Replica/fake No32 telescopes

I have just had the misfortune to have been asked to repair one of the fake No32's. It's one of the ones marked as a Mk3 but has the appearance and range scales of a Mk2 but works like a Mk1........ Oh, you work it out! This one was continually going out of focus. If I had to put into words how I'd describe this heap of pure unadulterated crap I'd have to say........., well, I'd be speechless. If I had to pay £25 for one of these heaps of junk, then it'd be £24 too much

But here's some good advice for you. DO NOT EVER, EVER BUY ONE. They are a bundle of crap or to coin a well used Army phrase or saying, a sack of pure shxxe

Only my opinion of course based on my limited experience with the real McCoy. Anyone out there in forumland got anything good to say about them?

Only what I have suspected all along when looking at them at trade shows etc. Also, when checking prices the other day, I noticed a US Company who also makes them don't even sale/ship to direct customers in the UK. Hence, I am awaiting a Mk3 working original to mount onto my rifle fitted with a RP mount (don't suppose anybody has one lying around).:rolleyes:

Peter, tell us how you really feel :lol::rofl:

With originals being at a premium I suppose there had to be a market for replicas. However, although they (the copies) are considerably less expensive than an original I don't think they are particularly cheap. It's only my two cents' worth, but if an original is going to cost me twice as much as a copy I'd rather save up for twice as long................ a copy will always be a copy.

ATB

Actually Pete, I had my ridgedidge one at the range yesterday to compare Milspec ammo against my reloads, it went out of focus also,each successive shot it got worse, also the windage locked up.
It's sitting in the shed waiting for me to strip,(the scope-not the rifle), the old girl was right on the money with it's iron sights though.:crying:

I don't get the whole copy scope thing.

Original No. 32's are available, they are out there, you just have to spend a bit of time looking. Over the last three years I have grown my collection to 5 scopes.

The price of a good Original No.32 is in line with most other contemporary Military Scopes. Mine have all cost between $300 and $2000.

The cost of having a No.32 overhauled through Fultons, is very fair given the time and skill involved.

If a decent quality mass-produced scope, such as a Leupold, costs $500 to $1000, how can you expect to get the same level of quality in a low volume copy scope, made goodness know where, being sold for the same price?

A decent scope is expensive to build. Precision machining and quality optics don't come cheaply. You only get what you pay for.

To me it's a bit like buying a fake Rolex and expecting the same quality and performance.

Focussing these copies......... Yes....... Focussing the grat is done by removing the locking segment cover with the usual 4x screws only to find no locking segment but a load of gunge covering another 6 screw holes covering the most teeny weeny flat grub screws that are supposed to hold the erector during recoil....... I ask you. So you unscrew all these grub screws and find that the outer 4 (2 on each side) do absolutely nothing so you use the centre ones to move the erector and lock it up with a steel pointed grub screw.

As for the OG lens that you use for image focus and parallax, jeeeees, it's just a push out and in effort retained with 1x flat grubscrew through a flimsy............ Oh don't get me going! The sheer notion that a single flat grub screw threaded through the 1mm or so thickness of the cursor sleeve could support an OG lens assembly during recoil is pure fantasy. As for the front shade........

Look........ DO NOT EVER, EVER EVEN LOOK AT ONE. Heaps of pure shixe.

Get an original in whatever condition, providing that it's reasonably complete and have it restored

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paulseamus

I don't get the whole copy scope thing.

Original No. 32's are available, they are out there, you just have to spend a bit of time looking. Over the last three years I have grown my collection to 5 scopes.

---

I'm afraid that is part of the problem. All the while that there are people collecting just the scopes, it lowers the number available for attaching to rifles and pushes the prices up.

It's a problem analogous to bayonets. The limited supply has to satisfy two markets, the bayonet collectors and the rifle collectors; hence the prices for N.5s and No.7s.

BTW I know that I have said this before but in my opinion, the spurious makings on those No.32s makes them fakes, not reproductions.

'Nail on the Head' there BeerHunter. :bash:

Quote:

---

Original No. 32's are available, they are out there, you just have to spend a bit of time looking.

