I have 2 Long Branch No.4 rifles,..one rifle has the milled micrometer rear sight with a large aperature battle sight,..sometimes refered to as the "ghost ring" sight,...my other No.4 has the stamped rear sight with the sliding adjustable aperature,..the battle sight on this rifle has a much smaller aperature on the battle sight than the micometer sight,,...am curious why these sight were made this way,,..personally i prefer the smaller aperature on the stamped rear sight over the milled micrometer sight. the battle sight aperature seems too large..thats my opinion.....what do other No.4 CGN Fans think...???
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
No.4 Long Branch battle sights
- Thread starter x westie
- Start date
The Mk1 rear sight with the micrometer adjustment is the superior sight, due to its "quality". The Mk3 sight on your other LB was simplified for war production. The Savage rifles used a simple dual-range 'flip' aperture sight, with apertures setfor 300yds and 600yds.
As to your personal preference to the size of the battle sight aperture between the Mk1 and Mk3, that's a matter of choice. Personally, I prefer the larger battle sight aperture of the Mk1 sight. If I want to get serious about grouping, I'll flip up the sight and use the smaller aperture.
Does the slide catch on the side of your Mk3 sight slant outwards or curl inwards? If it curls inwards, It's a C Mark 4.
As to your personal preference to the size of the battle sight aperture between the Mk1 and Mk3, that's a matter of choice. Personally, I prefer the larger battle sight aperture of the Mk1 sight. If I want to get serious about grouping, I'll flip up the sight and use the smaller aperture.
Does the slide catch on the side of your Mk3 sight slant outwards or curl inwards? If it curls inwards, It's a C Mark 4.
Lee-Enfield sights
My 1943 Long Branch has the smaller battle sight, while my 1955 Fazakerley No. 4 Mk. II has the micrometer sight. I haven't actually tried either battle sight, since I have only used the rifles on the 100-yd. range and both battle sights are calibrated for 300 yd. The larger battle aperture on the micrometer sight is meant to obscure less of the target in close-range action, perhaps a legacy of the street battles in NW Europe? The smaller aperture on the Canadian battle sight would possibly produce a tighter group?
I always use the adjustable sights and have had better accuracy with them.
My 1943 Long Branch has the smaller battle sight, while my 1955 Fazakerley No. 4 Mk. II has the micrometer sight. I haven't actually tried either battle sight, since I have only used the rifles on the 100-yd. range and both battle sights are calibrated for 300 yd. The larger battle aperture on the micrometer sight is meant to obscure less of the target in close-range action, perhaps a legacy of the street battles in NW Europe? The smaller aperture on the Canadian battle sight would possibly produce a tighter group?
I always use the adjustable sights and have had better accuracy with them.
There were a whole bunch of rear sights made for the Number 4, including at least 5 that were made during World War Two and a couple afterwards. You can have a whole collection, just of Number 4 rear sights, but it's much more fun to have them already ON rifles.
Sighting doctrine back when the Number 4 was still being issued was pretty darned progressive. to use the sight, the trick is to IGNORE completely the aperture. You just look through the thing and do your sighting with the blade front sight. if you ignore things properly, your eye will automatically centre in the aperture. The large aperture was issued in order to aid in acquiring the target quickly. It works just fine.
When I started competitive shooting, I started with a $10.66 Number 4 rifle with that abysmal Mark 2 rear sight: the double-flip aperture, set for 300 and 600 and nothing else. It worked okay, just as long as you used it within its limitations, just like anything else. Later on, I got a Mark 1 rear sight and thought that was the cat's pyjamas, even though my coach was using a custom-made set of A.G. Parker sights, made by the old man himself.
Use the sight you prefer, just be sure to have fun with it.
Happy New year to ALL!
Sighting doctrine back when the Number 4 was still being issued was pretty darned progressive. to use the sight, the trick is to IGNORE completely the aperture. You just look through the thing and do your sighting with the blade front sight. if you ignore things properly, your eye will automatically centre in the aperture. The large aperture was issued in order to aid in acquiring the target quickly. It works just fine.
When I started competitive shooting, I started with a $10.66 Number 4 rifle with that abysmal Mark 2 rear sight: the double-flip aperture, set for 300 and 600 and nothing else. It worked okay, just as long as you used it within its limitations, just like anything else. Later on, I got a Mark 1 rear sight and thought that was the cat's pyjamas, even though my coach was using a custom-made set of A.G. Parker sights, made by the old man himself.
Use the sight you prefer, just be sure to have fun with it.
Happy New year to ALL!
