Rifle Scopes 2d Lt. James Leatherwood's A.R.T.

[RollingThunder51]

Cleaning up I came across something that I don't think has been mentioned on this board yet, a Leatherwood autoranging scope. Seen here in its final variant, the ART II. these were really interesting rigs that allowed for fast ranging and auto bullet drop compensation. In other words, one did not need to know the range to the target, only some component of the targets dimensions had to be well known. There was no hold over or drop dialing required.

Introduced by James M. Leatherwood, within the earliest years of Viet Nam, his ART scope took over from where the Redfield 3-9 left off, providing the means to not only compensate for the trajectory automatically, but do so with variable magnification. Soon after its introduction to LWL, the idea of using a cam based mechanical system attracted notice. By 1965, the issue surrounding poor ranging skills by many marksman, and the lengthy training to correct it, was a major theme. Leatherwood's design allowed for very fast, reasonably accurate engagment at ranges out past 800 meters.

The optics was supplied by a firm we rarely speak about today, Realist. Many will recall that that was the compact scope first mounted in the handle hold of the M16, the "Colt Scope." In any event by 1966, Leatherwood's design was being tested in the field. Results were excellent for the expectations of the day. Product went out to the services in the form of ART in numbers until around 1970. Leatherwood himself left the service and joined Mitch WerBell at the "camp" (Sionics, M.A.C. etc.) and continued with refinements. He was joined by the likes of John Foote, Gordon Ingram, Max Atchisson and the remarkable Donald Thomas. The final version, seen here is the ART II, and represented the last direct sales of the scope to the U.S. Army replacing the AR/TEL. 19 Cams were available in 11 calibers and bullet weights.

Thought you might enjoy seeing it.

 

[J.Boyette]

Re: 2d Lt. James Leatherwood's A.R.T.

There where many issues with these riflescopes.

I know personalty a USAMU Instructor that did the 8th INF div Sniper school in Vietnam that told me how they fixed these scopes.

Also I work with Bill Lancaster one of the best known 25th INF Div. Sniper of 1969-1970 and he told me the same.

The way to use these optics in a combat zone was to ZERO them at 600yds and then "glue" them in. Once done to the BDC cam you held to the forehead past 600yds, and at the crouch for less then 600yds.

That was it. The Cam did work once locked in and set by rust and glue.

John

 

[mgd45]

Re: 2d Lt. James Leatherwood's A.R.T.

So....how well do these truly work....and do you have any experience with them?

 

[RollingThunder51]

Re: 2d Lt. James Leatherwood's A.R.T.

..

John is describing one of several issues surrounding the ART (first gen). The seperation of the power-to-cam was a real issue. They were numerous others, as this was new technology for its day. Lateral movement because of the carriage's pivot tolerances and the eventual weakening of the "RTB" spring were also issues. The fixed 6 and fixed 4 also had optical clarity and seal issues, mostly all resolved by the introduction of the 1969 "Conputer Scopes". The introduction of special hard case helped. And by 1970, the system was generally well thought of.

By the time we get to ART II, the majoriy of issues were all resolved with a few exceptions for those seeing truly brutal use. I have found them to be remarkably accurate with uniform loads and like conditions and can see how, in their day, the ART II found its way internationally into quite a number of hands. But, obviously, an open aluminum cam, running on the head of a fixed point was not "enviroment" friendly. Still, great effort was put into these scopes and, remarkably, a bunch of hard working Texans controlled the high end optics market for a long time!

lastly, for those that find this interesting. The Leatherwood mount, made today, requiring mil ranging (not auto ranging) is available. I honestly have never seen one and have no idea as to its performance.

Get ready..."This curious and fascinating mount gives up to <span style="font-weight: bold">120 MOA of vertical adjustment</span>, as well as <span style="font-weight: bold">windage adjustments</span>. It's a 30mm mount with 1" full circumference ring adapters that are flanged to keep the adapters from shifting in the 30mm clamps" All this at a mere 2.5 lbs.

 

[cubewarrior]

Re: 2d Lt. James Leatherwood's A.R.T.

ART II's were fielded well after the conclusion of the Vietnam War. The ART-TELs (1st generation) were fielded with the XM21 rifles.

The cam on ART-TEL scope worked against the tension loaded base to adjust elevation while simultaneously increasing/decreasing magnification based on range. The entire base/ring set moved relative to the mount and scope (which stayed in the same position relative those base/rings). In the process of ranging the bad guy, everything adjusted off of one useable ring. The former 9ID snipers I've talked to praised the scope as superior to ARTII, but they all detested the original mount. Scope adjustment knobs were used for zero.

The mounting bracket rather than the scope's cam was the inferiority of the design--it was the Achilles Heel of the entire XM21 system. The mount consisted of a locking tab and a screw. The tab provided tension against receiver (and to the screw) to hold it to the rifle. The tabs often made little actual surface contact with the corresponding notch on the M14 receiver. As a result, the mounts often worked loose from the receiver--sometimes making the mount unserviceable after a few hundred rounds. There were several field expedient solutions:

1) Spot-weld the mount to the receiver as a day optic and dedicate a second rifle as a night-time only system for use with a starlight scope.
2) Screw the bejeezus out of the mount to keep it tight (which is why you often see clawed out indents on the M14 stocks right below the scope mounting points--for leverage.)
3) Liberally replace the soft aluminum mounts in theater. (Originally, each mount was serial-numbered to the rifle, but the mounts failed so regularly that in-field replacements stopped being numbered.)
4) All of the above.

Currently, I'm working with Mike Sadlak to re-shape the mounting surface of an orginal ART-TEL mount. The intent is to increase surface contact to enable the mount to place more constant tension against the receiver and (thus) hold the main screw more securely through recoil. I'll post once everything comes back.

Firing these older systems really increases one's appreciation of the current state of the art and the skill of former snipers.

 

[oneshot onekill]

Re: 2d Lt. James Leatherwood's A.R.T.

 

[RollingThunder51]

Re: 2d Lt. James Leatherwood's A.R.T.

..


Very interesting, thanks. I know that they abandoned the LWL/ART pivot (aluminum) because of its inability to hold and adopted the the "Texas ART." That was to have taken 5k rounds. Is this not true?

The rig you see above was for a modified FN LAR and I never had a mount issue.





..

 

[sinister]

Re: 2d Lt. James Leatherwood's A.R.T.

When I matriculated through the USAMU Course in 1982 we had ART-1s on all our M21/M25s. I knew the Army was transitioning to the ART-II so I bought one at Leatherwood in Texas on my way to the west coast en route to Korea.

When I took my Scout Platoon I had 8 M21s with ART-IIs in really bad condition. I ended up getting six loaners from Leatherwood while they repaired the scopes I had, and when they were done I returned their floats.

Two eventually fogged so bad on combat missions that the condensation INSIDE the scope looked like the outside of a really cold beer mug in summer (this was springtime in April).

Any sand or grit at all between the cam and pivot point just ground into the metal.

I much preferred and had great confidence in the ART-1 compared to the ART-II. I eventually sold my personal ART-II (shot less than 300 rounds) to a friend who collects sniper rifles and optics.

The mount-to-receiver scope interface on the M14/21/25 leaves a lot to be desired. It is an after-thought and nowhere as secure as modern options (like a flat top AR-10T).

That said the ART-1 is a cave-man simple and very fast.

 

[ChrisF]

Re: 2d Lt. James Leatherwood's A.R.T.


Who makes the 120 moa external mount ?