Printable View
I know that title would seem totally against the grain for me, :lol: but this rifle has a few endearing (to me at least) qualities that make it worth a bit of discussion. I've been sweating on the pics arriving (wouldn't you know it, :bitch: my camera done a hamstring on the starting line for the job! My mate had to take the pics, emailing a couple at a time), and the first is here so I will start off with them and add more with descriptions as I receive them :)
Attachment 50029Attachment 50030
Mmmmmmmmmmmmm!
Who is that tubby man?:lol:
The chosen rifle, it has arrived.
Scope/Mounts, barrel land butt all look ominous but can't wait for more pics:)
+1 on thatQuote:
Originally Posted by Gil Boyd
---------- Post added at 07:25 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:22 AM ----------
You could well be right.Quote:
Originally Posted by aussietomcatter
Detachable scope by the look of it, 7.62 also at first glance of the configuration.
Are you all looking at a different set of photos to me? It's a chopped off No4 with a set copy P'14 type pads and a 'sort-of' old Aldis fixed on. About as straight as a corkscrew as the poms would say. Unless I am missing sumfink of course!
Model 1918 scope (Pommy or Aussie?) on what looks something like twin rear No3 (T) bases. Is it 7.62mm with a 303 mag in it, or is that barrel chambered for 303?
ATB
Looks loke a bog standard .303 to me DRP. Mind you, 7.62, 303........ what's .003" between friends?
I'll tell you what though......... Not a lot of eye relief there!
It seems to have two ejector screws fitted; this is pretty common for 7.62 conversions here, hence my comment earlier.
That's a very interesting idea Max.......... Never thought about that until you mentioned it. Looking at the geometry of the second ejector, it looks as though it is in the same (?) relative/linear position as tip of the ejector in the 7.62mm magazine.
Any comments from you wild antipodeans of how successful this modification is?
If the scope and mounts are un-butchered, they are worth more than the rifle under them.
I like the use of the 2 P-14 rear mounts...I guess it makes sense being a (relatively) flat receiver surface.Quote:
Originally Posted by Son
I guess I'm spoiled having seen the pics when it was offered for auction 2? years ago.
"...let's build a scoped target rifle using a 70year old obsolete scope and these extra 70 year old mounts we have laying around..."
Have received and re sized some more pics. Have a look through these. I haven't given any appraisal from me because I do not wish to taint opinions.
Yes, the rifle is a 7.62mm. More pics are being taken as I type.
Attachment 50196Attachment 50195Attachment 50197Attachment 50198Attachment 50199Attachment 50200Attachment 50201Attachment 50202
Here you go, Kev... another pic of my fat belly!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Enfield
Sorry to say, but you may be about to regret not buying it....
It's true, but I've been sorry sometimes for buying stuff too...Quote:
Originally Posted by Son
The reworked Pre/WWI SMLE cocking piece (no it's not a Trials nor an early No4)
The mix of hand engraved "No4MkI" and "T" and stamped (everything else) markings is a red flag to me too
Why does the receiver purport to say "Experimental Lithgow" while the marking disk purports to be "Experimental Enfield"?
I'd really like to see the inside of the receiver and the manufacturers marking on the barrel.
Let's just take the markings at face value:
XP L8 L42E
S(mall) A(rms) F(actory) Lithgow
T65 Conv(erted) 1956
First and most obvious is that the L8 and L42 experimental or not did not exist in 1956 (or '55 as it is overstamped). The L8 didn't exist until the mid 1960s and the L42 until 1970.
Second is that the "T65" family of experimental cartridges were no longer experimental nor a current designation in 1955 (or '56 as above) having been adopted in the 7.62x51mm (soon to be NATO) by Canada, the USA and UK (and thereby AUS?) in 1953 - Canada having ordered 2000 7.62mm Ex1 and Ex2 FAL rifles in June 1953 with the provisio that the order be held until the final chamber was adopted - this happened in Nov/Dec 1953 and Ex1 & Ex2 deliveries started in January 1954. Both the USA (T48 & T48E1) and the UK (X8E1 & X8E2) ordered their trials rifles in Nov/Dec '53.