---

People don't want to spend years looking, they want gratification right now.

Had one of these fake scopes on a No4 (T) clone I bought really cheap some time ago. Thought it will be a nice rifle to shoot and not take the real T out of the safe.
in the first range test it was not too bad but after 75 rounds in total the graticule began to jump under recoil. Sold it. NEVER EVER again.
Went back to the good old trusted No4(T) with the No32 Mk3.
Nothing compares to the original.

TO think that every couple of weeks or so we'd send boxes of bayonets to the welders shop to be cut up as scrap. No32 scopes, scrapped by crushing on an anvil. I used to strip some just for their spare parts value THEN scrap the tubes!

I remember seeing a display/demonstration once by the 38 RASC (or was it RAOC then.....?) Fire Brigade how to deal with petrol fires, using a heap of lovely old BSA M20 motorbikes. And then, rescuing personnel from a burning Auster AOP Mk9 aircraft that had been taxied around to the burn-ground,, wheels pulled off so that it fell to the ground, doused in petrol and set alight.......... Jeeeees.......

Anyone out there know just how many different types of "replicas" have been made? I have a (apparently) made in Taiwan replica Mark 1 with simulated REL markings on it. After approx. 100 rounds it is still fine. It seems to be the product of a fair bit of reverse engineering as it zeroes like the original and the range calibration matches the original. Would seem strange anyone would go to that effort and not make it functional. However, the one attribute of the original it does capture accurately is weight! Being suspicious that this mass puts extra stress on the pads during recoil I prefer to use a light-weight Weaver K3 which is also much easier to zero. The Weaver is a fifities vintage and cost me about $150 on E-bay and I would strongly recommend it for replica 4T's although it certainly doesn't fully capture "the look". Long time collectors will have to excuse us newcomers for wanting 4T or replica 4T's so badly. When I started collecting/ shooting Lee-Enfields a few years ago this model wasn't even on my radar but after seeing a picture of one every time I log on to the forum and reading post after post about them it (subconciously?) became a must have. The real ones do have it all- history and functionality. I now have a real 43 BSA No.4T with real Mk3 scope but at the frequency these seem to appear at at shows, etc, it will likely be the only one I ever have. For those not willing to spend thousands on the real thing it would be nice if some of the replicas are mechanically sound. Anyone else out there have decent results with a replica?

The principal difference is that replicas seem to be shixe and the real ones ain't!

As for Mk7's comment about not wanting to wait. The answer then is to buy a heap of crap and be done with the waiting!

The pieces of crap are now down to 399 dollars......probably still 398 too much.

Ridolpho raises a VERY good point....... By definition, there must be some good replicas out there so if you've got one, then just give the marking details. As I said, I have only ever had one to fix and it put me off but if there's others, then let's all know

Here's link to some comments from someone else who has been inside the reproduction scopes. See Posts #7 and #12:

Repro No32 scopes and parts at Sarco :

Excerpt of Post #7:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Warren

... The lenses are not reproductions of the No32 scope lenses, but are excellent quality lenses. I ran them on my optical bench and focimeter and they are very consistent (to each other). The lenses are very close to the Israeli 32 scope which I hope to be doing a short treatise on shortly. I just got a note from a chum in Tel Aviv and the story is getting more and more interesting...

---

Excerpt of Post #12:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Warren

There appears to be minor differences in the scopes from Sarco and Numrich. I've "tarted up" a few of them from each and with a bit of work they seem to work well. I "tarted one up" for a member here and he has compared it to two original 32 scopes and it seems to work as well if not better than the originals. Mind you, the 2 MOA in windage and 50 yard in range is something you have to live with unless someone gets new index plates made but at the price of machining I cannot see that happening soon. I have some plates out for quote as MILSURP and I have discussed the project but we both feel there is not enough interest to make it a break even venture.
...As to major differences between suppliers of the scopes, it might be just a difference in parts used for assembly, but I did notice a minor difference in some components so to say there is more than one or two manufacturers is a crap shoot. I do suspect there is two or three makers but cannot be certain.

