Printable View
Hello all,
My first post!
Great forum esp knowledge library.
My rifle is a Parker Hale No4 MK2 with a Ball Burnished Barrel and is a very good shooter.
I need help with a AK&S no32 mk3 scope serial number 16947, its mount has small dimples in the centre of the knurled attachment bolts and no number on mount apart from the clamp matching numbers.
Tedd
Hello Tedd,
Welcome to the forum. Are you hoping to fit the scope to your rifle, or are you just interested in knowing more about your scope & bracket out of general curiosity? Photo's would help a great deal here, but your scope is a very early Mk3 & I suspect it will be 1944 dated. Are there any other markings on your scope mount such as N92 (near the front) or JG or KD (on the side approximately in the middle)? If there is no rifle serial on the mount then it has either been cleaned off or the scope & mount left military service not long after WW2.
Photo's would no doubt prompt a lot more comments.
Best.
The rifle number on the bracket was not a given, even into the L42/L1A1 era. Generally speaking we would only bother to number the bracket if the telescope was taken out of it. Not while it was still in the bracket because that was asking for trouble!!!!! That is because at that very point of removing the tele from the bracket, the numerical line between THAT rifle and THAT bracket was lost. And in the real world, it was the BRACKET that was matched to the rifle.
I am aware of telescope 16947
Hello,
There are no marking on the mount apart from clamp stamping (17K and 18K), date is 1944.
No i am not going to mount it on my Parker Hale, i think i would be better to find a 1944 no4 mk1 for mounting as mk2s never had no32 scopes fitted. A "T" rifle would be even better, even a "T" receiver to build a new rifle on would do!!
Tedd
Scopeless 4T's are out there, you just have to be a little patient........(& I'll leave the subject of collimating the bracket to pads to Peter!!).......
Your probably not the only one Tedd who is looking for the remains or a reasonable priced No4 T, patience and keep your ear to the ground, I started out with the scopes first.... and had a long wait but worth it in the end, only problem is once one arrives you may start looking for an L42, then maybe a WW1 SMLE Sniper..... its a vicious circle.Quote:
Originally Posted by tedd
Added later: Didn't see Rogers post regarding Patience but is key regarding the search..
There was a scopeless No 4 on Guns International last week for $1,295.oo/US if I was not in Aussie I would have snapped it up make no mistake as it would take a year to get here with all the poohba importation laws. Heres the link World War II British No. 4 (T) Sniper Rifle
Saw this one on some other site not too long ago, can't recall where though. In light of the problems it has the price seems a bit steep to me.
Question for Peter Laidler - If I understand you correctly, a complete No. 4 MK. I (T) sniper equipment where everything matches EXCEPT the scope bracket could be quite correct as released back into service by an armourer. The armourer would not try to cancel an old rifle serial number on the bracket or stamp a new rifle serial number onto it unless there was a reason the remove the scope from the bracket.
i.e.
* Rifle serial number and bolt serial number match.
* Scope serial number matches scope serial number on small of grip
* No 8 Case markings match rifle serial number and scope serial number
BUT
* Scope bracket has a serial number of another rifle or no serial number.
* Rifle serial number (less letter prefix) stamped on ledge of top of butt, hidden when butt is installed into the socket.
[QUOTE=Peter Laidler;341438]The rifle number on the bracket was not a given, even into the L42/L1A1 era. Generally speaking we would only bother to number the bracket if the telescope was taken out of it. Not while it was still in the bracket because that was asking for trouble!!!!! That is because at that very point or removing the tele from the bracket, the numerical line between THAT rifle and THAT bracket was lost. And in the real world, it was the BRACKET that was matched to the rifle. ...
Unless I have missed something somewhere VH I thought it was reasonably priced flaking suncorite and a mismatched bolt are no big deal as it will always be a mismatch who ever buys it put that against the cost of a scoped T and really it is reasonably priced and they do offer a money back so that's not to bad. Plus a few dints in the wood is no biggy my T has a few dints and bumps who cares. I would like to see a pic of under the wrist to see if it has the S51 stamp or was this only done after the armourer had fitted the bracket and scope that was to remain with the rifle.TIA
|Seaforth......... Don't understand any of it! Can you clarify what you want me to answer in separate Q's otherwise the answer could take a page! In short, if a telescope is removed from an unnumbered bracket its parentage to THAT rifle is lost because the match is via the cross referenced tele and rifle number. Remove the tele from the bracket and any cross reference is lost. Now imagine the total chaos of 20 T rifles in a big workshop all being totally stripped on a bench and being rebuilt later. Yes, you can match the tele to the rifle from the paperwork. But you cannot match the most important part of the equation......... The bracket and rifle. So, if for any reason you have to remove the tele, you MUST number the bracket.