In fact in 1956 Canadian Arsenals Limited was already in series production of the 7.62x51mm "NATO" C1 FAL rifle, and Fazakerly, BSA and Enfield were right on their heels with L1 rifles....(Faz being shut down and it's L1 machinery supposedly sent to Lithgow by '57 or '58 according to some of our "leading lights").
That's what we are here for. It didn't come with any explanations of anything. Tapping the knowledge of those better versed in the No4 than me hopefully will give us a better chance of understanding what it is.
Look a little closer at the mounts... the front set is mirror imaged to the rear, so were made for it, not "lying around"
Is the marking disc carrying two sets of marks?
Pics of barrel markings are in the works....
Someone put a heck of a lot of work into it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Son
I would like to see the scope ring "feet" outside of the locks, and it looks like the front ring is a little "cruder" than the rear ring.
How does it cam down? originally you lock the front ring into the front base and cam it down towards the rear.
I have a WWI era German sniper scope where someone did something similar.
Honestly the multiple markings remind me of the Afgan No5Mk1 (which I should have bought) which was manufactured by Savage, BSA and Enfield according the markings. A bit of "gilding the lily" so to speak.
Hmmm... interestingly the X8E1 and the X8E2 were accepted into Australia for trials commencing "Late in 1955".. the calibre was stated to be ".30 cal T65. So it would stand to reason that here in 1955/56 7.62 x 51 would still be refered to as T65. That would at least explain that marking....
The front "leg" on the scope is opposite to the rear in every way. The camming groove is toward the front as the rear one is toward the rear, hence the cam levers locking toward the centre. The scope fits very well into the bases and locks positively. It has to be withdrawn and replaced straight up and down.
Interestingly you picked up on something else I was thinking "T65" really means nothing without ".30" in front of it...Quote:
Originally Posted by Son
Lee enfield,Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Enfield
You mention it was in an auction 2 years ago can you tell us what it was described as and what it sold for. If we can see what the auction described it and what it sold for it might just give us some more clues about it. It is starting to look to me like a very interesting rifle, Looking forward to seeing more pics from son he might be right it may well be something unique.
Military Surplus Collectors ForumsQuote:
Originally Posted by mudgee
The links are now dead and I deleted the pics I had saved to save a hard-drive....I might have them on disk, but the one or two from the catalogue really sucked anyway
The second ejector screws on my 7.62 No 4's sit slightly forward and slightly higher than the position of the Enfield magazine ejector lip.Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Laidler
Ejection is quite positive when used with the 303 mag or the Sterling 7.62 magazine. I'd say as good as the Enfield magazine is, maybe even a little better.
The second screw can be an unmitigated nuisance if using an Enfield or Ishapore 7.62 mag; the two ejector faces (I modify the left hand rear lip on my Ishy mags) will sometimes seem to interfere. I back out the second screw when using these mags.
Naturally the strength of the extractor spring has a lot to do with this effective ejection.
Come off it chaps................. I know that I am a bin naive and soft in the head but how the xxxx can you have XP L8 L42 E on one line. And expecting anyone to believe that such a bodge would come from Enfield or Lithgow. What a load of butchered bollo............. What's the word that I'm looking for? As I always say. I could be wrong.......
I Have seen stamping just like that on other experimental Lithgows, I wouldn't discount that it came from there at all. What I wonder is what for?
I've a number of questions I can't answer.
Why use a No.4 when Lithgow had everything for the No1 and went down the route of the 7.62mm No.1 as you would expect.
I also note the rifle was originally a T sniper anyway so why go to the hassle of fitting another type of scope, and fill the holes from the correct scope pad screws? The hole from the front pad front screw is visible.
The markings are hand stamped and Lithgow were pretty good at using a pantograph and it would have been easier to pantograph the markings on that surface.
