Printable View
Excerpts (no "link clicking" required) of some of Warren's comments have been added to Post #17 in this thread. He seems to think there's more than one manufacturer as well. Some seem to be able to be made into servicable units. Hopefully he'll chime in directly!Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Laidler
You can make the anti-backlash springs quite easily from piano guitar wire - BUT BETTER to get rid of them and use a small backlash spring in the base of the diaphragm and another opposite the lead screw in the deflection cursor. Remarkably, I saw several packets of these springs as spares in the No32 spares trays being chucked out when the L1A1's were being returned to Ord with the L42's. They even had the new NATO NSN which showed hat MK2's were converted to L1A2 spec too albeit quite rare
That tube looks like a real dog Muffer! Have you got bead and phosphating facilities near you? Look under 'fabricators' they still use phosphating tanks
For anyone else out there in Forumland, if you are about to drill out a spring seating in the bottom of the diaphragm, then grip the cursor between two strips of hardwood taped together at the ends so as to protect the grat and Xwire. We were taught this and zillions of other tricks while learning the tricks of the trade. Ignore this little gem at your peril. You WILL break the Xwire otherwise. Drill carefully and DON'T go right through. You are only drilling a seating.
In my opinion, the double coil spring method is superior to the single spring in the base of the cursor AND the double lever springs shown by Muffer. This is because the two spring method means a spring loading against eack of the lead screws.
Just rambling on a bit but want to pass this info on before I stop doing the bloody things!!!!!
DPL,
Would the twin coil springs be better at minimising backlash?
Attached are images of the replica No.32 Mk1 I purchased from a local Calgarian who had imported 6 of them directly from Taiwan (US dealers, apparently, cannot ship them to Canada). There are no manufacturer markings I could find. Somewhat disturbingly a couple of the scopes were marked "No. 42 Mk1". Even worse, someone who saw one of the 42's used it as a guide to crudely re-engrave a real No. 32 Mk1 that had been polished so hard the original markings were very faint. That should cause some head scratching! While I certainly enjoy shooting my real No.4T with No.32 Mk3 scope, I don't think it makes sense to use a valuable and rare piece like that to blaze away at rocks in the coulee or simply shoot 60 or 80 rounds at the range for fun. For that my replica No.4T comes out either with this replica scope or a Weaver. As mentioned, the replica No. 32 is OK so-far.
Ridolpho
Twin coils better at reducing backlash DRP. In my opinion, yes because they are acting directly opposite the lead screws
DPL, Thanks. That certainly makes sense.
Hey Ridolpho, I see another fudge-up they made on your scope. Look at the engraving closely, instead of using the correct abbreviation for Telescope Sighting (TEL. STG.) they got it backwards and abbreviated Telescope Sergeant (TEL. SGT.)
Anybody interested in trying to figure out how many different versions there are? I have one here I recently bought from Warren. Looks nice enough. I'll be torturing it hard as soon as I can. I'll post pics if you guys would like. This one is unmarked.
Hi Flying Pig. Do you mean the scope is totally unmarked? I picked up a Mk3 from Belgium about a year ago completely 'sans markings' but I could tell from its appearance that it was a Kershaw scope. Closer scrutiny revealed that it had been expertly skimmed, though I've no idea how much meat was left on the scope tube! I sold it on to someone who wanted a Mk3 he could use with the metric range scale on a L42 clone. Could yours have been skimmed, or do you think it left the factory unmarked (perhaps is someone's lunch box??)? This would make it quite an interesting piece. The only other 'atypically' marked scope I have is another incomplete Kershaw Mk3 dated 1946 & engraved in the usual way except that it does not have nor does it ever appear to have had a serial number. The '6' in the 1946 also looks to have been added after the event. I always wondered if it went home in someone's pocket or lunch box on a Friday afternoon at the end of the production run..............
ATB
One identifying feature of the fake scopes SEEMS to be the fact that the focussing of the actual image differs. On a standard scope, it's done by altering the focal length (the FL) of the OG lens so that ........ anyway. This is done by shortening of lengthening the FL by shimming the rear end of or machining away the rear end of the brass cell shoulder. The the OG lens cell is locked in place radially* and secured by the shoulder of the front sleeve.
On the mickey mouse telescopes, this adjusting the FL is done by nothing more that sliding the lens/lens cell in and out until it's right THEN 'locking' it up with a grub screw that itself is threaded into the inner cursor sleeve or inner tube. The sheer bodgery of this is that the inner cursor sleeve is about 1mm or so thick and round. So you can immediately discount two complete threads. Then tighten the front sleeve down onto the lens cell and add a bit of recoil.......... You'd be better off sticking it with sellotape.
Pure unadulterated errrr ............... what's the words I'm looking for now........ just slipped off the tip of my tongue.......... Someone needs to remind me as I only have a limited vocabulary
* Oh yes! The OG lens is locked in place radially so that it doesn't rotate. This because if you do rotate the lens, then any optical aberration within the lens will rotate the image. It might just be a little bit but it WILL - just as it does when you adjust the clear prismatic window of an old Aldis to get deflection. The same principal is used to alter the collimation of your old binos. That's the problem if you get headaches when using your No2 or 5 binos!
Sorry to ramble on a bit as I'm want to do occasionally but if it's all useless info, then just ignore it!