The UK's Finest Independent Forum for Shooters and Gun Owners. Est 2010.

I have seen in the US something similar to this not so long ago, but its not offset

Rearlugs wrote:S&K do a no-drill mount for the SMLE - it wedges in the charger bridge at one end (like those for the No4 action), and has a metal band that passes around the barrel at the front. You do have to strip the rifle down to get the front band on.

http://www.scopemounts.com/index.html?main.html

You could then simply attach a set of offset rings onto this over-the-bore scope rail. Trouble is, the scope would be so high up by then that you'd have trouble getting a decent sight picture.





Parker Hale made a commercial slide-off side mount for the No1 action (the "Continental"), as did a number of Australian gunsmiths. These mounts occasionally turn up. They do, of course, require drilling and tapping of the receiver.





Repro WW1 offset scope rings & mounts are sometimes available, but are extremely expensive. The most common type - PPCo - requires an extremely skilled gunsmith to attach the mount within the very narrow tolerances needed to align the scope with the rifle bore. I don't know of anyone who is capable of doing that work these days, although I've seen quite a few bodged attempts. You do on rare occasions come across a rifle that has been set up correctly.

That. I want that. I just think the offset scope is really cool. I've shot one once and really enjoyed it. Alas, I feel it'll be a pipe dream.

I might just get me a 7.62mm Enfield with a scope and deal with it.

If all you want to do is shoot with an offset mount then anything would do, although were they not offset for a reason, to still allow the use of the irons and access the charger guide for loading?

Its a compromise, so why aim for a compromise bud? I see the sense in owning and shooting an original, but why try to re-create a compromise?

If I understand correctly one of the limitations you have immediately (apart from an odd head position) is that you only have a wind zero at one mechnically set range, you then need to aim off as you change distance.

Again, its an avoidable problem unless you are hell bent on (or need to) use an offset scope.

Its a bit like owning a legit semi/full auto AR15 and converting it to straight-pull.....why?

Either way its all interesting stuff so if you manage it let us knwo what occurs

Shooting with an offset 'scope is interesting, I had my hands on an original WW1 G98 in this configuration and my immediate reaction was the scope was canted because the natural tendency was to cant the rifle to bring the scope above the vertical axis of the receiver. Once I had got over this it was a superb thing to use.

ovenpaa wrote:Shooting with an offset 'scope is interesting, I had my hands on an original WW1 G98 in this configuration and my immediate reaction was the scope was canted because the natural tendency was to cant the rifle to bring the scope above the vertical axis of the receiver. Once I had got over this it was a superb thing to use.

Morning dear....

Maggot wrote:If all you want to do is shoot with an offset mount then anything would do, although were they not offset for a reason, to still allow the use of the irons and access the charger guide for loading?

Its a compromise, so why aim for a compromise bud? I see the sense in owning and shooting an original, but why try to re-create a compromise?

If I understand correctly one of the limitations you have immediately (apart from an odd head position) is that you only have a wind zero at one mechnically set range, you then need to aim off as you change distance.

Again, its an avoidable problem unless you are hell bent on (or need to) use an offset scope.

Its a bit like owning a legit semi/full auto AR15 and converting it to straight-pull.....why?

Either way its all interesting stuff so if you manage it let us knwo what occurs

If the scope is parallel to the bore, then you just have a fixed offset for the POI of about 3" at any range - which is obviously fairly easy for an experienced shot to take into account. Elevation and windage adjustments are the same as with any other scope configuration.

Its an oft-repeated story that the scopes were offset for charger loading, but there is no evidence for that and I don't think that was the real reason. Urban myth also likes to accuse an "incompetent" War Office in foisting offset scopes on poor Tommy instead of good Germanic overhead mounts. However, as offset P14 snipers were still being ordered as late as 1939, by which time the art of sniping was well understood, there clearly was some compelling argument for their use.

When you use a WW1-era scope, a more likely reason becomes clear: these scopes have a very narrow field of view, which makes it extremely difficult to spot and acquire a fleeting target - especially in the poor visual contrast of battlefield conditions. With an offset scope, however, what you find is that you can spot a target with your naked right eye - with its very wide field of view - and rapidly aim the rifle using the No1 iron sights. Your left eye is then already on target using the scope. You just change aiming priority between your eyes (which becomes very quick after just a little bit of accustomisation) and make a fine aiming adjustment through the scope.

In my view, therefore, offset scopes were simply a clever way of overcoming optical limitations in order to produce an effective and rapid-handling battlefield sniper rifle. It would be interesting to test an offset vs an overhead against a Huns' Head over a typical battlefield arc (ie perhaps the whole of Century butts as seen from 400-600 yds), but I expect the offset rig would be able to detect and engage a much greater proportion of targets.

Rearlugs wrote:

Maggot wrote:If all you want to do is shoot with an offset mount then anything would do, although were they not offset for a reason, to still allow the use of the irons and access the charger guide for loading?

