HELP - ID this prototype (?) LB sniper scope & mount

A good friend of mine owns a gun shop and this walked in last week. This is the same shop where a few other hitherto-unreported LB experimental snipers and items have shown up - some of those pieces are in the MKL already. The Ottawa area is home to Connaught Ranges where a LOT of the LB trial stuff was evaluated in the 1940's.

Anyhoo... this one came with an original No.32 mount that has been modified to use only one screw per ring (lightened?). I believe an older serial or marking was filed off the side before it was blued. The knobs are both stamped with C-arrows.

The scope itself is entirely in the while. Reticle is a german post and crosshair with a fourth vertical line that stops short of the point of aim - makes it look sorta like a duplex reticle without the fine crosshair in the middle.

Everything is machined - it looks like a toolroom-made optic. Still n the white everywhere, including the internal and under lens rings, etc. IT just never had a finish applied.

Came in a legit No.32 scope case.

What do you guys think? It's simply too well done to be a basement job, but not refined enough to be a production item. The number of tiny screws and dovetail fits is incredible. All the lens retainer screws show evidence of tiny scribe lines along the axis of the scope tube - as a part-time machinist, it screams "toolroom prototype" to me.

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...99ddc56d-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...ddd5b9c2-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...73c62b1d-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...729944c7-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...0c56a7e0-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...0c56a7e0-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...fed8855b-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...bc9b93e6-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...38c2de0d-1.jpg

I'm more interested in the No8 tin...who made it? is it dated?

The fact that the front ring doesn't appear to fully grip the scope tube, while the rear ring appears slightly undersized leads me to believe that it is a (fairly) recent assemblage. No one would seriously expect to have done any sort of honest assessment based upon improper clamping of the rings.

Are you sure the rings are real? much of the filing appears to be in places where the cast indian/Chinese copies differ from a real LB No32 set of rings.

My understanding of the 1943 trials reports is that there were a number of Lyman scopes utilized which are (so far as I know) unknown today.

I think anyone who had access to experimental? Lyman scopes from an actual optics manufacturer would not be impressed by this representation.

I am however intrigued by what appears to be windage adjustment contained in the front lense cage ala m.1917

what is the diameter of the scope? Is the scope optically useable?

Can't say I know anything about experimental/ trials or prototype stuff, but to me Looks like someones effort to make a scope out of parts, the modification of the bracket is or, I would guess purely cosmetic and am with Lee Enfield regarding the clamping of the scope .... Also the finish I doubt a bare metal finish from the 1940,s would look like that, it would have some kind of patina on it, looks like the emery paper has touched it recently also the smaller diameter tube looks like it has remains of old bluing ?

Just a Shame about the bracket but at least the tin looks in good shape

Someone monkeying around in the tool room with rejected parts and left over optics?

"This is the same shop where a few other hitherto-unreported LB experimental snipers and items have shown up". A very faint alarm bell is ringing...

1) The shop owner knows NOTHING about this scope - it came in with estate guns. Ottawa always sees ex-LB stuff turn up. It's not a fakery thing, a lot of their stuff was sold here out of local crown assets in the 50's and 60's. I've literally seen a dozen+ REL scoped LB snipers at the same gun shop over the years. It happens.

2) The scope rings fit tight, it's a rock solid mating. Sorry if the pics don't show that well. The rings themselves have never been staked and whoever last tightened them left the gaps on opposite sides of the scope for some reason (?).

3) I've seem more real 4T rigs in person than most ever will and I've built a lot of guns too. This is not a home-built scope. It's VERY well made and optically functional. A VERY VERY good machinist and optical technician had to work together to build this.

4) I don't worry re the surface finish. I have guns from the 1870's with finish this unblemished.

Honestly guys, I know more than a little about this stuff - if there was even a remote chance it was recently faked, I would not be asking about it here.

The No.8 tin is totally un-marked (that I can tell) and has what looks like very old lead-based green paint applied to it. Look like 1950's era Canadian Army green. If it has marks in the metal, they are filled with paint and I can't find them.

The reticle moves well when the turrets are turned. optically the scope of correct, but it would need a good cleaning and possibly some element work - I think of the the groups has started to delaminate internally.

