A Rifleman Went to War

iron sights, it would be all right and even if the telescope did get out of alignment or have its cross hairs jarred loose, it would still be splendid to have along for purposes of observation. One could easily look through the misaligned telescope for a target and then hit that target with the iron sights once it was located. Targets are mighty hard to locate on the battlefield, too. Also, under such conditions as these, the rifle must be fitted up so the magazine is available for use at all times; no modem rifleshot, no matter how good, is going to advance very far with a single shot rifle in his hands.

My own ideas as to the proper telescope for such battle firing would be one with an absolutely rigid mount that would stand up under any and all conditions of jar and abuse. For that matter, the rigid mount is the only type to consider for sniping work of any description — one could not begin to use these conventional target mounts where the scope slides forward from recoil and must be pulled back by hand after each shot. The whole works want to be solid and rigid, with no outside springs, shock absorbers, or similar gadgets in sight. If these must be used, put them inside of the ’scope where they will be out of the way — and out of the dirt and dust also. There must be some arrangement for changing both elevation and windage, moved by means of sufficiently large devices to take hold of, showing settings in both plain figures and “clicks.” I want no range-finding contrivances, etched lines, battle slogans or anything of that sort on the lens either — what is mostly needed is the largest possible entirely clear and distinct field of vision with a definite aiming device in it — and nothing else.

As to magnification, or power. For the general purpose telescope, to be used in all sorts of weather and conditions — and by advancing troops — I believe the three power to be about as high as one can go, possibly the two-and-one-half power is enough, at that. Large field and clear vision is more important than magnification in most instances. But when it comes to real honest-to-God sniping, from a prepared position and with an observer to help, where the ranges may run up to seven and even eight hundred yards, one can use considerably more magnification, and even an eight power telescope is none too high.

A lot has been written about the various types of “reticules” for telescope sights. Well, let ’em fight it out. No matter what kind you have, whether cross-hairs, posts or what-not, the man who tries to pick out a little, obscure target which has been so plastered with mud and dust as to look just like any other part of the scenery, will soon find that the dam thing gets in the way and covers up some part of the view that he wishes to see. Locating the head of a woodchuck at one or two hundred yards is a cinch compared to the job of finding a little round, mud- encrusted cap at two or three hundred. Part of this trouble is due to the fact that after a field has been blasted with shells for an hour or two, nothing looks natural. Everything is knocked cock-eyed and there remains just a mad, futuristic picture that looks like nothing at all.

The battlefield soon takes on a weird and grotesque appearance, and the ordinary objects such as trees, bushes, stone walls, buildings and such become so disrupted and twisted out of shape that they look like such things as one sees in a mad dream. Men crawling through such a background and scene of chaos become as parts of the whole “crazy quilt” pattern itself, and to pick out an individual at any but short range is well near impossible. But the rifleman has it to do. He can, with no great trouble, locate certain individuals with his binoculars or observing telescope, but when he attempts to find the same fellow through his rifle sights, his troubles have just begun. He may have his man spotted — right beside, or above, or below a certain stump, fence-post or bush, but when he tries to pick up that particular point, even if using a ’scope sight, the cross-hairs, post or particular reticule he is using may be such that it obliterates enough of the surrounding scenery to make it difficult or impossible to be certain he is even aiming at the man he wants to hit.

Under such conditions, almost any sort of sighting reticule has its disadvantages, and I don’t know but that the ordinary cross-hairs are not as good as any. For one thing, the horizontal wire is of great help in keeping the rifle from canting, and when you are shooting from a restricted position or loop-hole it is very easy to get the rifle out of plumb. Then again, there just ain’t anything on the battlefield that will blend in with, or look like, those precisely drawn cross-wires which are unvaryingly at right angles — they always stand out from the landscape. The post reticule is preferred by many, owing to its greater visibility and strength, but there are times when that post will blend in with the target or surroundings, and the average post reticule blocks out too much of the target, especially if you are obliged to “hold high” for a long shot. Move the sight up do you say? Hell man, no time for that now.

