Printable View
I recently installed a SWFA 10X42 HD scope with a SK mount on my Savage 1/3. Nothing original about this setup but Lordy, she shoots into 1 1/2" when I do my part. Mil Dots and mil-mil adjustments with crystal clear sight picture and lifetime warranty. My old Enfield never had it so good:cheers:
I got beaten up by some members for calling them fakes the first time round but I am sticking to that term. The markings on them are, in my opinion, intended to deceive; which makes them fakes - not reproductions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Laidler
Sounds like splitting hairs to me. Sort of like the definition of is, is. Fake, reproduction, copy, duplicate, anything but replacement! Not to say I may not end up owning one, howsome ever.
fake 1 (fk)Quote:
Originally Posted by Beerhunter
adj.
Having a false or misleading appearance; fraudulent.
n.
1. One that is not authentic or genuine; a sham.
2. Sports A brief feint or aborted change of direction intended to mislead one's opponent or the opposing team.
v. faked, fak·ing, fakes
v.tr.
1. To contrive and present as genuine; counterfeit.
2. To simulate; feign.
3. Music To improvise (a passage).
4. Sports To deceive (an opponent) with a fake. Often used with out.
Noun
reproduction (countable and uncountable; plural reproductions)
1.The act of reproducing new individuals biologically
2.The act of making copies
Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
3.A copy of something, as in a piece of art; a duplicate.
Jim was proud of the Rembrandt reproduction he owned.
I looked those words up in the dictionary too but i think pos is a more accurate description.:D
Yes - I don't like the 1944 and the serial number, in terms of fake/reproduction debates.
For anyone interested, here's the older thread on this subject .. ;)
They're here! Reproduction No32 scopes.
.... and ...
Here's an even older thread on these started by Roger Payne last year when they showed up in Europe ...
Repro No32's....I think they've arrived....
Regards,
Doug
I've had to repair a couple already and again, the lenses are first class however the scopes do need a bit of "tinkering" as they come out of the box. The clicker plate plungers are way to sharp and will tear out the clicker plate in short order if not re-profiled or replaced with SS balls. Also, some of the clicker plates are a bit rough, so in some cases the balls might be the best. There is no anti backlash spring or springs in them, so the only alternative there is to drill the bottom of the diaphragm and add in a spring (touchy work as the cross hair and post are one piece and you cannot readily replace the cross hair and post as individual items). There is no index screw in the OG holder so you have to play around for a while in tightening up the screws, so the hint here is if you have one: don't take it apart unless you want to spend a few hours reassembling it and learning the sequence of how to tighten the screws. The anti backlash spring will also take the slop out of the turret plate. To check your scope press on the range turret and see if the post moves...some will.
Anyhow, more later on these scopes, but I think with a bit of work they will fill the bill for the shooter and collector, but "they ain't 32 scopes"
Seems the second batch ain't selling too good, the sales person I spoke to today said they still have quite a few in stock. Maybe they shoulda quit while they were ahead.:lol:
In the meantime Lawrence Ord in Sydney have half a dozen real Mk1's, if anyones interested. I'm not sure if their provenance is any good but its a place to start with the real thing.
FWIW I agree with Peter, RJW & XA-coupe. The reproductions are somewhat dubious mechanically if not optically, by the sound of it, & considering they're fakes they really aren't THAT cheap. I'd save a little more & get a real one. A genuine well loved but serviceable Mk1 would not cost vastly more than a copy.......& it's something the copy will never be....original.
Just my .02
ATB