Whitworth Rifle Scope?

[Old Soldier]

Yes the Krag scope has similar mounts - BUT it is not a Whitworth ML and the scope is far longer. Note that the forward (upper) mount is a simple pivot on the lower band.

BTW - Cataract Tool & Optical Co. was formed in 1895 and entered receivership in September 1901.

 

[gary]

No one is disputing that it is a Davidson. It's not. I'm waiting for David Minshall's opinion.

BTW, I have a repro set of Davidson mounts.

 

[Bugattimiller]

Thank you to all for your input, all very interesting. So good to have such informative opinions and expertise.

 

[Joe Whitworth]

No one is disputing that it is a Davidson. It's not. I'm waiting for David Minshall's opinion.

BTW, I have a repro set of Davidson mounts.

Here it is:

Scope for a Whitworth Rifle advise please

I would like some advice on this scope please .I believe it is a side fitting scope for a Whitworth rifle from the American Civil war period ?It seems to have all the fittings in the original box .Just wondering if someone could confirm this ,how it mounts and its approx worth [I am in the...

www.muzzleloadingforum.com

 

[gary]

Old Soldier - I know it's not Cataract. I only shared an illustration to show something similar.

As we know, the wheel gets reinvented all the time. A couple of decades ago I was dwelling about improving lock time and thought of an electronic trigger to get rid of all the mechanics that slows lock time down. Then I read W. W. Greener's book, The Gun and its Development, and learned that an Englishman came up with the idea back in the 19th Century! A colleague's son was quite brilliant and wanted to develop a remotely operated gun with a camera that peered through the rifle scope. I told him I was playing with one over a decade (back in the early '90s) ago at an anti-terr conference. One camera was for spotting and the other was for looking through the scope. It could be mounted on a tracked vehicle and driven into position too without exposure to the human operator. That scuttled his son's idea. Another benefit of the conference is that I got to meet Col. Rex Applegate (WW II OSS instructor and author). Paladin Press was there and they had ONE copy of his Killed or Get Killed that I snatched, ripped off the plastic wrap, walked up and introduced myself and had him autograph my copy.

BTW, Greener's book was one that I could not put down once I picked it up. Same with Ned Robert's The Muzzle Loading Cap Lock Rifle. I bet both books are on Google books now, but I'm happy I have hardback paper. The interweb can go down, but all I have to do is walk to the library to get access (ahem, next room over) to either.

I'm undecided on that optical device that is the subject of this thread and wrote one Englishman who specializes in early optics, gave him a link to this thread and asked for his opinion. The opinion I'm waiting for is David Minshall. David knows of my research and has my first book (on sharpshooters) and it's probably why the world knows of Charles Wilson Peale and his scoped rifle (it's also why everyone knows of the whitworth shots from Fort Sumter to Fort Putnam on Morris Island).

I could also form my own opinion, but would need to handle it to figure out how it could be mounted and what pieces, if any, are missing. One part looks like it could be inletted to the stock, but what about the other part of the scope. The Davidson system had two points and could be readily removed (Cleburne studying the Union lines at Franklin is a good example). Anyway, I'm undecided and want to hear from David.

ETA: I've written David myself and provided him this link. Let's wait for his opinion.

 

[Old Soldier]

Old Soldier - I know it's not Cataract. I only shared an illustration to show something similar.

As we know, the wheel gets reinvented all the time. A couple of decades ago I was dwelling about improving lock time and thought of an electronic trigger to get rid of all the mechanics that slows lock time down. Then I read W. W. Greener's book, The Gun and its Development, and learned that an Englishman came up with the idea back in the 19th Century! A colleague's son was quite brilliant and wanted to develop a remotely operated gun with a camera that peered through the rifle scope. I told him I was playing with one over a decade (back in the early '90s) ago at an anti-terr conference. One camera was for spotting and the other was for looking through the scope. It could be mounted on a tracked vehicle and driven into position too without exposure to the human operator. That scuttled his son's idea. Another benefit of the conference is that I got to meet Col. Rex Applegate (WW II OSS instructor and author). Paladin Press was there and they had ONE copy of his Killed or Get Killed that I snatched, ripped off the plastic wrap, walked up and introduced myself and had him autograph my copy.

