Printable View
Good morning. I have a nice repro ofa No.32 Mk II scope, lens are clear and all goes well . No.32 scope were the only used in No.4 rifle ? Did they usea weaver k 2,5 a lyman alaskan a weaver k4 or something else? I'm searching a less expensive scope but still historically correct.
You are stuck with the No.32 scope of some sort unless you get really obscure and go Canadian! Different mounting system used for the Lyman scopes, though. Never mind the C No.67 scope.
Bow: As Jmoore says, the Canadians used a variety of mounts and actually did mount Lyman Alaskans (7/8inch tube) in the more common British mount/bracket with "bushings" (see picture on pg. 40 of "Without Warning" by Clive Law. Not being a machinist I have no idea how difficult it would be to make a facsimile of those bushings. I use a one inch Weaver on my "replica" 4T but also have a replica #32 to make it look more accurate.
Ridolpho
One rifle was "bushed" with the 7/8" Lyman Alaskan, and one was "bushed" with a 3/4" Weaver. Both rifles were returned to LB after trials for installation of the conventional No32 scopes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ridolpho
I always had the gravest doubts about these telescope 'bushing' trials, especially within a standard mount. It was doomed to fail and that would have been as plain for all to see as the nose on your face. I said it when I first read it and read it again open mouthed!
The taper-lock cradle screws can only be locked until the taper binds and this was just sufficient to ensure that you could not ever exert sufficient torque to crush the telescope tube - even slightly. The tube was retained fore and aft by the segment cover rings and the turret and against rotation by the stop screw. On the other hand, the others had none of these and unless you could clamp the telescope down with sufficient loading to prevent this, it WOULD fail. It is really simple school boy mechanics.
So even given bushed split-rings to clamp it into the No32 bracket, the very limited torque you can impart onto the taper-lock screws, the telescope WOULD move. You see it all the time. Call me an old cynic, but even the poorest engineer at LB would have known this and I'd say that unless anyone comes up with paperwork to substantiate this doomed to fail at the outset 'trial', then I suspect that these bushed rinmgs are a post war idea from someone that's been accepted as fact.
Just my bleedin' obvious been doin' it a long time take on things - that I am apt to do when the need arises
Well the war-time trial reports and instructions to return the rifles after completion to the officer who dispatched them to the trials are excerpted in the neat little book called "without warning". There are contemporary? photos of the bushings which were used on the Lyman Alaskan scope, which was reported to have light gathering abilities superior to the comtemporary No32 scope.Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Laidler
Without referring to the book, I believe that you are correct in pointing out that the bushed mounts were rejected as a solution, along with the Weaver scope.
To the OP: a few years ago someone in Italy was making some very nice replicas of the SAL "Griffen & Howe" type mount. They were sold on eBay at the time. Unfortunately I didn't save any of the details. Maybe someone else will remember?
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...DSC01893-1.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by Surpmil
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...DSC01906-1.jpg
Not mine, old photos of "new production mounts" as mentioned above.
Yes! a good man on ebay steel produce and sell this Griffin&howe, with correct taps and scews. It's not too expensive. But what is his value? was it ever used on true sniper rifles?Quote:
Originally Posted by Surpmil
That is actually not the variety of mount and base I saw on eBay. I believe it was the later type used with the C67 scope.
Interesting to see the 1L1597 number on a 1941 marked action. I assume it is a MkI*?
I've got a 1L520- action downstairs and it is a 1942 MkI*.
Bow, the mount that jmoore shows was used on Canadian sniper rifles.
Thanks Surpmil. So Griffin & Howe mount and Lyman Alaskan telescope..i have to find 3/4" rings and i'll rebuild my second canadian sniper rifle..
The base sold on Ebay from Italy is NOT a good reproduction of the base for the Canadian 32TP outfit.
It does however come with the drill and tap.
Now that they have cleaned up my computer and I am able to post without watching the letters form and it take me 15 minutes to get into certain web sites I can now HOPEFULLY post some pictures of the bases etc. I could read some sites but not post.