Its a compromise, so why aim for a compromise bud? I see the sense in owning and shooting an original, but why try to re-create a compromise?

If I understand correctly one of the limitations you have immediately (apart from an odd head position) is that you only have a wind zero at one mechnically set range, you then need to aim off as you change distance.

Again, its an avoidable problem unless you are hell bent on (or need to) use an offset scope.

Its a bit like owning a legit semi/full auto AR15 and converting it to straight-pull.....why?

Either way its all interesting stuff so if you manage it let us knwo what occurs

If the scope is parallel to the bore, then you just have a fixed offset for the POI of about 3" at any range - which is obviously fairly easy for an experienced shot to take into account. Elevation and windage adjustments are the same as with any other scope configuration.

Its an oft-repeated story that the scopes were offset for charger loading, but there is no evidence for that and I don't think that was the real reason. Urban myth also likes to accuse an "incompetent" War Office in foisting offset scopes on poor Tommy instead of good Germanic overhead mounts. However, as offset P14 snipers were still being ordered as late as 1939, by which time the art of sniping was well understood, there clearly was some compelling argument for their use.

When you use a WW1-era scope, a more likely reason becomes clear: these scopes have a very narrow field of view, which makes it extremely difficult to spot and acquire a fleeting target - especially in the poor visual contrast of battlefield conditions. With an offset scope, however, what you find is that you can spot a target with your naked right eye - with its very wide field of view - and rapidly aim the rifle using the No1 iron sights. Your left eye is then already on target using the scope. You just change aiming priority between your eyes (which becomes very quick after just a little bit of accustomisation) and make a fine aiming adjustment through the scope.

In my view, therefore, offset scopes were simply a clever way of overcoming optical limitations in order to produce an effective and rapid-handling battlefield sniper rifle. It would be interesting to test an offset vs an overhead against a Huns' Head over a typical battlefield arc (ie perhaps the whole of Century butts as seen from 400-600 yds), but I expect the offset rig would be able to detect and engage a much greater proportion of targets.

Now that is not only interesting but makes a lot of sense. but, if they are a better proposition in terms of target aquisition, why do we now see almost exclusive (I say almost) use of over centre mounts?

Aquisition depends on so much. Whether your shooter shoots both eyes open, is observant, light and environment, eyesight, and as you say the FOV of the scope. A fig 14 at 600 yards si not an easy target to pick out with the naked eye.

The old scopes were fairly low power and like you say narrow FOV. I use a 4x Elcan Spectre for shooting an AR out to 600yds. Taking away the ability to dope the wind and the ability of the rifle, the huge FOV and clarity of this centrally mounted basic battle sight make it a contender, particularly allide to the expected skill of shooting both eyes open.

It is easy to scan first third wind flags and the target, while being able to see the longer flags with the target.

I think the comparison may be more blurred today, perhaps the modern optic means the advantage the offset mount had has been offset.....

A comparison with period scopes and rifles would be interesting if you wanted to prove a point. I cannot see how though, in modern terms, having a scope with a built in error is an advantage.

Maggot wrote:Morning dear....

Oh FFS, who let you in

Rearlugs wrote:
When you use a WW1-era scope, a more likely reason becomes clear: these scopes have a very narrow field of view, which makes it extremely difficult to spot and acquire a fleeting target - especially in the poor visual contrast of battlefield conditions. With an offset scope, however, what you find is that you can spot a target with your naked right eye - with its very wide field of view - and rapidly aim the rifle using the No1 iron sights. Your left eye is then already on target using the scope. You just change aiming priority between your eyes (which becomes very quick after just a little bit of accustomisation) and make a fine aiming adjustment through the scope.

In my view, therefore, offset scopes were simply a clever way of overcoming optical limitations in order to produce an effective and rapid-handling battlefield sniper rifle. It would be interesting to test an offset vs an overhead against a Huns' Head over a typical battlefield arc (ie perhaps the whole of Century butts as seen from 400-600 yds), but I expect the offset rig would be able to detect and engage a much greater proportion of targets.

why would putting the scope over your left eye give you a wider field of view with your right eye, than the field of view you get from your left eye with the right over the scope?

surely it just gives you a wider view to your right, than to your left?

bradaz11 wrote: why would putting the scope over your left eye give you a wider field of view with your right eye, than the field of view you get from your left eye with the right over the scope?

surely it just gives you a wider view to your right, than to your left?

The point is you use the rifle iron sights to aim at the target in the normal manner, but this also aligns the scope accurately with the target. Hence a quick change of eye priority and you're looking at the target through the scope. Its essentially like a type of target indication system, where you use a low-magnification/wide FOV device to slew and direct a coaxial high-magnification/low FOV sight.

With an overbore WW1 scope you'd otherwise be trying to pick up your target through a rather dim 2x or 3x scope with about 2o FOV. Very tricky on a cluttered background such as a contemporary battlefield.