Rebel wrote on Apr 29^th, 2018 at 12:15am:


Where, specifically, did I previously claim to be more of an expert than Campbell?   

But on the subject of Winchester scopes, ABSOLUTELY.

Redsetter wrote on Apr 29^th, 2018 at 12:23am:

Is this thread about the Winder Musket, or about Winchester scopes?      

Waterman,

You reminded me of a chat I had with an old Army Drill Sergeant back at Ft. Belvoir. There were some old multi-story brick buildings there that were used as barracks. We were prowling around through the attics of those buildings one evening, and he mentioned that those attics had once been used as indoor rimfire rifle ranges. Records may be available from a Post historian.

How do the Stevens 414 and English miniature rifles fit into this timeline?
Aaron

waterman wrote on Apr 29^th, 2018 at 12:39pm:


Grant said first listed in catalog #52, which would be about 1910. But my 52 doesn't contain it, so Grant's 52 must have been a revised ed., as Stevens frequently issued.  It's in #53, mine dated 1912.

BP wrote on Apr 29^th, 2018 at 3:10pm:


Get out your notebook, & Vol. 2.

Page 194--re: "fire-saled" A5s, allegedly due to quality-control issues.  No-most of these were military-purchased scopes used for purposes other than sniper issue, such as artillery bore scopes, which were auctioned off after WWI.   

Page 195--here begins his reiteration of the Prof. Hastings myth of "compensating errors."  Talk to a competent optical engineer (which I did): sheer marketing nonsense.  Anybody with an optical bench can measure the characteristics of a lens system--there are no "secrets" to be hidden.

Page 196-7--here is presented his crackpot theory of a "trick lens system" contrived not by the Prof but copied from the Cummins Duplex scope.  (Which you can learn more about in GD 2005, if you're interested.)  His bizarre misinterpretation of the ray-tracing shown in the Cummins patent drawing reveals that he must have been too busy theorizing to consult an elementary optics manual that would have explained what he was looking at in this drawing.  '"I'm sure to get myself in trouble on this one too."  Serious scholars of anything usually take pains to avoid getting themselves "in trouble" with uninformed speculation. 

Page 197--"purchased Stevens Scope Co."  Need I say more?

Page 221--another reference to the nonsense of "optical trickery" again.

Incidentally, much of what appeared in this A5 discussion bears a rather remarkable resemblance to two papers which appeared in the May & July, 1998, issues of the SSJ; that's several months prior to the publication of Vol. 2.

Thank you,
Aaron

The Winchester A5 telescope sight belongs in a separate thread.  But all the business about offsetting inaccuracies should not be blamed on Mr. Campbell.  He was only repeating that which had been in print in some of the firearms classics for 70-plus years.  

Phil Sharpe mentions it in "The Rifle in America" (p.228 in a column headed "Winchester Telescope Sights").  That book has a copyright date of 1938 and was written earlier.  

Townsend Whelen discusses the Winchester A5 telescopic sight in much detail in his 1918 book "The American Rifle".  He gives detailed instructions on disassembling the A5 and putting it back together again.  And does not mention any offsetting inaccuracies.

Our definition of "bore scopes" has shifted enormously in the last 100 years.  Now we are referring to some gizmo that makes it possible to examine our rifle bores in minute detail.  

In 1917, a bore scope was inserted into the bore of an artillery piece and was used to align the sights of the cannon with a distant aiming point, much as a rifle is "bore-sighted" today.  They may well have been used in conjunction with a "sub-caliber firing device".  The ones I learned about in the Navy in December 1961 were the barreled actions of a .30-40 Krag rifle inserted into the breech of an artillery piece.  We still had latter-day Krag ammunition in storage.