Anyone who has sent me an email I will respond as almost all messages have been recovered and some are most interesting.
Anyhow, pictures of the bases to follow later today. Nice to be back!!!
...........and there was me thinking you'd taken a well deserved holiday.
Have a good festive season :beerchug:
Pic's of the Ebay base and an original in the white.
The Ebay base is the bottom blued one while the base in the white is an unfinished REL base.
The Ebay seller eludes it could be used for a 32 TP mount however it is 25 thou. too small on the dovetail and also too small for the REL 67 mount as well. Both my 32 TP's slop around on the repro base and the 67 base also slops around on it. Basically it does not fit either Canadian mount.
Also notice on the reverse that it is not relieved as per the 67 base and also the 32 base is also relieved the same way. The repro base is dead flat on the reverse.
Attachment 39026Attachment 39027Attachment 39025
Thank you Warren. Are original base and rings available? Telescope we se on picture are Lyman alaskan?? They seem to be.
Could it be the seller in Italy made these to fit commercial G&H mounts?Quote:
Originally Posted by Warren
Quote:
Originally Posted by Surpmil
Yes. He says his mount is a reproduction of G&H mount.
Commercial or Canadian is the question. The interface between the bracket and mount is on a 45 degree incline on the military unit, unlike the commercial.Quote:
Originally Posted by bow
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...62f13a5a-1.jpg
Thanks JM. I think the C67 is horizontal though the TP mounts are indeed at an angle. your photo shows it nicely. Whilst we are on the subject of G&H mounts, when I get round to it I'll start another thread (won't take this one too much off tack) & try & get some photo's of an Enfield 1917 SMLE receiver I have that has a G&H type mount very professionally fitted. It has the horizontal type rail & is probably just a commercial gunsmith's work; BUT, it did come out of Fulton's tat box 20 years ago along with an original set of SMLE/Wm Evans mount bases & an Aldis/H&H SMLE receiver, so I am reluctant to write it off absolutely. When wife-initiated Christmas chores permit I'll get some pix.
Merry Christmas everyone!
ATB
Yes, telescopes are both Lyman Alaskans and both are correct Canadian contract 32TP's with the numbered turret.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warren
and to one and all:
A VERY MERRY CHRISTMAS AND A HAPPY NEW YEAR TO YOU AND YOURS
Great post of the Lyman TP and CNo67 brackets. Any idea of value..original and reproduction? I see the TP pic posted by "JMoore" has a roll pin staking the bracket...is this correct? Thought it would be a solid pin. What sizes are the screws? British thread? Ron
They used solid taper pins and the screw threads are 4BA if I remember correctly. The ejector screw is also a longer variant as original.
That's good info Brian. Thanks. Any idea on value? Checked ebay however no completed listing? General validation guidline would be helpful for anybody building a clone. I would imagine "the real deal" would cost you your left nut! Any pictures of the upper bracket as the TP is slanted and Cno67 flat? Is the CNo67 7/8" or 1" rings? Ron
Not really sure of values now. I sold a complete, matching TP in 2001 for $6500. I'd guess one would bring $10,000 now with all the auction fever. The base and rings for the TP are 7/8" and were manufactured at REL if memory serves. The base and rings for the C67 is 1" and manufactured by Griffin & Howe. They don't interchange at all.
---------- Post added at 03:31 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:27 PM ----------
Get a copy of Clive Law's book "Without Warning". A pretty good read. I'm wrong about the TP base and rings in my post above. They were manufactured at SAL Long Branch not REL.
