Sarco or Numrich reproduction scopes

Hello Gents,
I have used the search function without success to find the answer that I am looking for.

Who has owned and used either the Sarco or the Numrich reproduction No.32 scopes? How are they, are they a complete made in China POS? The Numrich scope description reads "Each scope is factory set to zero/300 yards. " Does that mean that they are not adjustable like they are supposed to be? If they are adjustable and I am just misreading this, how do they track?

I hear Wheaty is the man to talk to here in Canada about these so I have Pm'd him on a different site I am on. I am waiting to hear back form him.

Thanks for your time.

Parker-Hale Mike: I have one that was manufactured in Taiwan (apparently- no identifiers on it) that is a Mark 1 replica. In this one they have perfectly replicated the three handed adjustment technique from the originals (imagine reverse engineering that!). I have mine zeroed in and working well on a replica "T" which I use to avoid putting too many rounds through my original "T". The range calibration seems to work well for my favorite factory ammo. I have about 250 rounds shot using this scope and nothing has failed yet so I'm pretty happy with it. And when it breaks, Warren is rumoured to work on them.

Ridolpho

I have one and have used it at the range with milsurp ammo - has worked OK for me (so far)

Thank you Ridolpho, so you have shot at multiple yardages and the turrets seem to track correctly? Where did you purchase your, is it a Sarco one if it has no markings?

Jimmiez, how long have you had yours and have shot at multiple yardages and the turrets seem to track correctly?

The range calibration works from 100 to 500 yards- haven't tried it beyond. A fellow in Calgary personally imported a few of them but beyond their origin in Taiwan I know nothing.

Ridolpho

I have worked on 4 so far and while they might look ok on the outside, they are unfathomable rubbish on the inside. If I might be so bold as to say so, all of those I have worked on have had focussing problems (plus other associated bits.....) and all failed again when I subject them to what we call the 'fast' test. That is where they are mounted on a slave a test fired when the recoil is set to FIRM.

Only my opinion, but save your money, pay twice the price for the real McCoy and you only pay once...........

I know others have different opinions, but like MG cars that ain't gone rusty. There will be one or two on the planet, but I ain't seen any!!!!!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter Laidler

I have worked on 4 so far and while they might look ok on the outside, they are unfathomable rubbish on the inside. If I might be so bold as to say so, all of those I have worked on have had focussing problems (plus other associated bits.....) and all failed again when I subject them to what we call the 'fast' test. That is where they are mounted on a slave a test fired when the recoil is set to FIRM.

Only my opinion, but save your money, pay twice the price for the real McCoy and you only pay once...........

I know others have different opinions, but like MG cars that ain't gone rusty. There will be one or two on the planet, but I ain't seen any!!!!!!!

---

Peter, I wish they were only twice the price. I would love to have a real T in the worst way but the prices have climbed to where I am out of the game. A young family and bills to pay take priority. I will never be one of those old guys with a half a dozen T's in the basement never seeing the light of day. I am going to build a clone and go enjoy it as often as I can.

I have heard back from Warren and he thinks that after he has gone through the scope he seems to think they will be reliable enough for what we are doing with them.

I am going to give one of Warren's a try.

Thank you all for your opinion.

Hi Mike - well I suppose you've got a point - just had a look and they're about £240 in sterling... there's a BIN on ebay for a mk2 for £965. However I've seen mk1s go for as low as £650, although it's a waiting game really.

Warren's scopes are tough. I can't speak for what he does to them but they are decent quality when he is done. I have about 1,000 rounds down the tube of my own fake 4T all with his tarted up repro scope and have never had it lose zero, no focus issues, beautiful glass and very decent in low light. I've had it out shooting in the pouring rain and way sub zero temps and all is good. I even took it elk hunting, being drug through the brush on horseback last fall with zero issues.

In my humble opinion, the real No32s should be kept to replace missing 32s on real 4Ts, those of us who want to shoot a 4T like cheap surplus should all have these reproduction scopes.

Saying that though, I've never seen the internals of one or what Warren does to make them reliable enough for us. Perhaps when they leave the factory they won't take much abuse but Warren's seem to be very good.

I only have 100 yd range - but have had the scope for almost 2 years.

The repro scopes are a bit different mechanically than the original 32 to service but once you have the hang of it they are not bad at all. Having a few spares to play with and not having to worry about screwing up a customers scope does give me a bit of an edge in that respect.
They are not a military No. 32 and will never be but the repro's do fill a hole and most seem to work well when "tarted up a bit". The scopes that have had a problem, in most cases, was user caused by cramming them into a cheap brand X mount and not knowing how to adjust the scope. The lenses are top quality optical glass and when tested were found to be top of the line manufacture. The optical couplets are different than the normal 32 but achieve the same optical characteristics. The nice addition to the repro scope was the plastic ocular lens protector that would have saved a lot of grieve with the original 32 had it been used. Bubba cleaning the ocular lenses with a shirt tail and screwdriver blade or no. 40 grit sandpaper has ruined more 32 scopes than anything.