I did note the stock has a Lithgow marking so it's either a No.1 stock or a No. 4 reworked by Lithgow, they appear to remark other manufacturers wood with their own marks after a FTR.
Which brings me onto my next question. In the early to mid 50s Lithgow were FTR ing everything and they were finished in park and FTR marks, new markings were made in the park and so appear in the white. Does this rifle have any FTR markings? It isn't parked and the new markings are painted over by the looks of it.
Just a few thoughts.
Come on TBone.......... You're all having a bit of a laugh and no amount of dire stamping like that can overcome that the first bloke to fire it is going to get such a belt in the eye, that it's gonna hurt. Believe me, as one who's been whacked (but only once.....)
And who is going to use a 1900's telescope when there were 1940's telescope aplenty.
Let's stop making excuses and get our collective feet firmly back on the ground just a BP has done. My dopey son could make a better job than this using a Black and Decker (that is a cheap pommy made electric drill for all you colonials and wild antipodeans out there)!
Tbone can you post anything that you have seen like that, might help with this rifle. You can tell Peter L has written it of and as he says he could still be wrong (maybe) lithgow did nto adopt any sniper rifles from the HT snipers until the late 70's so they could have been trying to develop something in the mean while??????Quote:
Originally Posted by tbonesmith
I think some of you are being far too quick to dismiss this.
Think about the timeframe, the change to 7.62 that was underway, the fact that a separate mount was clearly crafted for this..
Aussietomcatter, really ......................... Words are failing me to the depths of suicidal dispair at the sheer niaveity of...............
The change to 7.62 was taking place in the 50's.......... That telescope bvelongs to the early 1900's, L8's belonged to the mid 60's, the L42 belongs to the late 60's/early 70's and letter/number stamping like that belongs to the stone age. What period of sheer childlike gulliable butchery does this fall into?
Far from being too quick to dismiss it, it wasn't dismissed as a piece of pure fantasy by the gulliable soon enough. Mind you, like I always say,a) you've never seen em all and b)I could be wrong.............
Now, for the very last time, please, someone out there please tell me what is going to happen to his eye when some gulliable clown shoots it.
It will get hurt to a certain degree....Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Laidler
You're dead right Max! I now ask those that are seriously (as opposed to those just having a laugh or a wind-up.......) saying that this is for real and not some pictorial fairy story this question. Do you think that Lithgow or Enfield wouldn't have considered this important feature while they were cobbling this up in the dark? Go on......... serious question that deserves an answer?
Are there still believers in fairy stories out there...........
So I suppose the mounting for the scope, a perfect mirror image, was also made by a fairy..
After having a few lemons come my way, one detailed on this forum SMLE mounted troop rifle ,
The first thing that struck me was (and a few have commented on it) why use early 1900 scope technology on a 1940,s rifle when the 1940's scope technology was available, not only that if it was an original 4T then it just doesn't make sense to remove the pads and reinstall some mount base's ?????
Engraving, well I,m no expert on engraving in fact I don't know much, but if I had a pantograph machine with the correct stencils, then a few hours practice on scrap metal I,m sure I could knock up a host of elaborate engraved rifles .....
Anything trials or experimental the Engineering is and would be to a professional standard, look at the first Sten guns they even had a bit of walnut on them......
This rifle to me is like having a Land Rover 90 and sticking a set of Model T Ford wheels on....
Hurrah, the message is getting through.............. They're home made ATCatter............ They might be good in themselves but for heavens sake, listen to a bit of the bleedin' obvious straight talkin' from someone who learned in his three years in Oz that if you want straight talkin', ask a bleedin' Australian. THEY might be good in themselves, as we know from the P'14's et al BUT IN THIS EXAMPLE THEY ARE CRAP. NO ONE IN THEIR RIGHT MIND, LET ALONE A BLOODY FACTORY WOULD MAKE UP A SNIPER RIFLE THAT YOU CAN'T SHOOT WITHOUT GETTING AN EYE-FULL....., LET ALONE SNIPE WITH
Reading this thread, I just wish that I could up-sticks and come to Oz - as a used-car salesman.................