---

From another thread:

Repro no 32 mk ii sight problem

Excerpt of Post #7:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Warren

... The repro scopes have several components that are Loctited (tm) together so without the correct wrenches you can begin to see the problem already just to disassemble the scope. Worse than the dried and hardened mastic on the Mk. III ocular cell.
to be continued.......

---

And one more concerning a sticky spot in the rotation of the elevation adjusting drum:

Reproduction No.32 MkII Scope Question:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Warren

It is a quirk of some of the scopes. You can remove it but be prepared for a lot of work. Unless it is a real issue with you why really worry about it. Try SLIGHTLY loosening the four screws holding the turret cap and then rotate the range drum and see if that helps. Tighten the screws slightly, rotating the drum and then snug them down. The scopes do not have index pins and you have to play with them to get the feel of a British 32. If loosening the screws and rotating the turret does not help, I'm afraid you are in for a bit of work.

---

That's it for now...

As i have said in other threads i have posted.... I had a friend in the US send me 2 of the Repro,s from Numrich , one to install on the Genuine No4T barreled action i put together , one for a friend.

At this moment i have put about 500rds through it, "so far" i have had no issues with it.

I have purchased a Genuine Mint No32 Mk2 from Peter and a mount from Roger to fit to this rifle, but again , so far the repro has performed without any issues.

The optics on the repro are actually better than the Mk2 i have just got and my existing Mk3..

The repro scope had "Made in Taiwan" on the packaging..


https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...cdb29156-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...cdfe60af-1.jpg

That certainly didn't look anything like the abortion that I 'fixed' Maybe there's another good/reasonable copy.

Attachment 40595Speaking of reasonable.....not a copy, but I mentioned this one dropping it's bundle on the range.
Stripped it this morning, lens are still good, so I'm not sure what caused the blurryness, but one of the backlash springs has broken and jammed the windage, maybe it was the spring wire sticking in the middle of the lens that gave it the blurry look. Great days.Attachment 40596Attachment 40594

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter Laidler

That certainly didn't look anything like the abortion that I 'fixed' Maybe there's another good/reasonable copy.

---

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!

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!

Hey RP. I know pretty well nothing about this scope other than who it came from, and that his work came highly recommended from everyone I talked to up here. This one is a MkI copy. The only markings on it are the adjustments and that is it. Here's a couple quick shots...

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...48d68641-1.jpg

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...4be4ff91-1.jpg

Oh Cheers FP. Sorry I didn't twig you were referring to one of the copies. Mind you I've never seen an unmarked copy before either. Are there others around?

ATB

I believe there are but I'm not sure. Warren will know for sure. I bet he'd know the origins of these ones too.

I have seen the unmarked reproductions as sold by SARCO - they have the sliding sun shade,
I have (and have used) the "other" manufacturer's scope - which has no sun shade and is marked as a MKII. This model was shown in earlier photos that are a part of this thread. I, too, noted the markings on the box received from Numrich were specifying Taiwan lineage. I have shot this setup using surplus ammo stripped from MG links. No problems to-date.

For sure, these third world copies are not remotely as well fitted as the HBM&CO and Kodak Ltd No.32 MKI scopes I posess. I also use a fake mount (also from Numrich) to afix a Weaver K3 scope that also has the post and crosshair reticle. The Weaver has nearly the same magnification factor as the No.32 scopes but is much lighter in weight. I have a couple of "spare" Weaver K3's I may put on the market in the near future.

I'd like to thank everyone who has contributed to flesh-out this treatise. I can confirm there is a marked difference between the SARCO and Numrich scopes. The Numrich offerring was made in Taiwan (and very clear optics) - mI do not knowwho makes the scope SARCO scope.

This thread brings a question to my mind which I hope is not too stupid. If I can buy a Nikon Prostaff 3x9 with click adjustable windage and elevation for an AR-15 for less than $250 why cannot someone produce a reasonable facimilie of these scopes with the same quality as the modern Nikon for a similar price? Is it lack of market intrest (volume = low price)? My Nikons are very nice glass for the price.

It's a very small niche market compared to Nikon's market.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gsimmons

It's a very small niche market compared to Nikon's market.

---

Thought that must be it. You confirmed my instincts.