Couple of questions for our knowledgable CGN No.4 rifle guys, do you think the troops who were issued the No.4 rifle with the L type rear sight were initally disappointed, but once they got into action they were more accepting of the sight. Also i have noticed close up pictures of the No.4 rifle carried by Canadian troops in Normandy had the L sight,at what time was the fully adjustable sight issued...was the L sight more common with the Savage Lend-Lease No.4, than the Long Branch No.4
NO.4 Rifle L type battle sight
- Thread starter x westie
- Start date
the Mk1 sight was always the intended sight for the No.4 rifle. The Mk2 flip sight, the MkII slide sight, the MkIII slide sight were "substitute standards" that once developped were kept in use because they worked well enough.
After the war, the Canadians realized how convenient the MkIII sight was, so they adopted it as the primary sight as the CMkIII - it's much easier to adjust quickly than the Mk1 sight which the British forces switched back to at the close of WW2 hostilities.
After the war, the Canadians realized how convenient the MkIII sight was, so they adopted it as the primary sight as the CMkIII - it's much easier to adjust quickly than the Mk1 sight which the British forces switched back to at the close of WW2 hostilities.
When No. 4 rifles were initially issued, I doubt that most troops were aware that the first pattern of sight was adjustable. I suspect that when No. 4s were issued in quantity that all the rifles issued to a unit would have had the same sight, for standardization in training, so troops would not have had an opportunity to compare different patterns. I also suspect that the bulk of rifles manufactured at the height of production had the simple sight. I am not aware of a date when the 300/600 was replaced IN PRODUCTION by an adjustable sight. One vet I know has indicated that he preferred the SMLE to the No. 4, after they were re-equipped. While the 300/600 sight is primitive in comparison with the adjustable versions, if the rifle is properly zeroed by changing and laterally adjusting front sights, I'm not sure that the sight would have been all that bad for service use.
tiriaq said:
Would have been the same as an M16A1 sight, actually
The Mk1 sight was, arguably, a sight designed for WW1. 300 yd. battle zero with a 1/2 MOA fine adjustable vernier. Sadly though, in modern battle you don;t adjust your sight for 2 or 3 minutes in a trench prior to sniping at German helmets.
The 300/600 flip was faster to bring into action unless you left your Mk1 sight at 600 all the time.
The MkII slide was the best of both worlds, 300 yd zero with a very quickly adjustable longer range sight, but not as fine adjustment as the Mk1 sight. Given the limitations of service ammo and the nature or warfare, however, it was ideal. Sadly, it was pretty flimsy made of all stamped metal with that silly spacer washer. LB improved it immesurably by welding the sighting end to a milled Mk2 flip sight rear base and curving the quick-release tab so it wouldn't catch on webbing. This gave it the rigidity and durability of the Mk1 sight with the speed of the Mk2 sight. The CMkIII was essentially the same sight except for markings and minor differences in the anti-glare checkering. For a battle sight, it's hard to beat the CMkIII.
That being said, as tiriaq points out, troops likely didn't get the chance to compare much and also 90% plus of the time left tjheir sights at the 300yd setting.
Talking to vets, MANY of them felt the No.4 rifle was a wartime expedient model adopted only b/c it was cheaper and faster to build than the No.1MkIII. ALOt of guys would "lose" their No.4 early on in the war and scavange a MkIII off a fallen comrade. Of course, over time, the No.4 became BY FAR the most issued rifle on the front lines and most troops eventually warmed to it. It IS a superior design in terms of sights and parts interchangeability.
If I had to go into battle with an Enfield, I'd want a Longbranch or Savage with a CMkIII sight. For the range, however, the MkI micrometer sight is KING.
I'd agree, provided the battle sight and peep sight line up. I had to get a new sight for my Ranger issue No4, the battle sight shot 6 inches left of my peep. It's not the only one in the Patrol like that either. It would seem the quality control on the CMkIII rear sight was not as good as it could be.
Stevo said:
Or, quite possibly, the dunderheads in the CF supply chain swapped sight slides from one sight to another instead of repairing broken latches
Also, they can get bent...
But the Mk1 really isn't an option if you are in a hurry.
- Location
- WMU248 near Edmonton
Yes I like the MkI for range shooting but the MkIII is way easier to adjust if your shooting different ranges and are adjusting often, just press and slide.
I tend to replace the 2 postition flip sites whenever I get the oppertunity.
I am often surprised to find an enfield at auction that bubba has somehow lost the rear site but not tapped the reciever for a scope mount. How they aim I have no ideal, likely they sold the rearsight and mag seperately.
I tend to replace the 2 postition flip sites whenever I get the oppertunity.
I am often surprised to find an enfield at auction that bubba has somehow lost the rear site but not tapped the reciever for a scope mount. How they aim I have no ideal, likely they sold the rearsight and mag seperately.
- Location
- WMU248 near Edmonton
Claven2 said:Or more likely they had a cheap B-square no gunsmithing mount on it
bing, I never thought of that, but now that you mention it it makes sense.I never would think of putting a scope on a perfectly good enfield