No, not as long as it's been fitted correctly it's no biggie but if it was just crammed in there willy nilly by joe blow it could be.Quote:
Originally Posted by CINDERS
All you need to do is read the description a bit closer or better yet look at the comb, no screw holes for a cheek rest. That butt has never been within 10 miles of H&H and I have my doubts about the rest of the wood without seeing more of it.Quote:
Originally Posted by CINDERS
And the butt is beech, not walnut.
Still think it's a bit much though, 'specially since I plundered onto a scopeless one today that's right as rain for considerably less.
I was intrigued to have a look to see what this scopeless 4T on the link is really like. I am pretty sure it's an original T but it has a lot of issues. The butt as VH said is clearly a replacement & is of beech not walnut; the muzzle looks to have been repainted with some black paint that has already flaked a lot & which clearly isn't suncorite; the woodwork has been sanded to within an inch of its life (look at the edges), & the front body pad has been removed & replaced at some point. The front one of the front pad screws looks to be a flat head to me, & the screw slots of the other two screws do not align with the centre punch marks. The ends of the screws were also milled off at H&H which is why they are so exactly flush with the inner body wall on unadulterated 4T's, yet these have been trimmed neatly but look to me to finish just a little short. (This is just what you would do if trimming them to length on a lathe prior to fitting, as you would not want to risk them being too long & fouling the travel of the bolt).
However, I think if it came at the right price it could make a nice restoration project. I'd enjoy working on it.
Just my tuppence worth of drivel, by the way!
ATB
Hello,
Any suggestions or pointers ref building a replica no4 "T" rifle on which to mount a no32 mk3
Tedd
There is an article in the Knowledge Library by Peter Laidler on building one, my only concern on these replica/repro builds are they are not done on a decent run of the milsurp, use a sporterized / target rifle or rebuilt No4 for the starting blocks, plenty of of them about.Quote:
Originally Posted by tedd
Think about the cost also, it does add up ....... Saving for the scope less No4T is the way to go.....I do understand the urge to fit your No32 scope to a rifle but you have the most expensive/ desirable part to start with in my opinion.
I was thinking of building a "shooter" rifle based on a no4 mk2 to mount my genuine no32 mk3 on, then when i manage to get a genuine "T" i can mount same scope and enjoy both worlds!!
Tedd
I may be able to help you out on that one Tedd, ever thought of a L8 (T)...?
I agree with RP's observations on the rifle but the things that I would be more worried about with that rifle would be functionality; is the throat worn, loose pads, FPP and condition of it, what wear and tear is on the cocking piece, has the crown been damaged, is the bore crisp without any rust patches from poor storage, has any attempt been made by bubba to re-bed the thing, is there any other damage to the working parts, CHS, whats the spring tension on the main spring like, are the draws stuffed (My T's were absolutely r**ted, been fixed), does the mag feed well & spring tension on the floor plate and so on, and it has the correct stamps I see it has the "s" and some marks on the flats but cannot really tell. I mean we have a 71 year old rifle here. Some may go on atheistics me I just like to know the bits that really count are all in good shape but I also agree that the stock should in good condition not warped or cracked who knows what happened to the butt, my '21 Lithgow has in the white fore stocks I do not know what happened to them who cares not me besides its a safe queen! Your just not going to get a pristine scopeless T in the grease with no blemishes for that price. BD6 may be a good option as well as right from the start you know who they are and what you get will be on the money.
It does not take long to strip a #4 down to check this stuff provided the seller will allow you to do that!
IMOO as long as the rifle measures up after being taken to a reputable gunsmith and a report made on its condition then we can only surmise on what the visual stuff presents us in the advert, it may be a heap of junk so move on but then again it could be a sleeper me I would get it checked over and go from there, a good haggle with a seller is always a good show..........
Thanks for the offer bigduke6 but i already have a Envoy.
Tedd
No worries Tedd, only mention it as I,ve had a No4 Mk 2 in 7.62mm for some time, It was sporterized but barrel wasn't cut, would be a good canvas for a repro build, but if you are looking for other bits let me know I,m having a good clear out at present just not enough hours in the day to complete some of my projects.... and shoot as well.
So the telescope number on the wrist of the butt was not considered sufficient reference to tie a a scope to a rifle, if the scope was separated from the butt? Even though the butts all(?) had the rifle and scope number stamped into them?
What proportion of No4(T)s and L42s would you say did not have numbered brackets Peter?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Laidler
Rob......... I'm now tearing my hair out now......... Yes, the tele number on the butt and tin was sufficient for everyday purposes. BUT the TELE is not matched to the rifle per se. It is the BRACKET with tele that is matched to the rifle. Take the tele out of the bracket and you can still match the tele to the rifle. BUT YOU CANNOT MATCH THE ALL IMPORTANT BRACKET TO THE RIFLE all. Especially if you are working on a bench full
Think about it...........
