The No4Mk1 peep sights were ahead of their time........

[303carbine]

The No4Mk1 303 Enfield sights are the early example of ghost ring sights from back in the late 30's, they are a great design and have stood the test of time.
I am sure that is where Skinner and other similar designs got their idea for their ghost ring sights.

[Scharfschuetze]

Good they are, particularly the Mk I sight.

From what I can tell, I do believe though that the British Pattern 13 (circa 1912) and the Pattern 14 (circa 1914) rifles led the way with a good aperture sight. The US 1917 derivative of the P14 also used the same sight, but calibrated for the US 30/06 ball round of 1906.

The British were certainly ahead of the rest of the world as far as rifle sights went in the first 40 years or so of the 20th Century with their early adoption of aperture sights placed on the receiver bridge. The US caught up in a hurry though with the design of the M1 Garand rear sight.

[leebuilder]

It could of started with the No1 mk5, for the adoption of the Mk1 sight for the then new No4. I think peep sights make an average shooter a better shooter. Maybe just natural progression of battle rifles. The french and germans did there thing and remember the american tube sights.
Be well

[Ballistics in Scotland]

Good they are, particularly the Mk I sight.

From what I can tell, I do believe though that the British Pattern 13 (circa 1912) and the Pattern 14 (circa 1914) rifles led the way with a good aperture sight. The US 1917 derivative of the P14 also used the same sight, but calibrated for the US 30/06 ball round of 1906.

The British were certainly ahead of the rest of the world as far as rifle sights went in the first 40 years or so of the 20th Century with their early adoption of aperture sights placed on the receiver bridge. The US caught up in a hurry though with the design of the M1 Garand rear sight.

I think that is true, and the military aperture sight originates with the P13 trials rifle. There were problems of flash, noise, metallic fouling and erosion with its large .276 cartridge, but they have been long since overcome with rifles like the 7mm. Remington Magnum, and could have been overcome sooner if some idiot hadn't started a war, which made a change of cartridge undesirable. Whether anybody in the world has ever needed a better long-range cartridge than the .30-06 is very doubtful, though. It was a reaction to the Boer War of 1899, and nobody has ever fought another war in which the infantry rifle was the dominant weapon.


The No4 Lee-Enfield rear sight is less well protected than the P13, P14 and M1917 versions, between the receiver "ears". But Parker-Hale and Alfred J Parker made accessory micrometer windage slide to clip onto the No.4 version, and accept screw-in discs. They still appear (not cheaply unfortunately) on eBay.

[jeep421]

I find it hard sometimes to get good accuracy with open sights. I'm new to 303 after using v notches. Any advice?

[leebuilder]

Practice, practice
consistant sight picture, practice some more.

[Scharfschuetze]

The No4 Lee-Enfield rear sight is less well protected than the P13, P14 and M1917 versions, between the receiver "ears". But Parker-Hale and Alfred J Parker made accessory micrometer windage slide to clip onto the No.4 version, and accept screw-in discs. They still appear (not cheaply unfortunately) on eBay.

Here is an AJ Parker unit on one of my No 4 Mk I rifles (Long Branch). Note the variable aperture disk that allows one to go from a virtual pin hole aperture to a more open aperture. It's a great addition to a great rifle. I wish I would have bought a few more of them before the AJ Parker closed its doors.

[Scharfschuetze]

Practice, practice
consistant sight picture, practice some more.

How true that is! When shooting with military and police shooting teams, I often dry fired an hour a day to perfect the fundamentals without the disruption of recoil. It usually paid of well at the next match.

I might also add that the barrel mounted sights on Mausers, Lee Enfields and 1903 Springfields can also be used to great effect and accuracy at long range when one uses them properly.

[Ballistics in Scotland]

That is the one. You would have to be an extremely competitive match shot to be discontent with the rigidity and adustments of that setup, But for those who are, there was a complete series of Parker-Hale and AJ Parker receiver sights for all the Enfields and some other rifles, which clamped on by means of screw-holes already present, on the side of the action. On eBay they are usually available, for prices similar to the quality end of the cheap scope market.

[Scharfschuetze]

Like this? This one is set aside for either a No 2 in .22LR or a Lithgow No1 Mk III.

Just got 'a love old Commonwealth quality and attention to detail.

[W.R.Buchanan]

I find it hard sometimes to get good accuracy with open sights. I'm new to 303 after using v notches. Any advice?

Jeep: there are many sources here for information on how to use these sights properly. Once you understand how they work and have a standard load to regulate the gun to, it all falls into place.

Then you can practice putting the front sight on the target and pulling the trigger. Not having to think about whether or not the sight is set correctly for a given distance makes doing the same thing with the sight picture and trigger pull much easier to execute. One less thing to get in the way.