There was a machinist in China churning out scopes and the tins, could be his, can't make out tell tale signs though. Can you see a makers name on the tin, as there will be one on the lid in the central part with a an NSN under it, if it is authentic??

In addition this is what I put on the site earlier this year re this guy in Taiwan churning out No 32 scopes and the tins too, apparently the sample prices are CHEAP!!:

Gents,
I got a reply this morning from Shawn Hssu of Wayne's Machine shop in Taiwan with a Product list attached, but still waiting for the price list. First thing he asked was how many do I want.......that old question from the Far East. I will pres him for a price on the 4T scope case as a starter.

Anyway, here are his products:

Scope & Scope Mount & Accessory

WM0267A -- Mauser 98 Low Turret Scope Mounts with split rings
WM0272X -- Russia Mosin Nagant 91/30 Scope Mount
WM0361A1~11 -- Mount with Ring and Levers, Griffin & Howe Mount
WM0281A -- Ak-47 Low Side Scope Mount
WM0387A-2 -- PU Mosin-Nagnt Original Rail with Screw Set
WM0361A-12 -- Mount Base Plate, Grffin & Howe Mount
WM0259A -- Mauser K98 Swept Back Mount
WM0175A -- Prong Scope Mount, Tokarev SVT 40 Rifle
WM0268A -- Mauser 98 Low Turret Scope Mounts Closed Rings (九九九九九九)
WM0058A -- Scope Mount with 1/8" Allen Wrench, M1 Carbine ( 九九)

Small Firearm Scope
WM0207A -- Mauser 98K Short Scope Mount (九九98K九九九)
WM0355A-6X -- ZF-39 ZIELVIER 6X Scope
WM0355A-4X -- ZF-39 ZIELVIER 4X Scope
WM0295A -- Shim Kit, Mauser 98 Split Turret Mount 4-Piece
ZF-4 Scope, German G43/K43 Sniper Rifle
WM0358A -- ZF-4 Scope Can with Shoulder Strap (ZF-4九九九九九九九)
WM0260A -- ZF-4 Scope, German G43/K43 Sniper Rifle

M84 Scope for M1 Garand
7312541 -- M1D Scope Mount Base (M1D九九)
7312554 -- M1D(M84) Scope Mount Ring Bracket Assembly
7597774 -- M84 scopes for M1 Garand
Howitzer Scope
8588780 -- M109 Elbow Telescope 1240-00-823-5612
8299680 -- Telescope, Elbow:M92D
7597781 -- Elbow Telescope M16A1D, M101 105mm Howitzer (九九九 M16) 1240-00-759-7781

Military Vehicle Scope
8587340 -- Telescope Panoramic M-115 1240-00-895-9186
8213037 -- Telecope, Panoramic M12A7S
7043549 -- M17 Periscope - repairment
九九九九九九九
6650-00-704-3549

I have seen more than one odd ball scope in what appeared to be Canadian mounts. The scopes were unmarked and no indication as to maker or where they were made.
Until you get inside the scope.
The last odd ball that showed up a couple of years ago had clues to the manufacturer inside the scope. It was easy to see the components were made by REL. I've also found writing on the edge of the lenses that helped establish where they came from and at least somewhere where I could trace a source.
There was a lot of interesting kit made during the trials and I'm just in the middle of checking somewhere between 8 to 10 thousand plates of never seen before microfiche and many of the plates are of the sniper scopes, equipment and trials.
One lucky guy now has copy of the handwritten records of his Canadian sniper rifle trials test.
It is all a matter of time which is the reason I have been scarce on the site.
Too much to do and too little time as researching the microfiche records is very time consuming and hard on the eyes.
Give my regards to Jason.........

The tin is real guys - it's not a recent reproduction. Frankly I don't give a damn about the tin. It's obvious what the tin is and a quick e-bay search shows us what they sell for.

This scope is not recently made. The optics have been installed so long that the lens groups are delaminating from age. While it looks bright in the photos, the areas where it's assembled are caked in decades of dust and grime.

I know for 100% fact that this scope is not a recent creation, not made in Asia, and not put together at the shop. Did I mention the shop owner is a close friend? He doesn't fake stuff.

