Reproduction TP mount questions

I bought one of the Italian replicas when they were on eBay, just for interest. I thought they were well done, but can't speak to their dimensional accuracy.

Attachment 123546Attachment 123547Attachment 123548Attachment 123549

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Surpmil

I bought one of the Italian replicas when they were on eBay, just for interest. I thought they were well done, but can't speak to their dimensional accuracy.

Attachment 123546Attachment 123547Attachment 123548Attachment 123549

---

Cheers big fella, that’s very helpful, thanks for the reply. That’s very different from the original. Can you tell me what ring system it takes? It looks to accept a genuine griffen Howe just by looking at
it.

Also is anyone able to tell me if the side of a no.4 receiver inherently runs true to the bore. I’m looking to begin drafting some drawings on this mount and that seems like the first thing to consider. Did the base ever have to milled at certain angle or eve shimmed like some of the no.32 pads had to be?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kov1985

Also is anyone able to tell me if the side of a no.4 receiver inherently runs true to the bore. I’m looking to begin drafting some drawings on this mount and that seems like the first thing to consider. Did the base ever have to milled at certain angle or eve shimmed like some of the no.32 pads had to be?

---

I have an original TP scope sitting next to me, with original rings, mount, and base, in a correct but unmatched Canadian scope can. I'm trying to sell it for an ungodly amount of money to a gentleman in Canada, we are still negotiating.

I'm happy to measure or photo whatever you'd like. Shoot me a PM. We can also put the info on this thread, so it's available for the next guy.

Regards,
Trog

Pm sent mate cheers

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kov1985

Also is anyone able to tell me if the side of a no.4 receiver inherently runs true to the bore. I’m looking to begin drafting some drawings on this mount and that seems like the first thing to consider. Did the base ever have to milled at certain angle or eve shimmed like some of the no.32 pads had to be?

---

Personally I doubt it very much. The only surfaces that I would rely on as having a consistent relationship to the bolt-way (NOT the bore), would be the rear sight axis pin holes, but even those I wouldn't put much faith in.

Re: your earlier question, I believe that reproduction C67 rail would accept a standard G&H commercial mount, but can't be certain now.

I would have thought that if the body side wall was perfectly true to the bore then H&H would not have needed to machine the area for the front body pad on the 4T conversions.....

The depth of the milled flat differs somewhat from rifle to rifle, suggesting a degree of variation.

Indeed, and it's worth recalling also that the barrelled bodies/receivers were at that point reportedly mounted in a jig whose only control surface was the bore itself: apparently no surface of the body/receiver was assumed to square and true to the bore!

I’m currently in the process of drafting engineering drawings of this thing with the kind help of Troglodyte. Can anyone give me any details on the mounting screws and pins used? Their length, diameter, thread etc?

Thanks everyone

There turned one of those up for sale on eBay: Enfield Sniper Scope No. 32 Trade Pattern (TP) Canadian/British Lyman Alaskan | eBay


Not my auction nor did I look any closer at it to determine whether original or fake, just wanted to point it out since OP was looking for one.