Looky what I found today... (can you say rare?)

[Warren]

I have the pages of the UK Small Arms Committee of the trials sniper rifles. Clive and I discussed this at length when he wrote the book. The numbers in the doc's were not released for obvious reasons as they would be on the market within the week. I have had the opportunity to strip one of the rifles shown and have my opinion of it. My opinion and a buck 78 will get you a cup of timmy's....no donut.
The old curmudgeon hisself......

[jmoore]

Going out on a limb, here, but it appears to me that barrel may be a slightly shortened No.4 unit with the bayonet lugs and about 1/2 of the sight base lugs turned off.

The normal barrel swell behind the regular sight base lugs is of position looking a bit due to machining of some of the lugs at the rear, not just the front, to create a new set of bayonet lugs.

That would mean a regular No.4 Mk.I(*) barrel could have been used if it had been pulled from stores before a sight base was pinned on.

[Claven2]

I didn't measure it, but I don't think it's shortened - it looked full length to me.

[Surpmil]

Many thanks for posting those and more of course would be even better!

Acc. to "Without Warning", the offset sights were made to comply with a UK requirement that the iron sights be useable with the scope fitted. The No4(T) did not comply of course, but that didn't matter as it was a 'shell game' to block consideration of the Canadian scopes and rifles for UK service apparently. The same book mentions how later the requirements were changed to the effect that scopes had to be offset to the left(!), again for the same reason no doubt. The REL Telescope, Observing, Snipers was rejected on the grounds that snipers would only use binoculars in future! But we digress...

Does the base have projections that fit into the machined recess on the left side of the receiver, or are those for some other mount design?

[Claven2]

No, the machined recess is a lightening cut to lower weight. The mount is attached similarly to a Mosin PU mount. Two locating pins supplemented by fastening screws.

[captainpooby]

Sweet!

[Surpmil]

In your opinion, how does the scope compare optically with a No32 Mk3?

The scope appears to have been refinished, judging by the plier(?) marks on the elevation drum cap. Not that it matters much when you have a C67 scope!

[Claven2]

Optically, I would say superior to the No.32 scope. The marks aren't pliers, they are metal striations from when it was formed in a punch press.

I don't think the scope is refinished, of the examples in Without Warning, about half the scopes on these rifles look to have been painted this way in green.

[Peter Laidler]

The British weren't impressed with the No32 Mk4/No67!

[Claven2]

Peter: If you believe Clive Law, the fix was in before you kippers ever laid eyes on one and there's documentation he found in UKMOD to strongly support that hypothesis. While the No.32 scope is a solid bit of kit, the adjustment of them is an arcane black art. The No.67 on the other hand is effortless by comparisson and the optics are nice and clear.

It may be illustrative to point out that no modern scope uses the distinguishing features of the no.32 while the No.67 scope is copied in virtually every modern optic.

Food for thought.