more vertical movement than from 500 to 550. So unless they had a progressive pitch on the elevation screw...

The battle sight, with not only its large aperture but its thin surround and minimal obscuration of the shooter's view, is what may have saved these sights from criticism on the No.4.

Regards,

MikB

Regards,

MikB

[TonyE]

Absolutely correct Mik, and entirely due to my errant use of words. What I should have said was "Mark I - machined with screw adjustment in 50 yard intervals"!

regards

TonyE

[4thGordons]

The No.4 is a bit off topic as you say, but it is of interest in the context of the original question.

The sights for the No.4 were:

Mark I - machined with screw adjustment in 50 yard clicks.

Mark 2 - simple "L" shaped battle sight with two positions for 300 and 600 yards.

Mark 3 - Pressed steel with slider, designed by BSA

Mark 4 - Similar to Mark III but with a better slider release catch designed by the Design Department.

Regards

TonyE

OOOh OOOh -- also Canadian variants fitted on Longbranch rifles!

C Mk 3 - (externally appears similar to the Mk3 (British) but components and construction differ - wartime expedient

C Mk 4 - 1944(into the 50s) on again simililar to the British Mk4

and the two variants of the sights fitted to the No5 rifle (one milled one stamped) graduated to only 800yds

and the version of the Mk1 fitted to the L8 rifles

Chris

[Gunner Bailey]

The sight in Tony's #5 post looks remarkably like the BSA Parker tipping sight from 1908. I've got one which fits the Long Lee and the SMLE but I've no idea if they were used in the war.

John

[TonyE]

Chris - As it was slightly off-topic I was trying to keep it simple!

However, bringing things back to WWI, let us not forget the "Fine" pattern sight that was retro-fitted to some Winchester made P.'14 rifles in the UK. This had a screw adjustment with one minute of angle clicks that moved the point of impact 1 inch at 100 yards.

Rifles fitted with this sight were used as an interim sniping rifle both at the Sniping Schools and on active service from late 1917.

Regards

TonyE