Regarding brit plumbers comments about this being a former No. 4T, should not the front screw hole for the rear pad be visible on the close-up side body shot? That circular mark just behind the receiver ring also resembles stamps placed by Maltby after FTR (I know because I found one UNDER THE PAD on my first fake "T"). Is this a real "T"?
Ridolpho
Ridolpho is another who's got the picture........... You're right of course ridolpho, it's a total duffer.
Comparing it to a photo of an action Sans mounts, you could well be correct as the mark I thought was a screw hole filled in, is a little out of place and indeed a hole for the rear pad screw should be there.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ridolpho
I'm beginning to think that Son bought this 'Knowing' it was made up and wanted it for parts for another project. I'm guessing that a 7.62mm Barrel would be of use for a project and the scope will be worth quite a bit or suitable for a SMLE.
It seems to me that at no stage has Son actually said that he thought this was genuine; he did say that a bit of a discussion might be in order - we certainly seem to have got that.
To me, not all of the markings ring true either, but maybe some are correct, and others added later?
The rifle does have some most interesting features - the magazine for example. I'd sure like to see if/how well that works.
On the basis of "buying the rifle and not the story", for the right price the gun would be a useful bit of gear, particularly fitted with modern optics and a cheek rest.
That barrel looks for all the world to me to be a Lithgow heavy profile 7.62 No4 barrel, and those scopes were all over the place here years ago and the full bore community had stacks of them. The rifle has been a range/full bore rifle, because that hole in the wrist is for fitting a parker hale 5A rear sight or a central plate for No1Mk3. All I'm saying is that I don't immediately discount that it was put together at Lithgow. All those parts were here and available and No32's were not in any quantity.
On the point of machine/pantograph numbering, the serial numbers for scopes on the LithgowHTs were all hand engraved with a scratch awl.
...and I completely agree about the eye relief of the scope rendering it thoroughly impractical for use... Interesting anyway.
T-Bone we know that Lithgow had a surplus of Pat18 scopes, and at the time of this rifle they where still using the HT rifle with a Pat 18 scope so why change to another scope when we did not have the No32 scopes and they are heavier than the Pat 18 scope.Quote:
Originally Posted by tbonesmith
I think it is early to write this one off, as Son says he has more photos to come, we all agree you can never say never. I have a Russian PE sniper made by Izy dated 1936 and they are on record in saying that izy never produced snipers between 1928 - 1942 since I posted that rifle and had interest like this thread where people said no because it is not possible according to the records and others said maybe it turns out it is a very rare rifle. since then another 1936 Izy has been found in and two 1937 PEM snipers made by izy have been found. i guess we should remember that you can never say never.
The eye relief is as Peter says very close to giving someone a permanent ring around their eye, however if it was a trial then maybe that was not as important as seeing the rifle working. Not sure i am not an expert on these things only giving a possible scenario.
If it is a fake somebody had a lot of time and must have loved stamping things as seems like it has a lot of work when most fakes have only enough done to put it out as a fake, again only thinking out loud?????? if you also think about this way normally a rifle is faked to represent something that is already out there for example a NO4 T with repro mounts and a repro scope roughed up a little to looked aged but the idea is that they are trying to replicate something already in existence. This rifle looks like something really different so what are they faking against??? can anyone tell me if something like this has ever been seen before so we can determine whether this is a fake that maybe built on information was written in a book somewhere or someone had heard of something like this or seen a similiar rifle as i have not seen one like this. To many marks on it so far for someone just to build it as a range rifle why would they mark it like that, and that they would mark up a NO4 rifle??? with Lithgow marks and not say a No 1 MKIII with some special marks on it. It seems to me that there is more to this rifle, as T-Bone has said in an earlier post he has seen lithgow rifles in the past with similar markings maybe this needs to be investigated?
