No32 Mk2 Porn.

Having just received my mount from Roger ( Thanks Roger :)) , i installed my Mint No32 that i have just purchased ..( thanks Peter :)) .

Just a few pics ...:D

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...14a030d6-1.jpg

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...924850f1-1.jpg

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...553bf98b-1.jpg

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...025f36f9-1.jpg

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...1064c698-1.jpg

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...c72495da-1.jpg

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...08142223-1.jpg

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...92ee4ac8-1.jpg

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...5512a7ec-1.jpg

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...f4f97360-1.jpg

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...fc311a7f-1.jpg

They just look soooo much better with the scoped mounted. I have also found that, due to the enormous weight of the No.32, the perceived recoil is lees with it shipped.

For a cobbled together system, the old Ts do have the "right look" about them. More so than most of the other contemporary sniping systems.

Yes agree with above - it always seems such a solid combination, compared to some of the other mounts at the time. Hard to imagine it coming apart at an inopportune moment!

That is a very handsome rifle.....

Porn indeed. I would post one of the pictures as a desk top background,but then I would never get any work done.
Lovley!

My kinda porn!! Beautiful rifle with wonderful wood grain

PScott: Beautiful! Can you tell us all a bit more about the rifle? Was the parkerizing part of a recent restoration? Kind of makes me want to do something with my weather-beaten No. 4T ('43 BSA FTR'd in '45 with badly flaking paint).

Ridolpho

Thanks for the comments...:)

The rifle....it is a GENUINE BSA No4T barrelled action that i have had for a while. The Action/barrel/bolt are matching, but the rest of the "original" parts were long gone.

I sourced a NOS wood set, the various fitting,s and componets that were missing....one of Rogers mounts, and a No32 Mk2 from Peter to replace the Numrich replica No32 i was using.

I refinished the metal components by "Phosphating" .....and the stock using Tung oil.

Even though the rifle is now a "Bitsa" ...i dont really care , as it has turned out a beautiful rifle to look at and to use. It shoots slightly under MOA with handloads..

The old No4T is quite surprising in regards to the reaction you get from people.......
I shoot regularly with my Accuracy International AWSM, and Sako TRG,s....whenever people come out for a shot and i bring the No4T it is always the rifle getting the admiring looks and comments......its definatley still a very strong favourite of alot of people..:)

You can't put a price on character!

Outstanding job !

Went out this morning with a couple of friends to try the Mk2 on the rifle.

We had alot of mirage , but still very nice results, averaged 3/4 MOA at 175yds...:)

Very impressive for an old "Relic" ( what my friends call it :D) and 3x optics.

Also very happy with the Mk2, it is a FAR better scope than the "Replica" i was using. The consistency of the turrets is vastly superior and more precise.It is also far easier to adjust the point of impact due to the more precise "mechanics" .

Couple of pics..

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...86ea77b2-1.jpg

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...318cfa5e-1.jpg

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...350f70fd-1.jpg

Thanks for the kind words about that telescope Scotty! Always nice to know that your work is appreciated. I have to agree that there's absolutely no comparison between the fakes and the real McCoy. As Roger Payne commented earlier '...........if the origial is twice the price, I'd rather save-up twice as long to get one'. That's because after a year of the fake, you'll STILL have to save for the real McCoy eventually

I learned yesterday after looking at yet another fake - which I declined to work on - that the lenses are just optical plastic. You can call it what ever plastic you like but it's still a plastic and like this one, just a tiny bit of grit on your 'clean' lens cloth and there's a deep gouge in the lens........... You have been warned!

Yeah - the last couple of mk1s on ebay have been around the £750 mark - and in reality they'll always fetch that or more.
Although the repros are relatively cheap these days their value only goes in the downward direction, and there are quality issues raised by the experts like Peter. Originals are like putting money in the bank (barring mishaps of course) at better interest rates that Natwest et al will offer, and they have the history value too. We shoot service rifles for lots of reasons - they're relatively cheap, robust and fairly accurate - but above all they're a slice of the past.
I'll be taking a 4t out to the range tomorrow - doubt I'll be shooting as well as PScott though!

I had a similar reaction when I attended the vendor shoot at the U.S. Army Sniper School HQ range and Sniper Competition at Fort Benning, Georgia many years ago. I had my M24 SWS there along with an L42A1 and all the young snipers from different units in the USA and several different countries lined up to shoot the L42A1! They couldn't care less about the Remington which is an absolute hammer by the way. The young snipers from the British Army, (Coldstream Guards if memory serves), took over my shooting position eventually and couldn't get enough of it. Most had never seen, let alone held or fired an L42A1. There was a female Israeli sniper who was quite impressive too in more ways than one!! Everyone left with smiles on their faces and some of the factory vendors didn't like me too much because my old rifle was more popular than their new ones!! Great fun.

A handsome rifle indeed. With nice attention to the phosphate and tung oil finishes. Bravo!

It is a beautiful rifle. The more of these I see, the more I must have one !

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Roger Payne

You can't put a price on character!

---

Isn't that the truth.

It's often been said that machines that "look right" usually "work right" and this is another example. Form and function, but more than that IMHO: I think many of us instinctively and sometimes even unknowingly respond to shapes that just "look right".

Then we get into the interesting question of whether our instinct for form can actually correspond to the engineering imperatives of design. When it does you get instinctive engineers like Ettore Bugatti who had no formal training, but who simply had an instinct for both form and the mechanical aspects of design. It is an approach that has led to many failures I'm sure, but then purely "book" engineering seems to have led to plenty as well!

Ramble on, ramble off.;)

Surpmil is 100% correct. Sometimes you can just SEE that something just ain't right or will fail............ This is especially so when you know where or who is going to use it. I would occasionally see things being used in trials and comment to myself words to the effect that '........that ain't going to last 20 minutes once it's out there in the real world'. I recall the plasticised lenses in the first S&B (or were they pecar.......?) telescopes that came through. I commented to the Tony Bxxxxxd who decided to let them run. But not for long. Within a week they were scratched to buggery!