Printable View
I picked this up at Bisley over the weekend. To all intents and purposes it's a standard 32 MkIII but notice the odd turret design, then there's the different turret housing, the lack of OS Number, the lack of serial number and the oddest of all the makers mark of WW&S who supposedly never made the MkIII.
Any information would be greatly appreciated.
Cheers,
Simon.
P.S. Apologies in advance if the pics aren't up too much
Without close up pictures of the markings, my first guess would be that it appears to be Israeli. Mine are buried in back and not readily available for comparison---the knobs appear to be right. I am sure Warren can comment.
Israeli and nothing is interchangeable. Had a go at one last month but the ocular end was totally different to the one shown!
Peter,
That arrangement on the Ocular end is a spot of Bubba style home Gunsmithing. It's actually two half rings that have been soldered on to increase the diameter of the tube.
The only markings on the tube are the ones shown reading as below
TEL SIGHTING
No32 MKIII
W W & S
Simon,
Can you get any more detailed photo's of the markings by any chance? Wouldn't it be odd to be engraved with 'almost typical' British markings if it's Israeli? I've only seen a few Israeli scopes but they were all clearly engraved in Hebrew, although the drums do look to be of the same style in this case. It is odd that there are what seem to be British style markings but no OS number nor serial number. As you say Simon, the William Watson (I'm assuming the WW&S indicates this company) is not engraved on in the usual fashion, with the typical intertwined W's. And also as you say, they are generally only associated with production of Mk1 & Mk2 scopes. To me, the most puzzling thing about the scope is its manufacturer's marking, or could WW&S be somebody else other than Watson - even an Israeli concern, perhaps? Warren, do you know if the Israelis ever marked their scopes in British fashion rather than in Hebrew?
Alternatively, did Bubba, or the Israelis, or somebody else, modify a British scope? If they did, & if the markings on the tube are genuine, then they could have mutilated a very rare (pre-production???) scope indeed. But if you can get clearer pix Simon we could pass more informed comment on the markings. (I know from our phone call that you've done them in a hurry & are probably knaXXXered tonight, but maybe tomorrow??).
Cheers.
Hopefully these two show the markings better, surprising what a little talcum powder will do.
These are the only markings visible on the scope body.
You can also see where the half rings have been soldered to the tube to increase the diameter at the Ocular end.
It was William Watson and Co as opposed to SON DRP. I had one to fix a month ago and even the drum configuration was like this one. I say Israeli just on my Mk1 and 2 experience. But sufficient to say, this ain't kosher......... If you'll excuse the pun! Ho ho ho...., just had to get that one in!
Just found the below info on a quick Google search.
The Wm. Watson company was founded in 1837 in London.
In the 1840s, The firm sold lanterns, slides and associated equipment.
In 1868 the firms name was changed to W. Watson & Son and they were located at 313 High Holborn, London. They continued at this address well into the 1940s.
In the late 1870s the firm began adding photographic equipment and quickly became one of the country's leading manufacturers of the Highest Class Photographic Instruments and Apparatus.
On 9 January, 1881 William Watson died.
In 1883 the firms name was changed to W. Watson & Sons for the Williams son, Charles Henry Watson joining business. In an 1883 kelly's business directory, it lists both Charles Henry Watson and Henry Watson associated with Watson & sons located at 23 Walton St, Aylesbury.
In the 1890s the business continued to grow and they advertised factories for instruments, Optical glass and cabinet work at Fullwood Rents W.C. and the warehouse and show room remaining at the 313 High Holborn.
In 1900 W. Watson & sons purchased the John Browning & Co.
In 1908 the firm became W. Watson & Sons Ltd.
In 1948 the business dissolved.
Fair enough DPL, I was speaking from memory. But the markings are unusual are they not? I wonder what WW & S does stand for? Is it my eyes (quite probably), but is the gap between the front of the segment & the back of the turret casting greater than the norm? It might just be an effect of the angle of the photo. I suppose the easy way to check would be to try a bracket for fit....
ATB.
Israeli No. 32 sniper scopes: need info from owners of Isreali 32 scopes
If you go to this thread, you will see that the Israeli turret casting and ranging drums are quite different from this one.
And the Israeli tubes appear to be brass rather than steel.
Simon, is that a seiko chronograph in the background? Sorry I can't help it in a watchmaker.
