Bloke on the Range videos

Did you think about doing it this way?

You do need two of each sight to make it easy, but otherwise just put the sights onto a common axis pin/rod. This gives you your datum level between the models of sight.

With a micrometer/ laser/ good eyes and a ruler, you can directly find the heights of the centres of the leaf/battle apertures about the datum point - and the relationship between battle and leaf on the same sight.

I did comparisons of most of the sights. Can't find the photos now, but IIRC No5 battles are set to 300, and No4s mostly to 400.

There is very little design info about the sights, and I did wonder whether the "400" chosen for the No4 was because they found soldiers shot low in poor light or under stress (better view of the target, etc).


The problem with doing it like that is that it's hard to determine the centre of the apertures that way, and it shows with your photo there. Your No.5 ladder aperture is miles off centre - both the no.5 one in that vid and the Poole-made one on Frankenrifle come out clearly at exactly 100 yds (the Poole one was tested a week after filming while seeing if the brass cased ammo I'd got would chamber without resistance in its tight chamber). The Faz No.4 rearsight on the right of your photo there also has the datum below centre of the ladder aperture and above centre fror the battle aperture, and I suspect if you shot it then it would come out at exactly 400 yds.

Actually shooting them at 25, 50 or 100 yds (or further) is the only real proof.

If you get the opportunity, I'd be really glad to incorporate your shooting data in my table - in the meantime I've come up with a theory regarding 100/400yd battle sight zero for the Mk.1 No.4 sights, but I don't want to bias people by saying what it is until I've got sufficient data to confirm or deny it :)
 
Having just watched, and rather enjoyed, this latest instalment, I'm left wondering how you ever found woman to marry you?
She's clearly mad.... It's what I've always thought, anyway :D
 

4(T)

LE
The problem with doing it like that is that it's hard to determine the centre of the apertures that way, and it shows with your photo there. Your No.5 ladder aperture is miles off centre - both the no.5 one in that vid and the Poole-made one on Frankenrifle come out clearly at exactly 100 yds (the Poole one was tested a week after filming while seeing if the brass cased ammo I'd got would chamber without resistance in its tight chamber). The Faz No.4 rearsight on the right of your photo there also has the datum below centre of the ladder aperture and above centre fror the battle aperture, and I suspect if you shot it then it would come out at exactly 400 yds.

Actually shooting them at 25, 50 or 100 yds (or further) is the only real proof.

If you get the opportunity, I'd be really glad to incorporate your shooting data in my table - in the meantime I've come up with a theory regarding 100/400yd battle sight zero for the Mk.1 No.4 sights, but I don't want to bias people by saying what it is until I've got sufficient data to confirm or deny it :)

The photo was only indicative, for someone years ago on a forum.

I made a sort of measuring jig, with the sights on a steel rod the same diameter as the sight axis pin.

You can get a reasonable accurate assessment of aperture centres by laying the sights on fine graph paper (flat to compare sight scales, or one edge of a square surface for battles and leaf together). From this you can measure to a reference line parallel to the sight axis pin.
 
You can get a reasonable accurate assessment of aperture centres by laying the sights on fine graph paper (
Depending on what the apertures are like, a bushing inserted into them would give a more precise measurement. Or if you know the diameter of the apertures and measure to the lower edge.
 

ugly

LE
Moderator
Interesting. Matt Moss's take in his book on the Sterling didn't mention that.
I had thought it was Steve Raw but no, I think it may have been in Tony Edwards final HBSA lecture on Post War Automatic Rifles Development. Not sure if the notes are online in full but I will look. @clayp1g and I approached him afterwards to find out if he was going to publish his lecture and he said quite matter of fact "I don't think I have the time left!"
That left me feeling very cold and sad. Anyway I will look for the notes.
 

ugly

LE
Moderator


These are the lecture slides sadly not the notes or comments, Tony wasn’t known for hearsay so I suspect it’s been written down somewhere
 
Page 160 of this publication shines a different light again on the select fire rifle versus smg argument


Interesting because this could be the misquoted research
Interesting, thanks.

Although on P.164 the author seems to have conflated the requirement for rifle calibre ammunition to have a certain retained energy at 2000 yds with a rifle capable of delivering it at 2000 yds (rather than an MG in the sustained fire role)...

1591871506822.png


This is what the 1959 M14 manual says on ranges:

1591871712822.png


M1 Garand sights only go up to 1200 yds, and this is what the 1965 manual says about range:

1591871797452.png


1940 manual mentions 600 yds.
 
A little cameo...

 
 
Dagenham's finest!

1591975193439.png
 
The Andrew comes up with all the best ideas!!! :p

1592036341271.png
 
1592061795000.png
 

Blogg

LE
A niche video methinks.

However I have a No.4 MkI/II which bears the legend "Regulated by Fultons".

If I can find time this week will pop the top wood and post a pic. of the centre bedding, which is pretty obvious.

Sadly some sod lifted the target sights before selling it at auction as a dirty greasy horrible cruddly bore POS.

So now it has Mk I ladder sights but:

A; it cost me £50

B: both wood and bore cleaned up wonderfully

C: still shoots better than my eyes permit
 
A niche video methinks.

However I have a No.4 MkI/II which bears the legend "Regulated by Fultons".

If I can find time this week will pop the top wood and post a pic. of the centre bedding, which is pretty obvious.

Sadly some sod lifted the target sights before selling it at auction as a dirty greasy horrible cruddly bore POS.

So now it has Mk I ladder sights but:

A; it cost me £50

B: both wood and bore cleaned up wonderfully

C: still shoots better than my eyes permit
Thanks, I'd love to see the pic :)
 

HE117

LE
Interesting, thanks.

Although on P.164 the author seems to have conflated the requirement for rifle calibre ammunition to have a certain retained energy at 2000 yds with a rifle capable of delivering it at 2000 yds (rather than an MG in the sustained fire role)...

View attachment 481279

This is what the 1959 M14 manual says on ranges:

View attachment 481280

M1 Garand sights only go up to 1200 yds, and this is what the 1965 manual says about range:

View attachment 481281

1940 manual mentions 600 yds.
I think this goes back to the use of MMG for long range fire..? .303 Mk VIII would still just be stable at these ranges because of the boat tailed ammuniton, but was creating a beaten zone rather than point accuracy..!
 

ugly

LE
Moderator
I think this goes back to the use of MMG for long range fire..? .303 Mk VIII would still just be stable at these ranges because of the boat tailed ammuniton, but was creating a beaten zone rather than point accuracy..!
The figures were for comparison rather actual effective ranges is how I read it
 
I think this goes back to the use of MMG for long range fire..? .303 Mk VIII would still just be stable at these ranges because of the boat tailed ammuniton, but was creating a beaten zone rather than point accuracy..!
Yes, indeed, since it was only MG's delivering fire at that range. But the author seems to have mixed that up with some pre-WW1-sounding requirement of being able to deliver rifle fire at that range :)
 

Latest Threads

Top