If you are using some form of Factory 150 gr ammo, when the elevation and windage are zeroed at 200 yards with the sight set at 200 yards, the come ups for the different ranges will follow the ladder sight perfectly, and the Ghost ring should be dead on at 300 yards, if you choose to use it.

All military battle rifles with iron sights have sights that are regulated to a standard Military Ball Load. If you duplicate that load your sights will perform correctly. They spent a lot of time and money perfecting these systems and they all are based on a given trajectory of a bullet loaded to a specific Velocity. All of this can be calculated using a ballistic computer or tables in some loading manuals. A given bullet, fired at a specific velocity, will have the same trajectory no matter what gun it is fired from. Changes in muzzle velocity which affect that trajectory can be calculated and compensated for predictably.

Getting the elevation to be right, may require the use of different heights of Front Sight Blades. There are 9 of them.(available on Ebay) they are calibrated in .015 increments. Since .008 = 1 MOA with this sight radius, changes to the blade result in 2" at 100 yards Once you get the right front blade installed so that you are dead on at 200 yards then you jack the Front Sight Blade side to side until your windage is right. (I make a tool to do this predictably)

All this needs to be done off a bench rest at 200 yards. Or you can start at 50 yards and work out to 200 if you can't see that well.(like me) You must still verify at 200 yards whether you can see that far or not.

At that point you are good to go with that load.

Now that you know where the gun is shooting you can learn what sight picture produces hits on whatever target you are shooting at.

Also any load that is slower than your standard load will result in a positive elevation increase and if you shoot your cast boolit loads off a bench and record the settings for future use you will only have to do this once. Unfortunately every time you change loads you will have to alter the rear sight settings and this should be done off a bench rest to minimize variables.

If you don't know exactly where the gun is shooting or are just winging it, you are simply wasting ammo.

I hate seeing guys chasing the sights at a shoot where they are making windage and elevation corrections while shooting Off Hand! I have heard that there are people who can do this effectively,,, I don't know any of them personally.

I have been using this method for the last few years with my #4 Mk1 and my Springfield Rifles with Lyman Receiver sights, and I assure you that it works the same for all iron sighted guns, even ones with open sights, and by the way it works for scopes as well.

It does require some methodology in your sighting practice to achieve the best results, but that is part of the fun, also recording your efforts is the way to progress directly from novice to expert without having to go back and forth.

Hope this helps you a little.

Randy

[leebuilder]

Adding to Scharf's fine pics
PH 5c as issued on a 1950 LB No4 mk1*
139748
And it shoots ok at 800m
be safe

[higgins]

Maybe this is a good time and place to repost my improvised No.4 rear sight aperture reduction device. After 3 years and probably a couple hundred rounds of surplus ammo fired, it's still in place and the rifle is still zeroed.

http://castboolits.gunloads.com/showthread.php?153524-Smaller-aperture-for-Enfield-No-4-sight-easy-fix&highlight=

[HollowPoint]

On my No.4 Enfield I installed a front globe sight with cross-hairs just like on a scope and I re-worked the adjustable factory ladder rear sight to integrate one of those aftermarket adjustable-iris peeps that was once held on with a little rubber suction cup. (similar to the one in the pic posted by Mr. Scharf) I can't think of what the name of that little peep sight is but, they were made to attach to the lenses of our shooting glasses via a rubber suction cup.

I now have a consistent sight picture that's like that of a zero-powered scope. Of course, the Enfield I'm referring to is now an officially bubbafied example of 17.5" barreled, 308-bore carbine that is threaded to accept a suppressor. It's not a wannabe Jungle-Carbine. It's just a short and handy lead plinker that's a little more accurate than it was in its factory guise.

If I get a chance I'll post of pic of my peep sight setup. I've been reluctant up to now due to the comments I've come across on similar threads that posted pics of bubba'd rifles.

I love a good set of peep sights; wether home made or store bought. My eye sight is such that if my rifles don't wear either a scope or a set of peeps, they're just bullet wasters to me.

HollowPoint

[madsenshooter]

I like the big ears on a P14/17 front sight that I modified one to use as a front sight on my Garand. The larger ears center better in the enlarged peep than the regular Garand sight does.

[Adam Helmer]

The P-14/P-17 sights leave a lot to be desired since there is NO (EASY) WAY to make Windage adjustments. My favorite .303 rifle is a MkIII made in 1911 with the Windage adjustable rear sight. In 1916, British Military "Intelligence" dropped the magazine cutoff, Long Range Sight and the Windage Adjustable rear sight.

I am glad the M1903 Springfield, the 03-A3 and the Garand had a means to make windage adjustments. The P-14 and P-17 "missed the bus" when it came to sight adjustments! Same can be said for the Mausers Model 1898 and the Kar 98k. I suspect the wind does not blow in Europe. I dunno.