Very funny Peter :D.Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Laidler
It's getting interesting. Will have to get the other one back to do a double take. Couldn't fix it (or rather, couldn't be bothered) as the threads and diameters were different to the norm.
Certainly is, my everyday timepiece and fantastically accurate.Quote:
Originally Posted by gsimmons
Here's a few more comparison pics.
Top scope is an REL, Middle is our mystery piece and bottom is a CTS converted to L1A1 spec.
Peter, I'd be happy to pass it on to your capable hands via Roger if you wanted to investigate the internals.?
No fear............. Trying to give them up!
:lol::lol::lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Laidler
Another three with one of the adjustment drum caps removed.
I've only ever handled one Israeli No32 (and hope to own one shortly) and it was nothing like this one.
Mk2 style focus plate, Mk3 turret block, an simplified/improved/experimental slipping scale system, and a non standard lense keeping system.
We've seen other "slipping scale" experimentals, remember the one which had the very large brass locking set-screws?
Home built? Experimental? or a mix of salvaged parts from a "government job" project?
The cover just clamps the slipping scale ring by friction - in much the same way the double-coil bronze spring does on the Mk3. One requirement of the proposed Mk3 was that it should '...incorporate within the design a simple method of/the ability to be desiccated without the need to be.......' and on and on. No desiccation method on this one. It also had to be cheaper than the Mk2 it was to replace which it was. But adding Mk3 drums to the already expensive Mk2 made the proposed Mk2/1 even more/the most expensive
Excuse my ignorance but what rifle / gun would this be fitted to? The extra diameter at the end would stop it being fitted to a 4T bracket and I doubt there's enough meet in the 4T bracket to bore the rear of it out (For what ever reason). So could it be a trial / modified piece for something else using existing items? Tank gun, spotting rifle or the like?
I think we can see what may be going on here: those enterprising chaps at William Watson & Sons bought up some left overs from wartime No32 production and figured out a way to stick the bits together economically. No32 MkI/II locking rings and perhaps lead screws, in No32 Mk3 tubes. All they had to make up was the index cover plates and perhaps the locking washer affair that seems to provide tension on the slipping scale (plus the knurled 'caps' and the scales of course) I assume the three screws are loosed before the scale can be moved? That's actually quite a good idea as there is then almost no chance of a knock or a brush etc. somehow moving the scales after zeroing; something that with the spring loaded slipping scale is otherwise very difficult to detect without taking a shot.
We can ignore that bodged-on ocular bell as being someone's attempt to fix a scope that took a nasty knock on the back end (my guess).
So with this design they could even sell the Israelis the No32 MkI/II tools as well!
The scope will be on the bench over the weekend, assuming I get time that is. I'll be taking a lot of photo's for comparison and look forward to the feedback once the internals are revealed.
Oh and before anyone scolds or chastises me I've worked on a number of 32 scopes before this one.:thup:
The "Bodged on" Ocular bell is actually two half rings which have been soldered onto the tube in an apparent attempt to increase the diameter.
Thanks Simon. Looking forward to seeing more of this 'mystery scope'!
ATB.
is it one of the No. 32 scopes that was sold off and fitted to astrological telescopes?
Now that's an idea, I fitted an old Tasco scope to my wife telescope as the cheap plastic one it came with didn't even point in the same direction (A slight exaggeration).Quote:
Originally Posted by mossin
Hey and Simon how much for the 1998 G10 watch?;);)
We (the Army) had an issue of PULSAR WWW's along with the usual CWC's but I didn't see and SEIKO's Gil. I saw some paperwork relating to the quartz wahches that were issued. I think that hey cost the Army about £25 each but if you lost one, you were charged was about £70. Mind you, that was cheap! Loose one of the older machanical ones such as the Omegas, Vertex/Longines/Eterna plus a few more high quality makes and it was a board of Enquiry. Almost a hanging job!
Simon,
May we see a piccy of the back, please?
Peter,
Funnily enough I had a SEIKO aircrew G10 with buttons on buttons up until last year, Decided the service costs were getting too pricy so sold it on Fleabay.....and got, wait for it.......£295.00 so they are only going up in value IMHO.
Military watch prices seem to be one of the few that have stayed up or steady in the past five or so years. Their seems to be more interest as well.
Yes if that's an issued Seiko (generation 2) watch then around £295 ish would be around right - the earlier Generation 1 ones go for £450+. Judging from that MoD sales website they're still being disposed of by the military. As gsimmons says, interest in issued watches has rocketed recently. G10 is most commonly used to refer to the bog-standard CWC or Pulsar watches with (I think) the 541-5317 nato stock number, rather than the higher spec chronos.