There are really only 2 possibilities in my mind:

1) It's put together by a really talented metal guy back in the 50's or earlier who had help from a really talented optical lens guy using some original REL parts mixed with handmade (machined) parts; or
2) It came out of Canadian Arsenals as some sort of experiment, toolroom model to test one or more features, or a trials prototype.

If I can't find any proof that points to option No.1, it will get sold as No.2. Either way, it will get sold - the owner is not a collector - I just don't want my buddy to let a potentially significant treasure go cheaply to some local hunter for a nothing price to do time on a cut-down deer rifle.

Some more info:

According to the guy who brought the scope it, it had been in his brother's basement over 40 years. Also, the scope is exactly 1" aft of the turrets, but between the turrets and the front bell, it's only .940" in diameter. The ring does bear here, but not evenly.

Still no further ahead on this :(

Of course, it's also possible the scope has nothing to do with the military and was later meted to an altered Enfield bracket and tin. That said, the scope itself looks ruggedized and military-like in its build and robustness. It is definitely over-built and heavier than any commercial steel-tubed scope.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Claven2

According to the guy who brought the scope it, it had been in his brother's basement over 40 years.

---

I heard that said about a Sten bayonet one time upon sale. Thing is, it had just been procured and marked by the vendor so someone was selling and buying a story.

You know what's funny? It is NOT being sold as an expensive treasure. It is in a real case. The mount was once real. The knobs definitely are real.

Yet half of you guys think one of my good friends made this yesterday in my basement. Can we please get past that? It's not trying to be a faked ANYTING. It doesn;t even look like an established Enfield sniper pattern scope. A fake would look like a No.32!!!

If it turns out that nobody can ID it, it's a $200 curio - but it's not a recently made Chinese fake anything. Please don't bother commenting if that is all you have to offer.

FWIW, the brother was questioned about it - he didn't even know it was an Enfield bracket and was basically looking to give it to the shop for near nothing. It was buried under a whole bunch of old stuff in a long-forgotten box of other military in some old codger's house.

I see, another one that wants to regulate who can speak and who can't...

Easy now folks... ;)

Please and thank you.... :cheers:

Regards
Doug

Claven,
What could be helpful to try and assist you, would be if you could open the lid of the sight tin, as I asked earlier in the thread, at least that might help identify that, by the stamped marks.
My comments about China were simply made, to again help you as a consideration, no more no less, as clearly you didn't know where tjhe scope came from.
Have a good weekend;)

I have resisted commenting up to now as I believe there are people on this forum who know far more about Canadian production than I do, & I can't pretend to know anything about this item. However, I would not write it off as a modern fake by any means - as Claven said, it COULD be something interesting, but if we cannot find out any more about it to clarify its history then it is just a curio with a big question mark over it, its value held down because of this.

It looks to me like the bracket once clearly was a genuine Canadian example. It has been extensively modified, & in my opinion rather roughly. However, the workmanship of the scope looks to me to be of a decent standard. As Lee Enfield said, it looks very much like there may be a lateral adjustment prism in the objective housing, similar to later Aldis & Model 1918 scopes. I'm not absolutely sure if this is the case but it looks like it may be. The range adjuster looks to be workmanlike. All in all, if everything works like it was intended to, then the person(s) who made it clearly had a degree of skill. Is it just me that thinks the back end of the scope tube looks like it may be the back end of a No32 (or a skimmed down No42 or 53), cut off at the level of the segment? If a No32 was cannibalised to make it then I would imagine it was a long time ago as I can't imagine anyone in their right mind destroying one now, even for a project like this.

There was a mount like that for sale on ePay earlier this year, and there was a discussion about it here. I cant find the thread, but i did find this pic on another website. From the details, the owner was putting together No 4(T) clone. I believe this was the same mount that was for sale earlier this year. Very similiar to the set-up deing discussed here.

I post this only for discussion purposes, and not to offend or irriatate anyone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Claven2

If I can't find any proof that points to option No.1, it will get sold as No.2. Either way, it will get sold - the owner is not a collector - I just don't want my buddy to let a potentially significant treasure go cheaply to some local hunter for a nothing price to do time on a cut-down deer rifle.