BTW, Greener's book was one that I could not put down once I picked it up. Same with Ned Robert's The Muzzle Loading Cap Lock Rifle. I bet both books are on Google books now, but I'm happy I have hardback paper. The interweb can go down, but all I have to do is walk to the library to get access (ahem, next room over) to either.

I'm undecided on that optical device that is the subject of this thread and wrote one Englishman who specializes in early optics, gave him a link to this thread and asked for his opinion. The opinion I'm waiting for is David Minshall. David knows of my research and has my first book (on sharpshooters) and it's probably why the world knows of Charles Wilson Peale and his scoped rifle (it's also why everyone knows of the whitworth shots from Fort Sumter to Fort Putnam on Morris Island).

I could also form my own opinion, but would need to handle it to figure out how it could be mounted and what pieces, if any, are missing. One part looks like it could be inletted to the stock, but what about the other part of the scope. The Davidson system had two points and could be readily removed (Cleburne studying the Union lines at Franklin is a good example). Anyway, I'm undecided and want to hear from David.

ETA: I've written David myself and provided him this link. Let's wait for his opinion.

Don't Panic!

 

[Carbineone]

I know nothing. But I will say that is very, very cool collectible. Would be fun to mount it and shoot too.

 

[gary]

Don't Panic!

Panic is a way of life (for those who follow the MSM daily - I haven't followed the MSM in decades).

I've no dog in this fight (wrong word) and I'm unable to contact David. I get the spinning ball o' death.

 

[JackADriscoll]

Next question. Was it doctored? I've very interested in this

 

[Old Soldier]

Panic is a way of life (for those who follow the MSM daily - I haven't followed the MSM in decades).

I've no dog in this fight (wrong word) and I'm unable to contact David. I get the spinning ball o' death.

Such an optomistic look on life. Get well soon.

 

[Old Soldier]

Next question. Was it doctored? I've very interested in this

I don't think it has been 'doctored'. Misinterpretted and wrongly presented more like. All the box would have contained was the sight and the mounts attached to it. (see below)

The 'Whitworth' connection places it in Civil War era, but the writing on the paper packaging does not. It LOOKS as if it was a rifle telescope sight, but I suspect it is not. The nearest thing I have seen, as I said, is a levelling survey instrument. The rifle telescope sight was not new in 1860, but it was certainly not popular in the Whitworths home, Britain.

In fact, it was often despised for hunting as the whole idea of big game hunting was the man against the beast - a matter of honor. To use such a sight would give it no chance = cheating. Telescope sights could be used on long range targets but not for competition. (Even the Boers used iron sights)

Why the emphasis on the Whitworth? Those bullets - and the fact that a few Whitworths used by the Confederacy had scopes too - British designed ones. They were fitted to the SIDE of the rifle and either adjustable or fixed. The real Whitworth mounting is shown below. The rear end, near the eye, pivoted and the front was adjustable for trajectory (not range)

Front adjustment for trajectory (no ranges)

Note - no iron sights. And no sign of adjustment (Berdans had a elevator screw on the small of the butt) Any other scopes used were long and close to the barrel too, so those long 'legs' on the scope are out of place.

Andrew's Sharpshooters 1st and 2nd Companies of Massachusetts Sharpshooters

 

[gary]

That's only part of the 1st Company and the Second Company is not in that image. They, along with Capt. Sanders were escorting Lander's body home and took the opportunity to take a group photo. Notice there is slight differences in those rifles.

Those rifles have an elevation platform at the back of the scope (on the wrist and in the vicinity of the tang). Study the image. Wyman White (2nd USSS) mentions adjusting his scope to do harassment fire on a Confederate working party that was 1,000 yards distance.

Back then the American target telescope rifles didn't have iron sights as that would be displaced by the above bore scope mounting system. Davidson's solution was rather clever and gave him more elevation (because the scope and the barrel didn't touch) but it did create one problem: mechanical offset. Whereas above bore mounted scopes the shooter only had to worry about drop (and thus elevation), the side mounted scope had an issue of convergance. The shooter not only had to account for the drop but also the offset of the scope to the centerline of the bore. For long range shots, the convergance between the missile's flight and the line of sight has to be accounted for lest the shot misses.