The term 'G10' is in fact a shortening of the full G-1098 which is the army form AFG-1098 which you have to sign for anything valuable and attractive (V&A in Army parlance). So you get a watch or binos or compass or whatever....., and book/sign it out on a 1098 form as opposed to another similar form called a 1033. Yep, that's it again, an AFG-1033.
The WWW on the back of the watch is WATCHES wristlet, waterproof. Although if you did have a waterproof one, you were lucky!
VERY suprised if the MoD were still disposing of the gen 1 watches that came from the primary makers. These were the Longines, Omega, Eterna, Record, Vertex, Jaeger le Coutre, Cyma and a few others if anyone wants to remind me although I have fixed them all. These were all WOCS. The next ones were Smiths mechanical, made in Wales, Hamiltons and then we started to get the fat CWC's with big battery then the small battery cover then the slimmer version with a cheaper movement and onwards and upwards as they say....... onto the one-way-trip pulsars that were plagued with winding shaft/stem problems. Eventually it became uneconomic to replace the battery! The day of the £20 garage watch had finally arrived!
There was always a school of thought that instead of supplying wrist watches, just treat them thesame as a leatherman or a pair of underpants. If you wanted a bloody watch - or a leatherman or a pair or bloody underpants just go and buy one! If you didn't want to buy a watch or have a decent jack-knife in your kit then you'd know that the highest rank that you were ever likely to achieve is mess orderly!
Ah yes Peter - well the old WWWs certainly aren't being disposed of still - although some handwinding CWCs and Hamiltons seem to turn up at this lot from time to time: MOD Sales, Military Vehicles & Used Ex MOD Land Rovers for Sale . A lot of people try to collect all 12 WWWs or the 'dirty dozen' as they're sometimes called. Some are more numerous than others - but if you find a Grana you're quids in as they're very rare. Mostly at the mod disposal people as well as the (sometimes known as) G10s, they also get the Seiko Gen 1 and 2s (Gen 1 etc is just something said by collectors as there are two versions - I've got a 1984 Gen 1 which has three push buttons and no date - Gen 2 has date and two push buttons) - but the prices they seem to go for there are silly and I think people forget about the 20 per cent VAT to be added!
Well I've had chance to strip the scope down and to my untrained eye the internals appear to be the same as those in any other MkIII scope.
I've also removed the soldered half rings from the Ocular end. They are made from Brass and have been perfectly shaped to fit around the Ocular bell, definitely not a home gunsmiths work so I'm wondering if it was for a Military purpose of some kind?
Cheers,
Simon.
Thanks Simon. Most of the guts look to be standard Mk3 to me as well. (I've got two in bits in front of me as we 'speak'!). Any further thoughts Peter, Warren, anybody?
Mmmmmm. I wish maybe I'd pursued the one I was asked to overhaul now. However unless it's photo/camera distortion some parts look distinctly out of scale. Diaphragm springs and shoes are totally different to what we're used to unless I am looking at things differently. And yes, I understand the wide ocular end mounting thing now.......
But G-10 watches. Never heard of nor seen a GRANA. The Omegas occasionally came with different dials. Some had a very wide form of WD arrow and others didn't carry the name OMEGA but just 10033 which was the Army part/VAOS number from W-10/VB 10033. The VERTEX was the toughest in my opinion, certainly as far as the usual balance staffs went. Never saw a broken one or had to replace a broken one. Best was the Omega but the Longines was sought after (and VERY good inside). I always thought that the rare ones were the Jaeger le Coutre.
One of the watchmakers at the big workshops at Soest told me that the movement inside the RECORD (and I think he said the CYMA too....) was exactly the same as the movement from the similar German Army/Wermacht issue watches. Can you comment on the likelehood of this Gary?
Yes, it's possible. The movement in my WW2 Glycine is made by A. Schild. The Swiss ebauch companies made made and still make movements for most of the watchmakers. Omega, Longines, Smiths and LeCoultre made their own movements as well as using other manufactures like A.Schild.
Thanks for that Gary. It's absolutely amazing what you learn and are reminded of on this forum.
I wonder who 'the nice gentleman from England' was?
Can it REALLY be that there's another Enfield forum circulating this planet? Really!