The first thing that struck me was (and a few have commented on it) why use early 1900 scope technology on a 1940,s rifle when the 1940's scope technology was available, not only that if it was an original 4T then it just doesn't make sense to remove the pads and reinstall some mount base's ?????
Without commenting on the authenticity of this rifle I note that this is exactly what they did when they were building Lithgow HTs in 1945...putting pattern 1918 scopes on them!
Gents.... ok, firstly I do not own the rifle, have no vested interest in the rifle other than being given to opportunity to serve it up here for a round table discussion. As I said, the owner is looking to find out one way or the other... his world does not revolve around this rifle being "real".
Now, stopping short of directly defending the rifle as being "real" there have been a few comments made that maybe should not have any bearing on the outcome. Will start with the obvious (to me...) eye relief..... (with the greatest respect here, Peter)
" The eye relief of an optical instrument (such as a telescope, a microscope, or binoculars) is the distance from the last surface of an eyepiece at which the user's eye can obtain the full viewing angle. If a viewer's eye is outside this distance, a reduced field of view will be obtained."
The eye relief does not change, but the scope position or length of pull is altered so an individual can achieve a comfortable shooting position at the correct eye relief.... If I fired the rifle in question, it would not hit me at all, my eye would be the correct distance from the scope, it may be uncomfortable to fire, but would not hit me. Why make the rifle like this? Maybe to fire it from an Enfield Rest and see if the scope could handle 1000 T65 rounds... Maybe the whole thing was set up to test the scope for some other purpose?
On the scope itself.... it isn't an Australian scope, it is a PP Co Patt18 scope! So no, there were not "plenty of these laying about for target shooters"
Post WW11 Lithgow experimented with lots of weird and wonderful creations... Anyone ever seen a Johnson rifle set up with modified Lithgow HT bases for a AOC Patt18 scope? I have personally handled two. Wonder why they were playing with a mid forties semi auto and a scope design from the 1900's? To see if it would work! They had plenty of the scopes... So why wouldn't Lithgow go one step further and look at the scope on a 7.62....
There are more markings coming to light with the next lot of pics (just received). Almost every part seems to have a broad arrow with the "E combined with the F and D to make one letter stamp" used by Enfield and the number 12.... Also, a lot of the rifle has the X18300 marking too... As on the marking disc, I think every other mark was there first, and the X18300 was added later... Do any othe EFD experimentals have a butt disc?
I am wondering if a lot of whats been done here wasn't done in England (converted to T65 ammo in 1955 and then used for L8 experiments and later L42E experiments) before being the guinea pig once again for an experiment concerning the scope... Might it have been sent to Australia as T65 converted rifle that had been used in previous experiments?
All wild conjecture, I know... but before you judge too harshly, Could it have been marked on the left side of the receiver when it got here with enough info to distinguish what it was (for Lithgow's purposes), an experimental rifle used in L8 and /or L42 developement, converted for the T65 cartridge in 1956.
More pics soon hopefully, just resizing some....
Just on the SAF markings... compare with these.... probably about 20 years apart
Attachment 50220
Seems like an awful lot of effort to go to for a home project, and that's the last I'll say on it, I'm not going to pretend I have the knowledge to make an informed argument.
I've seen stranger things in my years though than this.
And the last of them... the owner can't be accused of hiding anything, that's for sure. One of the most comprehensive sets of markings pics I've seen!
He has asked me to strip the rifle completely some time soon just in case there are markings yet uncovered.
Attachment 50243Attachment 50242Attachment 50244Attachment 50245
Interesting thread so thanks for that Son. Nothing of any use to add - seems to me though that the Aussie experts who know everything there is to know about Lithgow aren't necessarily put off by the markings...
What we need is a Lithgow worker who was around during that era.
