Whitworth Rifle Scope?

Bugattimiller

Private
Joined
Apr 19, 2024
Location
Southampton, UK
Recently acquired this case telescopic sight set. The scope measures about 13 inches long and came with all fittings as seen, including the hexagonal bullet and greased packet marked Whitworth rifle with extra knurled fittings. I'm certain it is not civil war era but wondered what you experts think? Whatever it is it does display very nicely, just need a Whitworth rifle.

tel01.webp


tel02.webp


tel03.webp


tel04.webp


tel05.webp


tel06.webp
 
It's not a Davidson scope but another privately made one. No shortage of gunsmiths in London back then. It appears to be an offset above bore mount. Show me the bottom of those mounts. I think they go onto the stock via the base/parts in the cardboard box.

You could share your images with Research Press in the UK.
 
Last edited:
This exact piece showed up on a muzzle loading forum a couple years ago, the folks there didn't think it was actually a rifle scope, and nobody was aware of a J&H rifle scopes company and doesn't come up on a search. There was an optics company, J.H. Stewart in London from the 1850s till early 1900s, that made telescopes, field glasses, and microscopes. It's an interesting piece and does display well. I'm curious and hopefull someone here knows exactly what it is.
 
It's not a Davidson scope but another privately made one. No shortage of gunsmiths in London back then. It appears to be an offset above bore mount. Show me the bottom of those mounts. I think they go onto the stock via the parts in the cardboard box.

You could share your images with Research Press in the UK.
I will get some more images of all the bits and pieces. They all seem to have inspectors letters stamped, I will try and get some close ups.
 
The original Malcom "A" type scopemount was for sidemounting (either side) and had a micrometer screw elevator and windage adjustment. It allowed for the original sights to be used. There is a picture in either Canfield or Brophy's book that shows an experimentally scoped Springfield 1903 with such a mount.

BTW, I checked Nick Stroebel's Old Gunsights & Rifle Scopes, but it's American oriented. My books on English Gunmakers doesn't cover 1850-1870.
 
The rifle telescopes at the time tended to have one fixed pivot point at least - usually the end nearest the breech. This allowed the shooter a stable head position against the butt. The adustment - if any - was made at the forward end. Many more had two fixed points - no adjustment, but a series of lines for each 100 yards range. They were almost always mounted on the left-hand side, not top mounted, so it could be used with iron sights out to, say, 600 yards and the scope would extend this further. Given the trajectory angles. it may only have added another 200 yards. There are stories of shots out to and beyond 1000 yards, but this could be done with just appropriate iron sights (and some luck - for the shooter).

The British NRA shoots of the time were out to 1,000 yards with only iron sighs - and no support or sling(!) with an average of around 40% scoring hits. (This was an open competition, the 'service rifle and ammo' shoots rarely went beyond 600yards) The preferred rifle was the Whitworth and as the years went on the supine position (laid on back or side) was the preferred shooting position - again no support or sling.

The lenses on these scopes was small, often an inch at most, simply because the design, fitting and location did not allow it. Larger lenses were fitted to maritime telescopes and even field glasses, but this would not fit alongside the stock to give the shooter a good head position. This also affected magnification too - it was quite small by modern standards, often not more than x4. The London scopes were noticably smaller than US ones due to better lens production and smaller focal length. It was no night scope and most needed good light to work. A dull day would have made them pretty useless.

it is unlikely that these scopes were made by the gunmakers - optics, glass moulding, polishing and mounting was not their trade. They certainly will have designed the mounts on scope and rifle, and calibrated any adjustment but the scope would have been manufactured by an optical firm - spectaclemakers, telescope- or microscope-makers, magnifying glasses, etc. They may well have had a exclusive contract and put their own name upon the scope, but they would not have made it at this time. Most adjustments would have been in angles - minutes and seconds of a degree - NOT ranges. This was based on trajectory and that depended a lot on charge type and quantity as well as shot weight that the marksman would know from experience. Air stability would be a factor too, especially wind direction and strength. Muzzle energy, etc, was not used in the field as such.
 
Last edited:
Neat that they mentioned artist/militia lieutenant David Wilson Peale (he did that portrait of Washington leaning against a bronze cannon). I have the published Revolutionary War letters of Peale and he mentions Rittenhouse and how he had springs installed to absorb the recoil. Peale was unaware of cheek weld and the scope bumped him. It took me over a decade to figure out "springs" being mounted.