Probably should notate each time I show these photos is that it was a faked (rather poorly) TP. But sold as genuine. I took a series of photos before it was returned. Don't recall either the seller nor fortunate "buyer"! He surely saved a bunch by waving under our noses first.Quote:
Originally Posted by rgg_7
I've got Law's book...it would be even better with some higher quality photo's...hard to see the detai....I know..costs money however good reference material is invaluable. Lyman TP's are well over $12500....saw one go for $16000 earlier this year in an auction. My guess on a bracket...repro $300 original $750 plus the upper and scope. Seen some suitable (coorect period and recticle) Lyman Alaskans got for $400 on ebay. Saw a numbered TP scope and bracket for $3500 on a site...was there for about 30 secs. Any other opinions? Ron
Sorry these are a little hurried & may not be so sharp - but people may find them helpful. The SMLE with the G&H type rail is the one I alluded to previously. Sorry I never got round to starting a new thread. It's probably commercial (Warren, Peter, do you have any info on possible military experiments, maybe??), but doesn't the CNo67 sit on it beautifully?!?
Merry Xmas & ATB.
To add a bit to Rogers photo essay and a bit more info on the repro base.
The repro base does fit the commercial G & H rings well, but is sloppy as "H" on the No.67 rings.
Bottom unit is an early G & H set of rings (possible trials use) and top unit is a set of original (as yet unassembled) 67 rings. Base is unknown and I have no documentation other than it came with the top end when I got it many years ago.
The early trials with the No.67 and the 32TPscopes used commercial mounts with scopes manufactured by REL at Leaside (Toronto) or Montreal and Lyman in the USA with the Alaskan. Mounts were made by S.A.L. (Small Arms Limited) according to records as well as commercial G & H mounts.
Records are very scarce on REL and S.A.L. therefore most of the info known is first hand from those involved at the time.
SO...bottom line on the repro base is it will fit the commercial G & H rings and was destined to be used on the No.4 to make up "a look alike sniper" however the back of the mount is not machined correctly.
I also forgot the Weaver 330 that was used during the trials but it was used on a Springfield rifle but does deserve honourable mention.
Roger:
The base on the No.67 I have shown above appears to the be same base on your SMLE...Hmmmm, :-)##
I've got to pull the "junque box" out of "the shed"(tm) more often.
Private email on the way...
That's interesting Warren, as the base shown in the white in the top photo is similar to that shown on my SMLE. I'm afraid I have no experience of the repro bases being offered on 'that auction site' but a couple of points are apparent from the photo's of the originals. Firstly, the C67 base I have appears to be fairly typical & came many years ago with the scope & rings. However, there are no holes present for the dowel pins - whether this is unusual, an early/late feature I don't know. Can you shed any light on this Warren? Secondly, I am sure I have read somewhere that the TP's started with rifle serial number 74L0001, when the serial 74L0000 on my rings is clearly visible - maybe it's pedantic, but it looks like the production run started at 74L exactly.
ATB
I think I can answer the lack of dowel pin holes: The base has yet to be mated to a receiver. Once screwed on, the base was ready to be match drilled and reamed for the taper pins. Any base with reamed holes w.o finish would have already been installed. If there's full size holes that have finish or are not tapered are suspect at best. (Can't recall if any bases were done with pilot holes or not.) Makes for non-interchangable assemblies, but the practice still continues with the front sight bases on M16/M4a1s. Those are match reamed upon assembly at all sorts of weird spacings and angles.
From what I can see these bases resemble typical commercial G&H bases with the ovolo sort of bevel below the dovetail. The one on the SMLE appears a bit longer. It is a very professional fitting job Roger. Does the rest of the rifle correspond to it in quality and fitting?
https://www.milsurps.com/attachment....7&d=1356454526
https://www.milsurps.com/attachment....2&d=1356396229
https://www.milsurps.com/attachment....3&d=1356396231
I wonder if either of these bases match the stock length of the commercial G&H bases?
I assume that their bases were sold as undrilled blanks by G&H, but the fact that so many of them have three equidistant screw holes and two locating pin holes in more or less the same location would suggest that they may have come that way from the factory, or else that G&H supplied three screws and two pins and a drawing suggesting such an installation.
Obviously that base on the SMLE was either custom made or came undrilled from the location of the screw holes.