To be really honest Prinz, we don't even need that. It's a mishmash of number and letter stamps from someone who is laughing his bollo........... er.........., laughing his socks off at this very moment. There is some comment about that X- serial number. But look at it....... the figure 8 has been put on the engraving plate upside down. Now engraving machine operators might not be the brightest lights in the box but.......
I take Sons words on board pondering on whether this could be a test bed for that - or a similar - telescope to see how recoil would affect it. But surely, one or two of the blokes at the D&D office at Lithgow would just say words to the effect '............ hang on chaps....., instead of all this palava, making a rifle that you can't ever use again, why don't we just do what every pommy Armourer/Instrument Techy has been doing every time he has repaired a telescope since 19xx that has been tested for 'hold and fastness'. And that's put it onto a slave rifle, and just set the recoil on the Enfield Rest to fxxxxxx hard and fire 2 rounds. If it holds (for internal fastness) then that's surely good enough. And pretty damn simple too! That Pete Laidlers son used to go in on Saturdays with his dad just to test fire L42's and rebuilt sights and night sights. That's just my take on things.
As a matter of interest, there was a proposal to incorporate the simple Patt18 sliding erector system in the No32 telescope in the interests if simplicity. What killed the idea wasn't that it would/could slip, but the fact that the snipers wanted waterproof telescopes and you'd never make that arrangement waterproof. They got the simplified and cheaper scope (the Mk3) that was relatively waterproofable to boot
Does that action say Regulated by Fultons? Surely no Experimental or trial rifle would have gone to Fultons for work.
If they wanted to trial the sight, why not put a 7.62mm barrel on an existing No.1 Sniper.
They did produce trial 7.62mm No.1 rifles in 1958 so they weren't fully aware of any issues with the idea until that point.
Even the markings in the latest selection of photos look off, the EFD logos look skewed and not precise like we normally see. The WD arrows have the tail off to one side.
I've got to come back to the fact that in 1955/56 there was no such thing as an L1/L2 let alone an L8 or an L42 experimental or not.
The development FN rifle was still running thru designations in series from the 1954 X8E1 to an X14E1 until 1957.
Its a range rifle with fantasy markings to excite or defraud the gullible and uninformed.
I've also seen that odd EFD and broad arrow marking before...
A complete fanasty rifle. Would have been better had they not gotten marking crazy. Was never a "T" in an "earlier life" so far as I can tell, but maybe more photos of the action body from the right side would help.
Here endeth the lesson............ hopefully!
Thank you Gentlemen. I think the jury can rest on it's verdict here.
Personally I have learned a lot (about No4's in general, my big L.E. weakness) I think the biggest killer is the timeline pointed out by Lee Enfield early on, with the recent pics showing what look like less than professional markings being the icing on the cake. It's redeeming feature being the way the mount system has been made, perhaps they are the reason for the rifle, and not the other way around.
If anything comes from stripping the rest of it down, when I get the opportunity, I'll bring back pics. If the owner has any questions I cannot answer, I'll bring them back too.
Thank you all again,
Brad.
JMoore just help me out i am a russian sniper guy and working on becoming a British sniper guy as well. what are you looking for in the photo of the action from the right side can you expand on that.Quote:
Originally Posted by jmoore
I wonder how it would actually shoot if the scope was perfected? What I mean is, could it be corrected back into a decent range rifle? After all, the guy who built it maybe didn't put the markings on it and he simply wanted to better progress his rifle with what he could afford. Only later did someone try to enhance its value.
He is looking for filled screw holes where sniper base pads were removed.Quote:
Originally Posted by mudgee
Due to the "T" and "TR" markings...however they really do not matter as the "T" and "TR" markings are clearly ENGRAVED rather than STAMPED as on a real sniper.
Lee Enflied just out of interest due you have a pic of the real T and TR so we can look at and compare, your experience allows you to know but us less accustomed we need as much help as possible.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Enfield
mudgee: If you use the search engine attached to the site you'll find virtually countless examples of No. 4T markings from past threads. Or you can start with the examples displayed in the forum library.
