Printable View
I purchased a No32 Mk2 scope (Mk1 style drums) about 6 weeks ago it was supposed to have been fully rebuilt, but I noticed that the windage adjustment did not move the recital for 8 clicks, in other words if you move the recital to the left it will not start moving to the right for a full 8 clicks on the drum.
This has made trying to zero the rifle impossible, the height adjustment is fine and the rifle groups very tight indeed, this problem is very frustrating.
Does anyone have a solution?
You cannot get that amount of backlash on a Mk1 and 2 telescope without trying VERY hard because the range and deflection lead screws operate within nuts attached to the actual graticle blocks. That's opposed to the Mk3 where the grat block is actually spring loaded and can stick occasionally
I would look to see whether the 4x 8BA cheeseheaded drum screws are in fact screwed up tight'y. Failing that, that the lead screw locking nut is actually gripping the lead screw. Some have been known to 'bottom-out' and give the impression that they're tight and gripping the lead screw but are only bottoming out under the head of the nut.
Hey............., it wasn't the one you got off me was it!
Hi Peter, yep sadly it is that scopeQuote:
Originally Posted by Peter Laidler
I have checked the 4x 8ba drum screws are tight and they are, also the locking nut is gripping the lead screw when tight.
Could the thread on the lead screw or the internal thread that it goes in be worn?
I have had a look inside the turret and am a little disappointed to what I found, for a start the two surfaces have not be cleaned and are not mating together correctly and secondly one locating dowel is missing and the other has been pushed all the way into the housing.
https://www.milsurps.com/images/imported/deleted.gif
How this scope was supposed to stop the ingest of water and dirt let alone work the windage adjustment properly is beyond me.
LEE ENFIELD SNIPER No32 TELESCOPE - eBay (item 130409187103 end time Jul-18-10 09:25:29 PDT)
A little disappointed with this fully rebuilt scope.
How disappointing to get a "fully rebuilt" scope that doesn't work. Ask for a refund.
I would have preferred a PM regarding this matter or off air correspondence and just sent it back, at my expense as suggested but. Ah........... A little knowledge and all that! First, we need an answer to the fact that there is alleged to be 8 clicks of backlash. Quite how there can be that amount of backlash with a coarse-pitch milti-start thread is as mysterious as it is erronious. Unlike the Mk3, on the Mk1 and 2 telescope the diaphragm and deflection cursor are screwed directly into the lead screws. (The Mk3 diaphragm isn't, it's spring loaded as a matter of interest so slight sticking can cause extremes of apparent backlash)
We also need an answer as to how, sighted through the telescope, the rifle is giving tight groups. If there was 8 clicks of backlash, the group would be spread horizontally along 8" at 100 yards. After all, that's how we check rogue rifles on the range! These two simple facts indicate that whatever the problem is, it's not backlash
The Mk1 and 2 telescopes were never waterproof and it would be quite erronious to suggest that they ever were.
I think you'll find that the telescope was fully declared as being upgraded to Mk2 specification. This means fitted with a new set of Mk2 drum assemblies. We're going to get technical now and mention the 'missing' locators. When new, the drum assemblies are set onto the telescope and adjusted so that the EXACT centre line of the lead screw aligns EXACTLY with the centre line of the deflection cursor slide for the deflection mode and the diaphragm nut for the range mode. Put simply, if they're not EXACTLY aligned, they'll never turn! Once they are correct, 2x 10BA clearance pilot holes are drilled randomly through the edges of the plates, into the telescope body and fixed with the locator pins. It's as simple as that! It therefore stands to reason that a new set of index plates will either a) be missing the holes or b) they won't align due to the random nature of the location.................. If anyone should doubt this, I'll invite you to have a look at a few new sets of index plates! And furthermore, it is because there is an important mechanical need to centre these index plates that the 4x 8BA hole for the cheeseheaded screws are oversize. JUST to allow the Instrument technicians sufficient leeway in order that they can be centred to the cursor and diaphragm nut. From this you'll easily understand that if the two sets of locating pin holes don't align, then there is absolutely no point whatsoever tryng to push, bash, hammer or force the pins in. They simply won't go in. Not ever in a hundred years. Why don't we simply drill them out so as to align? Because then we'd have two sets of OVERSIZE holes. And if anyone thinks that the Army would effectively scrap a telescope that is valued at more than the rifle, because two pins don't align, then they're wrong. We don't!
