-
NO32 Mk1 scope (opinions wanted)
-
Except for the pads and the hex thingy it's all good. The hex thingy may be good too, but I don't know what it is! If it's a scope zeroing tool, I don't THINK it's for a No.32.
Your scope is VERY early. The number on the bracket matched a rifle's S/N at one point. It was never matched to the scope S/N. As an interested party for purchase, I best recuse myself from valuation, but even w/ the brass bits in an unnaturally bright and bare state, it's gonna be a fair sum...
The box is just a correct box. Fairly pricey as well, these days.
Valuation might be easier if you can let us know from what country you post.
BTW, welcome to the forum. Waving those bits aboot is a good way to get attention!
-
Welcome to the forum!
IMO your scope, bracket and can would probably sell in the $1800 - 2000 ballpark on ebay.
-
That is telescope number 138 (they all started at 1000 except for United Instruments/Vickers). I'd like to see the number of the rifle on the box.....................
-
Nice scope.....so close to the one I am looking for...........
-
1 Attachment(s)
As Peter said it's a very early scope. Would have been on one of the trials No4's converted at RSAF Enfield in 1940/41 originally.
The bracket is a bit later, but it all looks perfectly genuine to me.
The scope has had a sympathetic restoration with just the drum "turret" and screw heads painted. Note the missing locating pin.
The paper label in the case looks to read RIFLE No. AQ7240 and TELESCOPE No. 5420. I could well be wrong of course! Ah, hang on, looking at the lid, it looks more like AQ7540.
The adjusting tool, if that is what it is, I would guess was made up somewhere to expedite matters. Was there a handle fitted to the end we cannot see? Note the photo of a tool that was one of a small number made up as explained.
Would "W.I.D." be "Weapons Inspection Department/Directorate"? The patina certainly suggests it is as old as it claims to be.
Can't say much about those weird and wonderful pads. The front one looks like it might be brass, is it?
Value for all that? A couple of grand at least. Parted out, perhaps more.
The numbers should be added to the "Scopes Needing Rifles" and Rifles Needing Scopes" threads.
-
I'd say the bracket is correct for the scope, based mostly on the unusually good "finish" (this one's a bit sub-par) that seems peculiar to early brackets. But that's just a SWAG.
It is also not the only early scope I've seen that has been apparently reassigned to a 1944 vintage weapon. (tiny sample size of four+, to date, so NOT definitive!) I'm thinking that for some reason, production bottlenecks perhaps?, some of these early optics were pulled off rifles (presumably U/S or otherwise not intended for further field work) and reassigned. I think I have mentioned it before. It makes reuniting early optics all that more difficult, if true, as there will then be TWO "proper" rifles for each scope.
-
As the screws on the ring caps are not staked and there is no patina around the rear ring on the scope tube, my guess would be that the scope and bracket have not been together that long, at least never in service.
The original trials rifle probably saw hard use through WWII and was scrapped afterwards. Look at the wear on the scope for example!
Thousands of MkI scopes were sold off post-WWII.
Personally I doubt there was much mating and matching of scopes going on in WWII. New rifles and scopes were being produced all the time and was there time to fiddle about when a new set could just be issued? Witness the thousands of unused scopes and rifles still in store after WWII, and sold off all through the 50s, and 60s.
-
I wouldn't think so either, but I've eleven pounds of evidence that says otherwise. Plus there are the others observed. This is the first loose scope seen, but it fits. Having minimal or no staking AND a S/N added post-WWII doesn't make much sense, either. It ought to have remnants of old stake marks, or something. :dunno:
Not calling my theory even close to being proven! I just want y'all to think about it when this sort of thing comes up. Especially if you see a complete, and apparently "as manufactured" rifle in it's matching crate, with a scope that's much uglier and three years older than the rifle but seems to have been shipped as part of the original CES!
Its @&$%( weird, but what if it can be verified multiple times?
-
I would say you could pay up to $3000 for that package..................$500 - $800 on the tin and $2500 on the scope and bracket.....................Let us know if you dont buy it!!! I would be interested as I am sure there are many others here that would be.