Ridolpho
Ex 7.62 range rifles provide endless hours of entertainment for wannabe armourers.
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...0/308002-1.jpg
Interesting variant Lithy, You sure it has no XP marks it does look like what the Aussie snipers would have been given. Cost control you know when we have all this inventory.
Peter laidler, thank you. You made me laugh a few times during this thread:)
Thanks for that Homer! Comes from my few years of teaching Physics part-time. I learned (actually I was taught....) that you have to keep the class on-side, amusing and most of all interested! The best bit of advice was that when explaining stuff, use a simple everyday analagy. Thanks again
Just digging this back up to post an update. Fresh with the news his rifle isn't likely anything official, the owner did the only thing that anyone should do.... Take it to the range! :thup:
I wasn't able to get there, but he has sent me the pics and told me about the testing.
Three different shooters fired it off a bench at 100meters. All three said the shooting position wasn't uncomfortable at all, the eye relief not a problem. The scope set at 100(yds) produced the groups shown, all about or under 1.5". The scope was removed and replaced during the testing and returned to zero. The magazine held 5 rounds and fed them faultlessly, all commented on the smoothness of the action. :cheers:
Attachment 50708Attachment 50709Attachment 50710Attachment 50711Attachment 50712Attachment 50713
Mmmmmmmm! If picture 2 shows a 'not a problem' eye relief Son, then all I can say is that I'm a piccolo player! Just let him lay in the prone position and try it is all I can say. I know that you'll have commented on this too, but the scope doesn't make the rifle any more or less accurate!
All very true, Peter. Prone could be a very different kettle of fish! Just relaying the info as it came...Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Laidler
I posted this to show that even though it is considered to be "cobbled up", as a unit it works. Somebody went to a fair degree of trouble to do this, and the end result is a success.
At the other end of the scale, here's one from another source which was an epic fail...
WARNING, SOME VIEWERS MAY FIND THE FOLLOWING IMAGES DISTURBING
Attachment 50735
That is a BEAUTY!
yes that's a great soldering job !!!!!!!:madsmile::madsmile::madsmile:
Please stop posting that piccy, it makes my eye twitch and my head hurt. Ta
Peter did not know you where a piccolo player but we got it in writing now, Peter as in this interesting thread a few mention that a 1900's scope is not something that would really work well due to the age, i think this scope would approximately about 95 years old. Well in your comment you say" but the scope doesn't make the rifle any more or less accurate!" and yes that is true but when you have 3 different shooters all getting around the same result the scope plays a major role. Son mentions that the scope was removed and replaced and got zero again and again it seems to me that who ever built this rifle really built it well?Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Laidler
That picture, thread 66, really tickled me Son.... made my afternoon......! And I agree with Son 100% - as Armourers would of course. I agree Mudgee that the job IS well done but yoy ought to qualify that Mudger....... It's certainly fitted will but it ain't shootable unless your head's wel;l back out of harms way. Does that make it well built too?
If you have three blokes shooting a telescopes rifle or ANY rifle and they all get good results it means that you have started off with a good accurate rifle AND three good shooters! That'sall!
Peter so let me get this straight your saying it has nothing to do with the scope or its mounting to zero at all times once detached and reattached and as mentioned by Son it went back to zero at all times. All rifle and 3 good shooters only you say, all i can say is wow???Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Laidler
I think what Peter is trying to say it that the rifle is accurate, and that has nothing to do with the scope. You would expect the same sort of groups, from that rifle, if it had a good aperture sight or a modern scope as long as the mounts are solid and the shooter could do his bit.
Peter, I think what Mudgee is trying to say is that the scope mounting has proven itself to be a good solid set up...
Conversely, if you had three mug shooters, or a barrel with a bulge at the muzzle (extreme case) or the scope did not return to position, hold it's setting or not mounted solid, the groups would have been much larger. Many factors are in play to get the results... any one of which could have ruined the day if it was wrong.
Thank you Son for putting it so well.Quote:
Originally Posted by Son