I would NOT say the "No4 Mk1 sight was ahead of its time" since there is NO windage adjustment on the rear sight. It would have been another 50 cents to install Windage adjustments on the No.4 rear sight during WWII. The No.4 rear sights are not what they could have been.... If your No.4 shoots half a foot Left or Right, WHAT does a soldier do? Then the next Lot of Ball ammo shoots in another direction, and then wot???

Adam

[quasi]

The Ross 1910 has the earliest aperture sight, and is windage adjustable

[Adam Helmer]

quasi,

I tend to disagree with your statement, "The Ross 1910 had the earliest aperature sight and is windage adjustable." The MkIII predated the Ross Model 1910 and the rear sight was windage adjustable. The MkIII sight was not an aperature sight, but windage adjustment was obviously deemed important. Also, the Springfield Model 1903 had several aperature sights and all were Windage adjustable.

Just saying...

Adam

[quasi]

I was talking about Military rifles with ISSUE sights.

[Adam Helmer]

quasi,

Sir, SO WAS I! All the sights I mentioned WERE ISSUE. Perhaps you need to do some research BEFORE you Pontificate....

Adam

[quasi]

quasi,

Sir, SO WAS I! All the sights I mentioned WERE ISSUE. Perhaps you need to do some research BEFORE you Pontificate....

Adam

Springfield 1903 had issue aperture sights, no. 1903A3 yes. Go Pontificate yourself.é

[waksupi]

Careful if you are having a peeing match. Sometimes the wind changes, and it blows back on you.

By the way, ever seen a Buffington sight on a Trapdoor?

[dromia]

Springfield 1903 had issue aperture sights, no. 1903A3 yes. Go Pontificate yourself.é

Step back from the line gentlemen, head to head is not acceptable.

[leebuilder]

You are right Scharf, got to visit a guru and have tea and cookies and dive into his library. The P13 led to the P14, and its rear mounted reciever appature sight was also fitted to the No1 mk5 trials rifle and adopted, whch led to the No1 mk6 trials rifle. The No1 mk6 became the beloved No4 mk1
This has been fun
be well


Good they are, particularly the Mk I sight.

From what I can tell, I do believe though that the British Pattern 13 (circa 1912) and the Pattern 14 (circa 1914) rifles led the way with a good aperture sight. The US 1917 derivative of the P14 also used the same sight, but calibrated for the US 30/06 ball round of 1906.

The British were certainly ahead of the rest of the world as far as rifle sights went in the first 40 years or so of the 20th Century with their early adoption of aperture sights placed on the receiver bridge. The US caught up in a hurry though with the design of the M1 Garand rear sight.

[EDG]

Civilians were using rear mounted sights long before the military.
Civilians back then were the experts and the innovators.

[Scharfschuetze]

Civilians were using rear mounted sights long before the military.
Civilians back then were the experts and the innovators.

Very true EDG. Sometimes that was good and in some cases not so good. To wit: the SMLE was met with howls of protest from the British NRA, yet it went on to serve admirably in two world wars and believe it or not, I saw 'em in use in Central Asia just a few years ago by para-military forces.

This same situation has been playing out over the last couple of decades with optical and red dot sights on current military rifles. The new sights are now de rigueur on special ops rifles/carbines and are becoming more and more common for infantrymen too.

[Adam Helmer]

waksupi,

Thank you, Sir, for mentioning the Buffington sights on the trapdoor and a modification on my Krags. Apparently Mr. quasi never examined a Model 1903 Springfield rear sight as there are several aperatures on the "ladder" long range sight.

I have no desire to enter into a contest with folks who do not know what they are talking about. I shall not reply to any post of Mr. quasi's again, 'e. At my age, I know life is too short to give you Moderators any problems. Thank you for mentioning the Buffington sight as further edification for those in need. The Trapdoor Buffington, and the 1892, 1896 and 1898 Krags and the Springfield Model 1903 ALL have aperature sights. I have no more comments for this Thread.

Be well.

Adam

[leadman]

hollowpoint, post your pictures if you will. I think even the bubba'd guns have their place in history. I own several that I bought that way. Also did some of my own bubbaing on originals that were too far gone to bring back.
That said I bought an Enfield #4MKI* today that is sporterized but the barrel is uncut so I am going to purchase the stocks and metal to return it to original condition.

[gew98]

I had a Krag with the little flip up "seargents" peep... it was typically an abysmally small targetshooter thingy whose practical use in any combat would be nil. From the krag through the '03 US military combat sights suffered from target shooter wonks having their way. The Patt'14 and No4 sights are just about the best and all around easiest sights to use and built sturdy as well. They won't walk or shake loose and about impossible to damage , unlike the US issue sights on krags and springy's.