From reading the above, you'll see just how important it is to know exactly what you're doing before you relocate or even worse, remove the index plate. Oooooooops, too late Chris............, you've done it! (heart sinking at this point)
The mating surfaces between the index plate and telescope body (and into the screw holes) is smeared with a fine petrolium based jelly or more lately, an XG340 graphite grease and this is probably/possibly invisible to the camera. Then, after the whole newly bead blasted, phosphated, hot oven baked telescope is all all assembled, then tested on an optical bench against calibrated optical instruments at long and short distances and rigorously tested in a set sequence for backlash in both planes, the final touch is to run a lick of paint around the a) ocular lens counter cell, the segment cover and the index plate covers.
And guss what I can see seeping inbetween the mating surfaces of the errant lead screw cover...............yep, you've got it in one....... the lick of paint!
As you are aware Chris (and Enfield .303t) my work is guaranteed for 20 years which is very probably, slightly longer that your even more expensive car I hasten to add (and not 6 weeks ago, I had a 1993 repair back from Australia. Yes, it was done at nominal expense). But if there isn't a fault or it's your 'workmamship' that's caused the error.......
I would like to confirm what I found on inspecting the turret, there was a gap between the plate and the scope that I could place a feeler gauge of 5 thou between, this was caused by the 4x 8BA screws bottoming out on the threads in there holes and the fact that that surface not being completely flat, this is why the paint has seeped under the plate (see photo) also you say that this is sealed by smear of fine petroleum based jelly (which was obviously never there as paint would not of stuck to the surface).
And yes you are right the scope was about 4 inches out from left to right at 25 metres!
What was happening when the windage turret was moved was the whole plate was moving and causing this problem. So much for indexing the plate covers?
I am a qualified tool maker so I am not a complete idiot & I do not have my “heart sinking at this point” because I have 100% confidence in my work and ability.
I have remedied this problem and the scope is working as it should (recital moves left and right on the first click).
I feel that the whole point here is misinformation within the auction description terms like “best described as a brand new” & “unique opportunity to acquire a ‘brand new’ – or certainly as good as you will ever get” & “hermetically sealed and stored until today”.
If you believe that the above statements are correct then that’s fine, but it is a fact that it was not up to these statements and I feel a little disappointed that what I thought I was purchasing was not what I received, and just miffed that I had to spend a few hours on it.
I am posting and not in a PM so all can share in my experience.
Just to speak to our own personal experience, if you need to get your No.32 scope repaired, I'd recommend sending it to the best, Peter Laidler in England. He's refurbished two of ~Angel~'s No.32 scopes for No.4(T)'s and at least one from an L42A1. He has access to any parts needed and does excellent work. His knowledge on the No.32 scope is second to none and in addition, he's authored two books on the subject. I know there are other good sources who do this kind of work, but we've not used them so can't speak to their specific work results.Quote:
Originally Posted by enfield303t
To get a No.32 Mk1, Mk2, or Mk3 scope repaired by Peter, contact Brian Dick at BDL Ltd, as they have exclusive North American rights to do all of Peter's work. If you're really interested in learning about the No.32 series of scopes, their history, evolution, repair and adjustments for shooting, I'd recommend Peter's two books, which can also be ordered through BDL.
By the way Peter, I think she's got another two No.32's that need to be overhauled, so I'll speak to Brian about a direct shipment from Canada. :D
Regards,
Badger
Interesting comments as when I looked up the ad on Ebay the seller was Peter 9743 and according to the ad was and I quote ( I am selling it on behalf of the Instrument Technician that rebuilt it and when I say brand new I mean BRAND NEW.)
There are further writing in this ad on how this scope is brand new..or certainly as good as you will ever get...so I would expect it to be perfect.
No Peter I did not know your work was guaranteed for 20 years and also did not know that you were the seller. The seller was Peter 9743 and I had no idea that you were Peter 9743. Another point is Peter 9743 was selling it for the Instrument Technician that rebuilt it, so even if I did know that was your Ebay name I would not have thought you rebuilt it anyway.
Like Chris171 I also would be a little "miffed" in fact probably more than "miffed" as I do not have his skill as a tool maker and would not be able to even consider trying to figure out what was wrong.
Trying to chastise me for a comment that I shared Chris's disappointment just doesn't work.
Please don't think I took offence of any sort E303t. Not a bit as I'd been the first to offer some technical advice and offered to put it right (subject to a couple of reasonable but negotiable conditions of course) and I would have, if necessary, given a full refund although it never got to that. An offer that still stands. In fact, tongue in cheek, I'd refund in full, PLUS £50 and postage. You can't get fairer that that.
No, I didn't take offence at all. Not a bit........
I think at this point, especially with Peter's offer on the table, this issue should be handled via PM as further public discussion would be counterproductive.
But can I say thanks for the photograph of the internals - I've never seen one in the 'flesh' before.
Paul