 

[Joe Whitworth]

That's only part of the 1st Company and the Second Company is not in that image. They, along with Capt. Sanders were escorting Lander's body home and took the opportunity to take a group photo. Notice there is slight differences in those rifles.

Those rifles have an elevation platform at the back of the scope (on the wrist and in the vicinity of the tang). Study the image. Wyman White (2nd USSS) mentions adjusting his scope to do harassment fire on a Confederate working party that was 1,000 yards distance.

Back then the American target telescope rifles didn't have iron sights as that would be displaced by the above bore scope mounting system. Davidson's solution was rather clever and gave him more elevation (because the scope and the barrel didn't touch) but it did create one problem: mechanical offset. Whereas above bore mounted scopes the shooter only had to worry about drop (and thus elevation), the side mounted scope had an issue of convergance. The shooter not only had to account for the drop but also the offset of the scope to the centerline of the bore. For long range shots, the convergance between the missile's flight and the line of sight has to be accounted for lest the shot misses.

The offset scope is no big deal, just keep the bullets flight and line of sight parallel and allow for the offset on the target regardless of range, no convergence needed. The scopes on the M1C and M1D Garand were both offset to the left due to the enbloc loading system and they performed well enough, even the lowly lever action Winchester 94 at times sported a side mounted scope to many a deer's dismay. YMMV

 

[JackADriscoll]

I agree on the surveying instrument. I've seen lots of stuff quite like it but nothing exact. They can sell for quite high. What I mean by doctored is the print is straight times new roman from the printer then intentionally aged. The cursive writing even looks from a sharpie

 

[gary]

The offset scope is no big deal, just keep the bullets flight and line of sight parallel and allow for the offset on the target regardless of range, no convergence needed. The scopes on the M1C and M1D Garand were both offset to the left due to the enbloc loading system and they performed well enough, even the lowly lever action Winchester 94 at times sported a side mounted scope to many a deer's dismay. YMMV

It's at longer ranges when the rifleman has to account for the offset.
The Japanese also used offset mounts. It's all in the WW II Sniper book. Now we're getting too modern.

I'll take a Davidson scoped Whitworth over a 30-50 lb Target Telescope Rifle. Imagine having to attach the false muzzle, place the paper patch on, then the bullet and use the bullet starter to get the bullet past the muzzle? The ram it down to seat. So much work. Whitworth was much easier. Now, consider Winslow Homer's painting (and woodcut) A Sharpshooter on Picket Duty. I hate the idea of trees but imaging doing all that stuff while seated on a branch of a tree? I would rather have a rope to lower the gun for someone to reload for me (but movement attracts the eye). The Whitworth is so much easier to use and it's more portable than a 30-50 lb rifle.

I picked up a 50 lb target telescope rifle once and it was not the most wieldy thing. It was made in Denver and didn't see the elephant. The owner did not have:

the bullet mold
the paper patch cutter
the false muzzle
the bullet starter
the powder measure or its flask

 

[Joe Whitworth]

It's at longer ranges when the rifleman has to account for the offset.
The Japanese also used offset mounts. It's all in the WW II Sniper book. Now we're getting too modern.

I'll take a Davidson scoped Whitworth over a 30-50 lb Target Telescope Rifle. Imagine having to attach the false muzzle, place the paper patch on, then the bullet and use the bullet starter to get the bullet past the muzzle? The ram it down to seat. So much work. Whitworth was much easier. Now, consider Winslow Homer's painting (and woodcut) A Sharpshooter on Picket Duty. I hate the idea of trees but imaging doing all that stuff while seated on a branch of a tree? I would rather have a rope to lower the gun for someone to reload for me (but movement attracts the eye). The Whitworth is so much easier to use and it's more portable than a 30-50 lb rifle.