Funny little fact about these G&H mounts is that they are often set much higher than they need to be on sporting rifles and it doesn't seem to have occurred to most gunsmiths that they could mill off the bottom edge to set the base as low as possible. G&H would of course have made them with extra depth to suit all possible applications.
A set of original instructions from the 30s would answer some questions.
Thanks for the input chaps. My C67 scope, rings & base have been with me for nearly 20 years now & I believe the previous owner had them for a long time. The scope mounts are numbered to a rifle in the accepted range for C67 rifles. I suppose the mount base could have been obtained separately from the rings & scope, but it must have been a long time ago, if so.
The SMLE receiver bearing the rail came as just the bare body of the rifle - no bolt, barrel, furniture etc. I built the rifle up as recently as last week after having the body for all these years & having done nothing with it! So, for better or worse, it's my handiwork. One of two restoration/rebuilding projects I've tackled this last 2-3w now that I've time on my hands. At least they can now go in the rifle rack as complete entities rather than sitting there as a pile of bits!
I suspect the SMLE is the product of a skilled civilian riflesmith & dating from either immediately before or after WW2, but that it will prove almost impossible to prove anything conclusively one way or the other. But it would be nice to be shown otherwise!
Now C No.67s litter the planet... :rolleyes: Couldn't find one for any sort of money when I had the chance to get a rifle to go under one. It sat in a friend's cage for well over a year- possibly three, but no scope! Rifle finally went to Oz.
Tally-ho! :DQuote:
Originally Posted by jmoore
The seller of the replicas in Italy is user ID "piero40xc". He has some very nice looking gauges as well. Someone should encourage him to make some running .303 gauges that screw onto a Parker Hale rod.;) (He's made similar for the Carcano already)
h t t p://cgi.ebay.it/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=290448575196&fromMakeTrack=true&ssPageName=VIP:watchlink:top:it
Roger, that's an interesting rifle I must say. Could be Lt. John George had a British equivalent with G&H mounts and a Lyman only on a SMLE instead of a Model 70 a la George. In fact I'm sure there must have been several such as I've read of at least one; though the rifle was not described other than as a private purchase.
Regarding the G&H commercial bases I was going through some photos and it looks pretty clear that they were supplied undrilled, and probably with three screws and two pins. Too much variety in placement of screws and pins for them to have been drilled by G&H. It would have made no sense to supply them drilled anyway as the gunsmith would need to locate them to suit the rifle action.
JM, if only I'd known! I've been searching for a genuine rifle to drop under the CNo67 scope since the moment the scope & mounts turned up. I've been close on 2 or 3 occasions (I was the under bidder on one in NZ about a year or so ago), but they've always slipped through my fingers.
Surpmil, is this the same chap who wrote 'Shots Fired in Anger'??
ATB.
JM, I was in Atlanta the day Biff bought it. I knew where there were 2 scopes, one in England, (DRP's), and one in New Zealand, (owner deceased now), which is probably the one that wound up in Australia. They'll never litter the planet.
Roger, yes that's the man, unless I got his name wrong - just checked the shelf and the name is right but he ended up a Lt. Col.Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Payne
By the way, is the back of that base the usual flat, or is it contoured to the SMLE body?
What I can see of the back is flat, though where it disappears into the contour of the receiver side wall your guess is as good as mine as to whether the base was contoured to the receiver or vice versa. There do not appear to be any taper pins holding the mount to the body, only the three faced off screws (or I suppose they could be rivets). The job has been very professionally done.
Sorry, wasn't quite sure what you meant when you referred to having heard of rifles set up with G&H mounts. Do you mean Enfields set up with side mounted rails? Interesting, if so.
ATB.
Then he was holding out for quite some time. Odd. But way late now. He has been a most excellent source for plenty of other good gear.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Dick
I think I sold him a new condition LB magazine for it. It was a beautiful rifle. He offered it up to me too when he decided to sell but if I'd shelled out the cash, I would have had to keep it so I let it go!