I think that the bloke who sent the 1949 trials stuff was our very own Nigel. I have to comment though that if there WAS a problem with slippery rings - if you'll excuse the phrase - I wonder why the same telescope carried on right up until the late 80's! And correcting those slippery(and defective as you'll read later, to boot) rings is simplicity itself. You can bet that as sure as little green apples, those protruding knobs would be the first thing that would get either a) broken off or b) moved around!
What you all probably don't know is that there is a +/- torque figure for the slipping rings. We use a SPANNER, torque, adaptor telescope and the little Armourers spring balance to measure it. Repair is by replacing the crushed double coil spring washers or shimming them up. The main problem is caused by well meaning amateurs greasing up the spring/centre spindle/thumbscrew with grease and this lessens the friction.
You could sum this up by saying that slippery rings are caused by too muchy grease! Ho ho ho...... Well it is a rainy Tuesday morning here in Oxfordshire
Back to serious though. Here's a thing you all ought to do NOW or PDQ if you shoot a No4T or an L42. When it is properly zeroed for YOU, count the number of clicks from the anti-clockwise end top to '0'. It'll be about 7 to 10 or so at a guess - maybe more or maybe less depending. Now do the same for the deflection drum. Now write this little number inside the end cap of the tele lens cap. That way, if you ever suspect that the slipping scale drum has slipped a bit during a shoot or while you are fumbling with the sight, during a rundown for example, you can always quickly check.
And yes, if you have these little undecipherable hyroglyphics wrtitten into the end caps, that's what they'll probably indicate. And if there is an 'A', that is azimuth which is the sniper term for deflection angles
There, sorry to go off at another tangent but there's another few bits of totally useless Enfield related info that you didn't know about
Ha Ha...... now you tell me, after our long conversations about my particular sight issues on my L42, or was I the reminder?......sorted now though and thanks, always good to be reminded of the bleeding obvious.......write it down somewhere;);)
Nige? I must have a word with him...................!
That's interesting: I thought it was a replacement bell at a glance, but just a sort of soldered on shoulder? Most likely idea would be either a sort of recoil shoulder or perhaps an adaption for a set of rings of some unknown configuration? That or a bit of reinforcement for the tube, but that hardly seems worth the bother as a primary reason for such a modification.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Simon
We discussed that one here at the time as I recall. That "nice gent" in England posted the original trials report IIRC.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Enfield
:DI'd clearly forgotten about the Trials report, or maybe I was away wandering about in the mud at the time......
Looking at the quality of the fixing of those rings onto the tube I suspect that the telescope had been bodged to fit into a larger dia. commercial bracket or set of rings. Simple to do at the front with a set of split parallel rings but not so simple at the rear where the start of the taper would cause a problem in the bracket or position of the rings
No trials team would have got away with that workmanship in my humble opinion.......
Roger, I take it the "Nice Gent" being referred to............. is in fact Peter:dancingbanana:
Would love to have seen the hits on target using those firm rings!!
It was another, but then you have so many...! ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Gil Boyd
(And the odd miserable SOB of course!):D
We are of course assuming the 'girth enhancement' of the tube was done at the same time & by the same source as the mods to the drums. The drum mods look fairly well done to me, but the back end looks like Bubba's work. Could it not have been used in Trials & then further got at at a later date by someone entirely different?
Looking at the oddities of the scope itself I came to the same conclusion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Payne
Peter,Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Laidler
Any chance you could clarify the above please?
You say the quality of the fixing of the rings on the tube makes you suspect its a bodge job, yet the half rings where soldered to the tube. A method of firmly fixing rings etc that is still employed to this day, and is good enough to cope with the recoil of African Safari rifles. I agree that to make a parallel set of rings for the front end of the tube is relatively straight forward and that as you also say, is not so simple a task for the rear. The half rings we're talking about are in this case are made for the rear of the scope, they don't just nearly match the taper of the Ocular bell either but perfectly match it. I beg to differ but I believe the level workmanship involved in internally turning the half rings to such tolerances is not the work of a Bodger but that of a skilled Engineer.
Gil,
Firm Rings? Sorry I don't understand your point there I'm afraid, as we are only speculating as to the intended purpose of the half rings.
---------- Post added at 05:06 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:00 PM ----------
Rog,Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Payne
Agreed, but then are we now assuming that the "mods to the drums" are just that? Why is it so implausible that the scope was not manufactured from scratch like that? Let's not forget we are after all discussing a MkIII scope by Watson & Sons, a scope that was allegedly never manufactured in the first place.