I picked up a 50 lb target telescope rifle once and it was not the most wieldy thing. It was made in Denver and didn't see the elephant. The owner did not have:

the bullet mold
the paper patch cutter
the false muzzle
the bullet starter
the powder measure or its flask

With bore and line of sight (left side of rifle) parallel but placed 1 1/2 inch off center the point of aim at say 600 yds. will still be 1 1/2 off center.

 

[Old Soldier]

That's only part of the 1st Company and the Second Company is not in that image. They, along with Capt. Sanders were escorting Lander's body home and took the opportunity to take a group photo. Notice there is slight differences in those rifles.

Those rifles have an elevation platform at the back of the scope (on the wrist and in the vicinity of the tang). Study the image. Wyman White (2nd USSS) mentions adjusting his scope to do harassment fire on a Confederate working party that was 1,000 yards distance.

Back then the American target telescope rifles didn't have iron sights as that would be displaced by the above bore scope mounting system. Davidson's solution was rather clever and gave him more elevation (because the scope and the barrel didn't touch) but it did create one problem: mechanical offset. Whereas above bore mounted scopes the shooter only had to worry about drop (and thus elevation), the side mounted scope had an issue of convergance. The shooter not only had to account for the drop but also the offset of the scope to the centerline of the bore. For long range shots, the convergance between the missile's flight and the line of sight has to be accounted for lest the shot misses.

" (Berdans had a elevator screw on the small of the butt) "

 

[Old Soldier]

With bore and line of sight (left side of rifle) parallel but placed 1 1/2 inch off center the point of aim at say 600 yds. will still be 1 1/2 off center.

It's called ZEROING. Most marksmen knew this as they had fired with their sights on ranges. There is no problem with offset scopes as long as they are adjusted to zero at different ranges. At the time of the civil war, these offsets were accounted for and, if not adjusted for mechanically, a known 'aim-off' was used. As I said earlier, the offset in the Whitworth meant that the scope was only needed for distant targets and the iron sights were used for closer targets (<600 yards). The Berdans were basically bench rest rifles used only at distance from behind the line and did not require the use of iron sights. The Sharps rifles were generally used with iron sights, like most Whitworths.

In my service days, every rifle or SMG I was issued with was zeroed on a range ASAP. EVERY one.

These rifles were personal issue. They were zeroed on a proper range and the scopes adjusted to each firer. This was never done on an issue rifle at this time, as both fore- and back-sight were fixed. In the early years of the civil war, there was little emphasis on marksmanship and relatively little range shooting. For those actually firing in a proper range, it let them know how much to aim off at distant (500 yard) targets. Most later rifles (M1903) had a foresight that could be adjusted for windage. The later Lee-Enfields (1903 onward) had EIGHT different foresights to compensate for elevation, replaced as required by the armorer.

BTW1 - If I aimed at a man with a .577 Whitworth and it hit just 1½" off center - they would still be dead.
BTW2 - most modern scopes are mounted 1½" off center too - but they, too, are zeroed to hit the target.

 

[gary]

" (Berdans had a elevator screw on the small of the butt) "

There is no set pattern and for those men who carried personal rifles they were as individual as the maker. Each gun was made to the customer's taste and wallet.

 

[Joe Whitworth]

I've competed NRA High power out to 600 yards. I've shot with the M1 Carbine, 03 Springfield, M1 Garand and the AR15A2 so I've done a bit of zeroing on the range. A bullet that converges with an offset line of sight at a given distance will then be forever diverging from line of sight. By taking offset into account and keeping bullet and line of sight parallel no converging or diverging takes place. Bullet simply impacts the point of aim to the side by the amount of scope offset at any range. I owned a M1D sniper rifle with said offset scope for a while until a ridiculous offer $$ persuaded me to part with it.
BTW the 03's front sight is not windage adjustable, all windage is adjusted with rear sight. Only our WW1 stopgap M1917, a copy of your Pattern 14 in 30-06 had the same non windage adjustable rear sight, the front sight dovetail mounted allowing it to be drifted for windage. Each individual US solider could zero his own rifle for windage on the range unless issued a M1917. I've drifted the front sight in it's dovetail on M1917's to zero windage and turning the windage knob on the Springfield or M1 for graduated movement is the way to go. YMMV