---

Thing is, as you admit, no-one knows. Selling it as 'no.2' without someone coming forward who can prove it either way would be somewhat disingenuous as you don't know. If you're a well known Lee Enfield expert and you sell something with no proof claiming it's a Canadian Arsenals prototype I would suggest you might potentially harm your reputation. The safest thing is sell the scope case and as for the rest.... bin it?

Thanks for the pic of the other mutilated mount, but this latter one is/was a British Rose Brothers example. The one Claven has shown is Canadian, so I think whilst they have both suffered a similar fate they are not one & the same.

I agree with you Prinz that it would be disingenuous to sell it as something it is not, but Claven only posted the thread yesterday in the very hope that someone else may be able to shed some light on it. If it was mine I wouldn't rush to do anything with it for a while. But that's just my two cents' worth.

In my view it is the scope itself that is potentially interesting, not the bracket & scope tin.



P.S. Apologies SMLE addict. I thought you were saying in your post above that the mount you showed a picture of & Claven's were one & the same. On re-reading your posting you aren't - sorry - mea culpa!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Warren

The last odd ball that showed up a couple of years ago had clues to the manufacturer inside the scope. It was easy to see the components were made by REL

---

Warren although you mention the clue was inside was there anything to date it to the 1940's ??

The company was only in business during the war and shortly thereafter.
Usually you can find a clue or a re-cycled component that is the giveaway.
How are things with you ???

I phoned the shop and the owner pulled off the brass front fitting. It is threaded on hand-tight, but beneath it is a traditional slotted lens nut that would have to be removed to get at a lens edge.

I'm beginning also to wonder if it started life as a No.32, 42, or 53 tube. The fact the front half of the scope is 60 thou smaller in diameter than the rear might point to markings having been turned off of it. The section where the turrets are mounted is recessed similarly to a No.32.

Still not sure what to make of it. It could be a talented machinist was trying to turn a surplus No.32 scope into a more easily adjusted hunting scope back in the 1950's. But I'm just speculating.

As for ethics - this is not my scope. I don't own it and have not financial stake in it. I thought it would be fun to bring it out of the shadows and see if it can be attributed and help the owner out at the same time.

Sorry if I've offended anyone in doing so.

Sort of my thoughts from square one. A shaved tube and made from home made parts.
As I said, a bit of this stuff has shown up lately however most originated from the west coast region. When I opened the last one up I received for evaluation it was reasonably easy to pinpoint the components and possible maker.
There are some very talented machinists and optical people out there and some of what I have seen is just bloody brilliant to put it mildly. It is not rocket science.
Some is also horrible, but we won't go there. It is amazing what people will do to try and make a scope work, or at least appear to function and resemble a valuable scope.
I'd love to see the scope we are discussing and maybe then we can call it fish or fowl.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Warren

The company was only in business during the war and shortly thereafter.
Usually you can find a clue or a re-cycled component that is the giveaway.
How are things with you ???

---

Warren understand about REL but I was meaning if a scope has a few REL parts it doesn't necessary pin point it to an experimental scope or prove it was made in the 1940's.

I,m fine by the way.

Agree with the comments in post 23 and 24, being in a tool room for a small amount of time during my Apprenticeship some of the Fitters/Turners there were gods when it came to producing something off the cuff, one was a Model Engineer enthusiast also so you can imagine his passion for the job, a small lathe and miller or milling attachments for the lathe and the skill and patience the world is your oyster.

I have a friend in Ontario that retired as the Senior Armourer in the RCEME in the 1970's. He's in his 80's now and still a wizard of a machinist. He was building a miniature working 155 howitzer in .45-70 the last time we had a visit a couple of years ago. His son also retired as the Senior Armourer in the RCEME in the 1990's and is every bit as talented. He world for Colt Canada now as an Engineer and designed/product improved the British L119SFW. They do amazing work!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Warren

Sort of my thoughts from square one. A shaved tube and made from home made parts.
As I said, a bit of this stuff has shown up lately however most originated from the west coast region. When I opened the last one up I received for evaluation it was reasonably easy to pinpoint the components and possible maker.
There are some very talented machinists and optical people out there and some of what I have seen is just bloody brilliant to put it mildly. It is not rocket science.
Some is also horrible, but we won't go there. It is amazing what people will do to try and make a scope work, or at least appear to function and resemble a valuable scope.
I'd love to see the scope we are discussing and maybe then we can call it fish or fowl.