Simon,
I'm sorry I did not express myself very clearly. When I mentioned 'mods to drums' I was referring to the design being different to the standard Mk3 R&D assemblies, not that they were literally modified from the norm after manufacture. They may not have been modified as such but may have been made like that. Like you, one of the things that most aroused my interest in this scope in the first place & made me sceptical about the 'It's Israeli' school of thought is the very fact that it was made by Watson.
I still think the solder job on the 'sleeves' is a bit messy to have been done by the military, but the photo's, as good as they are, are not like possessing the real thing. Maybe you could bring it to the Motorbike Museum show if you're coming?
ATB
Rog,
I'm not saying that the half rings are a Military fitment but I also don't believe they are the work of "Bubba" either.
When is the Brum show?
Simon.
Simon,
It does to me, look like a professional job but I am probably in the minority, because I know the hours it would take to get to that level of quality, and afterall, what would you benefit from if they did not do the job on the scope.
Whoever, made them, they were in the know and probably wanted the versatility they bring. Armourers had their wild cannons so to speak and I often saw them "tinkering" with new ideas............common Peter is that not true?
My point was I would loved to have tried them before and after to see what my MPI would have been;)
Simon, it's the 15th.
You asked for an elaboration. 2nd para of mine: I think that photos 1 and 2 of chapter 1/page 1 of this thread amply illustrate in pictures far better that I could describe in words why I think that the fitting of these rings are a bit of butchery! The actual machining of the rings might well be perfect and the idea well thought out but the application of the rings on the tube with a soft soldered joint like that are not, in my opinion, the work of any trials team that I have ever had the experience of working with. Just my view of course. Put another more subtle way....... Same meat, different gravy, but what would you say if I, say, replaced an ocular end on your needy/rusty telescope with a snotty joint like that
1st para of mine: Yes they WERE soldered to the tube, but what a mess! It's what a plumber might call a snotty joint - see above
And the same method might be employed on an Africal safari rifle Simon, but with the best will in the world and upping the humour a tad, an africal safari shooter ain't being shot back at! And as I often say, target and game shooters ain't and never will be snipers!
Oh, Simon, really........... Please take it from me and every other 1st year machine shop apprentice that turning an exact ratio internal taper on a 1" or so length of steel is definately NOT a graduate job or even a skilled operators job, believe me. It's one of your very FIRST taper turning lathe work exercises. Machine a morse taper die nut holder!. And even easier ESPECIALLY when you have the main tube there from which to quickly set-up, turn the tool post to suit the taper (using a DTI if you REALLY need to) and away you go. EXACT first time. Part-off, slit the collar and there you have it. 10 mts max and exact first time! Skilled, it definately ain't! Any machinists disagree with this simple explanation?
Nope............ The friction held drums do nothing better than the standard on the Mk3 and L1A1 scopes - as time has proved. The presumably after-market enlarged rear rings/collar are well thought out , well machined and may well do the job as I accept, But the workmanship of the application to the tube is crap. Others might think it's perfect but that's just my view of course!
Bugger!!! I can't make it.:@Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Payne
---------- Post added at 07:28 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:27 AM ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Laidler
Thanks Peter,
I'm not saying that the mounts have anything at all to do with a trials team. Conversely though whoever produced them must have had at least some degree of training in a machine shop and also access to the correct equipment too. As you say they are well thought out and not just filed lumps of brass and that is why I don't believe the are the work a garden shed gunsmith.
Can't disagree with about the African game not shooting back but unfortunately for the Allies soldered rings didn't seem to hamper the Deutsche Sharfshutzen from going about his appointed task.
Mmmm..... I believe that the quality of the FITTING IS the work of an amateur but like I say, that's only my opinion. Incidentally, I have made efforts to get the 'identical' scope I declined to repair back for a second look so I can get under the thick paint to see the markings and measure against the usual No32 parts. But this tele certainly didn't have a set of large dia rings fitted or marks of a set. Hence my belief that those on yours were a home made set to use the tele for another application
Gil.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gil Boyd
The more I look at those half rings the less I am inclined to think "Bubba" Just my opinion I know but I hope more folk will agree when I can finally got my head around taking Macro photo's of them?
P.S. Can you PM me please RE- 2 Para Sniper teams in the South Atlantic as I have a query?