I speak of these various points for the benefit of those who may use a telescope such as the Winchester, where the reticules may be changed at will. On many telescopes there is no choice, as the reticule is etched on the lens, this has some advantages of its own, at that — no danger of your cross-wires breaking. At any rate, I was issued a telescope fitted with cross-hairs, and although they were much thinner than many other types of reticule, there were many times when they blocked out the target at which I wanted to shoot. So, after many trials and much tribulation (I don’t know what that word means, but it sounds all right) I resorted to the expedient of establishing my “aiming point” right in the upper, right-hand corner of the cross-hairs, the inside angle. Not the center cross at all. And it worked — which was the only thing we cared about in those days. Theories and theoretical reasoning are all right when you have plenty of time to kill and nobody is shooting at you, but when you get up against the active game of warfare, it is the common, everyday, practical things that count.

The very best thing I ever struck along this line was a German telescopic sight which we took from a prisoner — a machine gunner — which had nothing but an amber-colored pyramid in the lower sector. Apparently, the aiming point was the apex of the pyramid, which was located in the exact center of the field. You could hold over, or anywhere on the target and nothing would be blocked out. It looked mighty good to me, but I never had a chance to try it. Things were popping too fast around that sector in those days to take time out for any experimenting, so I turned it in to “ordnance” and had their promise that it would be fitted with a mounting for use on one of our guns, but it never materialized and I soon forgot all about it.

All the dope I have written so far has been based upon my own personal experiences during the years 1915- 1918, using such telescopic sights as were available at that time. Since then, many qualified riflemen have asked me if I did not consider the newer and better designed rifle telescopes to have overcome all of the troubles and faults of the earlier sights such as we used. It is a bit difficult for me to discuss the merits of these telescopic sights of today, because, as Will Rogers would say “All I know is what I read in the papers.”

Well, that is not exactly accurate. I have used some of them since the war, but the last time was about 1930 and a lot of improvements have been made since then and all I know about those improved ’scopes is what I have read in the various sporting magazines. However, knowing most of the men who have written up these newer ’scopes I feel safe in taking their word for it that the telescopic rifle sight has finally and definitely arrived and is suitable for all-around use — even on running game and in thick woods.

That this was far from the case in 1915 — or even in 1918 — is well known to all and sundry who had anything to do with the ’scopes of that period. The ones we then had were as temperamental as a movie actress and had to be babied to about the same extent. We had the Winchester 5-A available, and it was I think, about the best at that time, but just the same they caused us plenty of worry during the time we used them at the Small Arms Firing School at Camp Perry. That was the only type we had there, but prior to that time I had experimented with several others that had been brought out by our Ordnance Department, and during my term of sniping in Flanders I had used the Warner & Swasey prismatic sight of which I have spoken so frequently throughout this story — and found it at least as good as any other I had seen up to that time.

Now I have always contended that, in addition to the ’scope sight, a man should have iron sights on his rifle and ready for use at any time, and I am not going to back out from that statement now, even though the telescope sights are every bit as good as they are cracked up to be. I don’t care how good and dependable they are; they are and always will be rather delicate instruments to be hauled and dragged about a battlefield and it is a certainty that they will, at times, become disabled through rough usage.

When this happens, the rifleman will need something to fall back on and if his rear sight has been removed to make a place for the ’scope mounting, he is going to be S.O.L., that’s all. For this reason alone, I favor a sight that is offset so as to permit the use of either the ’scope or those iron sights at any time. Theoretically, according to our experts, there is less chance for error if the ’scope is mounted directly over the bore of the rifle. Now, will some of those experts explain to me how it makes any difference whether the sight is two-and-a-half inches above, or to one side, or even under the bore? Do they know of any man who can hold within that limit at any range from two hundred yards up? I don’t.

In actual sniping — in war — the greatest difficulty is to locate your target through the sights. That is why I