Apparently before the American Revolution a British gunmaker developed an sheetmetal buttcap (think of those old rubber slide-on recoil pads) that slid over the stock. Inside were two "V" springs that compressed upon recoil. I mentioned this to students and one complained in the evaluation, "Too much history."
 
The rifle telescopes at the time tended to have one fixed pivot point at least - usually the end nearest the breech. This allowed the shooter a stable head position against the butt. The adustment - if any - was made at the forward end. Many more had two fixed points - no adjustment, but a series of lines for each 100 yards range. They were almost always mounted on the left-hand side, not top mounted, so it could be used with iron sights out to, say, 600 yards and the scope would extend this further. Given the trajectory angles. it may only have added another 200 yards. There are stories of shots out to and beyond 1000 yards, but this could be done with just appropriate iron sights (and some luck - for the shooter).

The British NRA shoots of the time were out to 1,000 yards with only iron sighs - and no support or sling(!) with an average of around 40% scoring hits. (This was an open competition, the 'service rifle and ammo' shoots rarely went beyond 600yards) The preferred rifle was the Whitworth and as the years went on the supine position (laid on back or side) was the preferred shooting position - again no support or sling.

The lenses on these scopes was small, often an inch at most, simply because the design, fitting and location did not allow it. Larger lenses were fitted to maritime telescopes and even field glasses, but this would not fit alongside the stock to give the shooter a good head position. This also affected magnification too - it was quite small by modern standards, often not more than x4. The London scopes were noticably smaller than US ones due to better lens production and smaller focal length. It was no night scope and most needed good light to work. A dull day would have made them pretty useless.

it is unlikely that these scopes were made by the gunmakers - optics, glass moulding, polishing and mounting was not their trade. They certainly will have designed the mounts on scope and rifle, and calibrated any adjustment but the scope would have been manufactured by an optical firm - spectaclemakers, telescope- or microscope-makers, magnifying glasses, etc. They may well have had a exclusive contract and put their own name upon the scope, but they would not have made it at this time. Most adjustments would have been in angles - minutes and seconds of a degree - NOT ranges. This was based on trajectory and that depended a lot on charge type and quantity as well as shot weight that the marksman would know from experience. Air stability would be a factor too, especially wind direction and strength. Muzzle energy, etc, was not used in the field as such.
Really interesting and thank you for including it, I will print it off and keep it with the sight for future reference. It does in fact have very small lenses and the magnification is not great, bit fuzzy round the edges but I am assuming that is down to age.. It has cross hairs. Can you hazard a guess as to date?
 
The more I see it .... If it was that early, it would not be called a 'scope'. The print on the box and the handwriting is also too recent and not of the 19th Century.

I think it has nothing to do with firearms. It looks more like a leveling theodolite - a surveying instrument:
Surveyors scope.webp


Optical sights were for killing people at a distance. They were never allowed for competition and, having seen the long sighting systems for a number of 'big game' rifles of the era (buffalo shoots , etc), this size of scope was never, if ever, used for hunting at the time. Optical sights only became generally available, in the 20th Century.

Why would you think it was a rifle scope? These too have crosshairs, but for a different purpose:
Levelling.webp
levelling2.webp


For land and property records from this era, a prominent firm often associated with 1860s surveying in the UK is J&H Drew, land and quantity surveyors based in Exeter, Devon.

53683_spirit_level_lg.gif

It just does not have the look of any 1860s optical aiming system for a firearm.
1784584399901.webp

 
This one is very interesting. Does the scope itself have any markings at all? What does it look like when you look in the glass?
 

Learn About Us
About CivilWarTalk
Contact the Webmaster
Meet the Staff
Link to CivilWarTalk
Join Our Community
Register
Browse Forums
View Today's Discussions
Search the Forum
Get Help
FAQ
Student Guide
Forum Rules & Etiquette
Copyright / DMCA

     Contact Us CivilwarTalk on Facebook CivilWarTalk on YouTube CivilWarTalk on Twitter RSS Feed

Bringing the American Civil War and More to Life.
© 1999 - , CIVILWARTALK, LLC - Site Version 10.0

SlaveryTalk.com - SecessionTalk.com - CivilWarTalk.com - ReconstructionTalk.com
Back
Top