-
Within the last few months a No.32 Mark II scope, bracket and can in good condition sold for $1350 on e-bay. If you are intending to sell it, e-bay is a good place to find out what it is really worth. I would auction the can, pads,tool, mount and scope separately to maximize your return. The scope should be started at $1000 and you should offer to sell it internationally.
You can still find complete sniper rifles with matching scopes for around $1750 - $2,500 in my area.
-
Regarding Surpmil's observation about the missing locating pin in the index plate. This leads me to believe that these turret heads are not the correct ones for this telescope and have been changed. They LOOK like they've come from an HBM scope.
WW telescope drums have very shallow engraving, engraved with what we used to call a 'scratchy pen' through a layer of 'corrosion' then covered with a wipe of soft solder. After this. ithe corrosion is removed with an acid based mix taking the solder with it which just leaves the bright brass and a VERY shallow lead filled set of figures. It's then chemically blacked, THEN heated to the melting point of solder and the now silver numbers show through the black. As a result, if you try to highlight these drums later, you'll see JUST how shallow the engraved marks are. That's probably answered a few who wondered how it was done
The HBM drum turrets are altogether different. Deep, perfect engraving. Just as you'll see here. As a result of this, the locating pins don't match up so have been left out. Nothing wrong with this as it's a fact of life in service.
The pins are particularly important on the deflection drums because if the lead screw is not EXACTLY aligned with the cursor slide as the front ray shade is screwed up, then it'll tighten up and stay 'screwed up' as they say. Tha's why the screw holes are quite large in comparison to the screw heads as this gives the index plate afair bit of wiggle room
Next question.................?
-
Interesting. IMHO all is correct but disparate, as others have said. I would go with surpmil in his view that the bracket & scope have not always been together. The serial of the rifle stamped into the bracket is a BSA 1944. Some late Mk1 scopes were definitely fitted to 1944 BSA's --- I've owned two, but they were high serial numbered Watson's that were dated 1944, rather than earlier manufacture scopes. I'd be keen to see a matching T that is of later war mfr with a truly matching 41 or 42 dated scope.......they may be about, but all those I've seen to date were lash ups. I'd be interested to see pix of rifles with scopes pre-dating the rifle that are 'correct' (at least rifles & scopes of UK mfr). All those 4T's that really were genuinely matching that I've seen to date, where they have dated scopes, have have had scopes dated the same year as the rifle or later, such as a 44 scope on a 43 rifle, or a 45 scope on a 44 or 45 rifle. It makes sense as the rifles were always in far greater supply than the optics............But I'm open to persuasion!
ATB
-
Any views on my observations re the WW engraving DRP and Surpmil?
-
I would agree re the WW engraving being very shallow tho' I must confess I wasn't exactly aware of how they did it, so your comments are quite illuminating. I note WW tube markings are also generally quite faint...
ATB
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Roger Payne
Interesting. IMHO all is correct but disparate, as others have said. I would go with surpmil in his view that the bracket & scope have not always been together. The serial of the rifle stamped into the bracket is a BSA 1944. Some late Mk1 scopes were definitely fitted to 1944 BSA's --- I've owned two, but they were high serial numbered Watson's that were dated 1944, rather than earlier manufacture scopes. I'd be keen to see a matching T that is of later war mfr with a truly matching 41 or 42 dated scope.......they may be about, but all those I've seen to date were lash ups. I'd be interested to see pix of rifles with scopes pre-dating the rifle that are 'correct' (at least rifles & scopes of UK mfr). All those 4T's that really were genuinely matching that I've seen to date, where they have dated scopes, have have had scopes dated the same year as the rifle or later, such as a 44 scope on a 43 rifle, or a 45 scope on a 44 or 45 rifle. It makes sense as the rifles were always in far greater supply than the optics............But I'm open to persuasion!
ATB
Let me rummage about a bit do some photos of the one I have. I saw another complete cased set about the time my odd duck was purchased. IIRC its scope is a 1941 w/ the last "1" overstamped w/ a "2".
At any rate, the turret markings should be of the type Peter Laidler described, but I've never really thought about it before. I'll do photos of that for this discussion, whilst the diversion I created might get it's own thread. I wish I'd thought to document this oddity when other examples came my way, but it didn't register as anything worthy of tracking at first.