TTFN
Simon.
A few quick measurements if anyone can offer a comparison?
Grat block is 0.563" square
Vertical and Lateral deflection shoes are showing at 0.400" x 0.310".
TIA
Simon.
Didn't have a grat block handy to drop a measuring stick across, but deflection shoe from a CT&S Mk3 measures 0.300" x 0.487".
Hmmm, pretty damn close wouldn't you say?
Er............. Simon............... pretty close.................. I wouldn't call .087" error or .010" error anything like pretty close. I would have some colourful terms for such a suggestion. But not here.
Is it me, as maybe I'm looking at the wrong components, but what I took to be the R&D shoes in the stripped photo's of Simon's scope (I think it is posting number 35) look totally different to run of the mill Mk3/L1A1 shoes? The one I measured looks pretty typical to me - a rectangular brass shoe on a rounded shaft, which is bored out to receive the tensioning spring.
Confused of Sutton Coldfield.
Dear confused of sutton coldfield.
This measurement taking difficulty is quite commom with older members of our passing generations so you should not feel alone. The confusion starts when you oldies confuse old money with this new money - and likewise with vastly superior imperial measure with this Euro centi-inch stuff. f you recall Layland or BMC cars, made from imperial measurements and far superior in quality to the European metric stuff we see madly driven on our roads today
Maybe you could take the opportunity to talk to your children and grand children for a few months and they will guide you through the rigours of the world we now live in. Or you could see your doctor and ash him to prescribe sumfink
Doris Stokes.
Problem page counsellor
Thanks Doris. Now I feel soooooo much better!
Jeez Peter,Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Laidler
Stop taking everything I say so bloody literal! Two different people in two entirely different parts of the country have used two different measuring instruments on scopes from two different manufacturers and we have a difference of 0.087" and 0.010". Hardly an engineering catastrophe is it? Particularly when you already told us a good number of times how even parts made by different manufacturers to the same engineering drawings are not always interchangeable!
Simon, I'm not being literal or pedantic but a realist for heavens sake. Even with a basic steel rule and calipers from B&Q or Moore and Wright or even Mitutoyo micrometer or spread over different parts of the nation or even the world will not, ever, ever, never, not in a million years give differentials like that. .080" is almost a tenth of an inch for heavens sake and even if, like you say about parts not being interchangeable, nothing in my world........ Look, you KNOW I only tell it like it is. Can you imagine even the worst mid war Sten gun being produced with a tolerance of .080". Nope, nor can I. Just on those two basic dimensional differences I'd say that the telescopes were very different beasts. Enough said. We'll agree to differ
Simon dont worry i think post #66 probably reads two ways and covers it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Simon
It would indeed appear we are measuring two different things. The dims I quoted are taken from the steel block on the end of the lead screw of the elevation and deflection drumsQuote:
Originally Posted by Roger Payne
Right then,
Here's a set of photo's which show exactly what I've measured and the results, I've even gone to the trouble of taking them in that new fangled Metric thingummy. draw your own conclusions
Thems the lead screw nut then the spring loaded shoe and then the turret housing. As a matter of interest, while they are shown with different part numbers, we could only get the lead screw and nut as a matched pair and even then, due to them being multi start threads, you couldn't be certain that they'd mate-up if you started the thread 180 degrees out. The lead screw nuts had to fit VERY closely fore/aft inside the turret housing or there would be excess rotational slack in the thumbscrew
Simon, you have the measurements from the Mk3 range shoe, but I've now reassembled the scope. However I've got an L1A1 in bits now (ex CT&S Mk3), & the range lead screw shoe measures 0.399" in length x 0.304" in depth x 0.251" in height. Hope this helps. Sorry it's in old money but I work best in that currency, & I could only find an Imperial Moore & Wright micrometer!
ATB.
Rog,Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Payne
Thanks for that, I've finally got around to comparing your measurements against the ones I took now we know we are comparing like for like.
Starting with a conversion of your measurements we have
Mine, yours, = difference
10.17mm, 10.14mm, = 0.03mm
7.91mm, 7.73mm, = 0.18mm
Or if you prefer an Imperial measurement.
Mine, Yours, = Difference
0.400", 0.399", = 0.001"
0.310" , 0.304", = 0.006"
Are we now allowed to say that they're pretty close?
Now we're all singing from the same hymn sheet - or talking the same lingo, that's pretty close!