---

Can you shed a bit more light on this work Warren; my curiosity is aroused and I'm sure others as well!?

---------- Post added at 01:42 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:37 PM ----------

Looking at this again, the sunshade was probably a later add-on in an attempt to make it look more military or "official" in origin. If the original builder had added it, he probably would have cleaned off the fugly old paint, but why would he bother with one of those anyway, since they are generally agreed to have been mostly a liability to the user and the scope (corrosion).

Caps may be reversed and what's with that great big gap between the ring and the tube?

These may be completely unrelated parts from some estate that were slapped together to put on the market.

Attachment 58629Attachment 58630

From the design of the adjustment mech. it looks like the smaller knob is simply to lock the elevation/lead screw rather than adjust for windage, which suggests this scope was built for a windage adjustable mount, not this one!

I can answer that! I played with the adjustments and the windage knob is functional - it's not a lock. The reticle moves in both axes when the respective knobs are turned. The elevation turret is marked whith a "0" over a hash line, but no other rangi9ng marks are present, leading me to believe it was never tuned to a caliber or load.

Looks like someones tried to convert a turret-less No42 or 53 to take some mickey mouse turrets. Loads of similar conversions were sold in the UK by all sorts during the 50's. I had one apart a few months ago and it was............... Anyway. Not to my liking. So crap, I could hardly get it back together so I just used the spare optics.

Just my thoughts after a cursory glance at it and saw alarm bells.

There was one particular trial No32 that hasn't appeared and that was a Mk1 (I presume) with a slide-to-focus erector as per the old Patt 18 system in order that snipers with less than perfect eyesight could be trained as snipers with the otherwise fixed focus No32. Documented as trialled at sniper school Bisley winter/spring 40/41

Not sure what to say, I no longer have access to the scope, so it may remain a mystery forever (?). Someone who saw the scope in this thread phoned the shop and bought the scope from its owner earlier today.

Maybe it may show up on ebay as an extremely rare prototype ..... authenticated by .... as the only one of a kind .... a must for any REL collector.

I'd like to think anyone who is a member here would not do that ;) At least, not unless they can later prove it.

Just a bit of light humour Claven2, I,ve just had my doubts from the beginning but thats just me....... I doubt it would be anybody here listing it on ebay but if its passed down the line a few times who knows...... thanks to you at least we have seen it, if it ever does re appear.

I've just had a good forensic look at the photos and apparent optical system and here's my point of view.

I think that this is a bog standard No42 or 53 telescope to start with as can be seen by the ocular end and sliding eye shade (photo 1). The actual body of the tube has been machined down to 1.00" from the usual 1.018'. All well so far, as it now fits (photo 2 and 3). BUT the No42/53 anti rotation stud gets in the way of the rear bracket cradle so the cradle has been bodged to suit or so dia to fit into the bracket (photo 8). Now, to make this look/act as/like a stop face a steel stop has been either sat atop the original anti rotation peg or the peg has been removed and screwed into the existing hole. (Ph.8) So far, so good.......... Keep up those at the back of the class...........!!!!!

What about the adjustable graticle assembly? Simple...... You split the tube at approx. the focal point of the grat and insert the grat assembly, modified to suit, from a cheap and cheerful telescope. Rotate the grat to correct way up (upside down in a No42 don't forget) so you don't need a) the erector or b) segment lock and cover, the remains of which have been removed during the cutting. None of us can really comment further on the erecting system although the original erector cell MIGHT be there, held by the stop block screw (photo 8)

As for the focus, that's simple too........ The new, spliced-on object glass assembly (most photos) is moveable longitudinally and this will give infinite focus of the image. There it is, a waste of time and something that in my limited experience in these things wouldn't last past the first bout of recoil

Peter, I bow to your superior knowledge, but it does seem like such a lot of effort and bother if the whole thing is ill conceived or not durable...? I have to ask: why?