It looks like there's enough doubt as to whether this scope and bracket belong together to exclude it as any sort of evidence. That's fine! It's entirely possible I'm all wet on the theory, but it'll be fun finding out I'm wrong!
-
I've seen quite a few dated ones where the date has been amended by over engraving. Same as updates from Mk1 to 2 spec. There's no doubt that this set-up is made up from the sum of its parts but I firmly believe that the telescope is a 'bitza' too. I've seen inside one or two and I wouldn't mind betting that the telescope is the sum of the parts too. Only my opinion though, sharpened by the previous comments.
I have to say that from the Army perspective, there's nothing wrong with that at all. We mix and match every day. You've only got to look at Bren guns to see various porevious incarnations/lives by the serial numbers on the barrels and barrel locking nuts!
-
The drums look right for an early Watson scope to me, but whether they are original I couldn't say. Just my opinion and my entire sample of say 30 or so that I had probably represents what you saw in a few months Peter! Of those I had, the "leaded" scale markings were on the "KL" made scopes, which had a rather deep full knurling on the drums, coarser than the other makes. I had the impression the fitting and finishing was better on the early production scopes, but seems to have got a bit more sloppy as time went on in MkIs, ie: the grinding of the drum "turret" and the alignment of the "cover plates" with the "turret".
Socks were pulled up a bit by the time the Mk3 was being produced, or perhaps that's why mostly different contractors were used for the Mk3?! I can't see any other reason really since one would think it would make more sense to give the contacts to firms that were already experienced with the basic design and production issues(?)
The misalignment of the square range drum "cover" and the missing pin, might well mean that those parts were pulled out of another scope and inserted in this one as a quick fix for a damaged or missing drum or graticule etc. Of the 25 or so MkI scopes that I bought that had come from HW English & Co., probably half had missing range drums and grats: they simply swapped the whole assemblies around if one scope had a problem and the other had say a broken cross wire. Quick and easy, but of course ignored the fact that the graticule blocks were hand-fitted to the dovetails they slide in. But they had literally thousands of them and sold them for 5 Pounds each in the case with bracket! Not worth much fiddling in those days and if what I was told was true, probably most of the MkI scopes floating around loose were sold through HW English & Co. originally.
When polishing the tubes the shallow engraving of the Watson markings was a bit of nuisance compared to HBM production, but that was for bluing, rather than phosphating and painting.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Peter Laidler
I've seen quite a few dated ones where the date has been amended by over engraving. Same as updates from Mk1 to 2 spec. There's no doubt that this set-up is made up from the sum of its parts but I firmly believe that the telescope is a 'bitza' too. I've seen inside one or two and I wouldn't mind betting that the telescope is the sum of the parts too. Only my opinion though, sharpened by the previous comments.
I have to say that from the Army perspective, there's nothing wrong with that at all. We mix and match every day. You've only got to look at Bren guns to see various porevious incarnations/lives by the serial numbers on the barrels and barrel locking nuts!
DPL,
On the subject of scopes I couldn't agree more; personally, so long as a scope is functional & to spec it would not trouble me over much if the index plates on it were replacements or not. The scopes I got out of India were even worse than those that came from HW English, but the important thing to me was to end up with useable No32's.
Fortunately my late machinist made me a few sets of complete Mk3 drum assemblies as one of his last jobs. I have guarded them closely & may just about have enough to complete my remaining Mk2's & 3's that are in the garage, though I may have to pinch a couple of sets of Mk2 index plates to resurrect a couple of the Mk1's..........Mix & match, just like HM Armed Forces!
ATB
-
The Mk3 was a far easier and cheaper telescope to produce than the Mk1 or 2 and especially the Mk2/1. Because the drum lead screws are not connected directly to the diaphragm (the graticle carrier in short) but only contact it by slidlig spring friction, they don't need to be accurately situated onto the turrets. That's why they have countersunk mounting holes/screws as opposed to slightly oversize round holes and cheeseheaded screws - because you don't need the 'wiggle-room' of the Mk1 and 2 These telescopes would be an absolute doddle to replicate