Hello all,
anybody got an idea of a fair price for a genuine No4 T action (was a sporter) rebuilt with a Walther barrel and new woodwork and fitted with a genuine scope?
Tedd
Tedd, is it now back in military trim?
Peter, I follow you absolutely, but you mentioned in an earlier post that it wasn't 'de rigeur' to serial the brackets, yet I've never seen a L42A1 with an unnumbered bracket. Did this happen commonly (not being numbered, I mean) in practice?
More hair pulling out.............. You'll find that on the L42's, they all(?) probably have the brackets numbered simply because you've got to take the tele out of the bracket to re-engrave the tube. It's nigh on impossible to get the old T-H engraving cutter head into the gap between the rear bracket cradle and the segment rings. And the tele had to go into a special jig to be engraved in any case. So on that basis alone, the important maxim applies. TELE OUT OF BRACKET, NUMBER BRACKET to retain parentage with rifle. And remember that while the rifles were being converted at RSAF, the telescopes were being converted at various Base Workshops around the Country.
........so in practice all brackets will be engraved, then?
I do believe I've finally got it!
Oh, I realize that the center axis of the bracket is (supposed to be) collimated to the center axis of the bore.Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Laidler
Just understood you to say that only the bracket was considered a valid record of the numbers for matching purposes.
It's a good thing we all speak the same lingo! ;)
Bracket not necessarily engraved DRP as they are difficult to hold in the engraving jaws. Simple and far quicker to just lightly number stamp the bracket. But don't try to change the Mk3 to L1A1 designation using stamps..........
It is a fact Robert that during the conversion to T spec at H&H, it was the final machining of the pads while fitted to the body that ensured the mechanical centre line or axis of THAT BRACKET that was collimated with the mechanical centre line or axis of the BORE of THAT rifle. Given that fact, any optically spun centred telescope could be fitted - or indeed changed for another during its long life. By all means change a telescope, and we occasionally did as required. But NEVER, never, ever change a bracket if you can help it.
I know the true experts disagree but I'm just saying it as H&H told me and as more experienced Armourers told likewise
Peter, yes, in reference to the brackets I should really have used the word 'marked' as that would have covered both engraving & stamping. I was just trying to get to the point that although it may not have been obligatory to mark the brackets with the rifle serial number in practice the situation amounted to that for L42's because all of the scopes had to be removed from their brackets in order to be 'metricated' & marked up as such.
Yes, it's a buXXer trying to hit those stamps directly above the erector cell lenses when converting a Mk3 tube to a L1A1. I must have broken half a dozen scopes before I twigged it wasn't a great idea.......;)
Tedd, at a rough guess, a new re-build around an original No 4(T) action would be roughly worth roughly around the £2,500 mark. Roughly.
In your experience of mating brackets to rifles Peter, what proportion roughly did you find collimated adequately "as found", and what proportion needed some adjustment of the mating surfaces?
If it meant telescopic optical alignment perfection, then I'd say all of them. If you mean how many were acceptable and could be adjusted optically via a quick tickle of the drums, then I'd say 10% - but that's just a guess. There was a bit more leeway in the range mode because by definition, the grat moves through 60 clicks/a greater distance down its travel from 0 -10 into the optical aberration zone. But it wasn't much. I'll have to look in the No32 EMER but I think that there was only a 5 or so click left or right leeway from absolute telescopic optical alignment for the azimuth or deflection mode
Thanks, I assume you only adjusted the rear mating surfaces on the brackets? I say that since the the front four surfaces appear to be impossible to modify and still retain the parallelism necessary for them to fit together without any play(?)
And would the pad surfaces be adjusted, or only the surfaces on the brackets? I'm assuming only the brackets, since they were a replaceable part?
Just think about it for a second Robert........, please - and keep it simple! First, what are these 4 mating surfaces of the front pad you mention? There are only two. Radially around the male part of the pad mounting spigot and radially around the female part of the bracket mating surface.
You adjust the front pad area to bring the mechanical/optical alignment of the tele and bracket to the right. Adjust the rear pad/bracket to bring the tele to the left. Packing or shimming out of a pad was NOT an option.
While we only dealt with service rifles, the same principles apply to making a repro which are fully detailed in the thread I wrote a year or so ago
Thanks Peter, by "four" I meant the two on the front pad and the two corresponding surfaces on the bracket.
The issue I was curious about was the fact that the front mating surfaces are not designed to allow any 'pivoting' thereon as they have to be exactly parallel to each other to even fit together do they not?
Anyway, it was just a tangential question on my part and the mechanics of adjustment those who are interested can probably visualize.
Tedds and my scope are only 253 units apart mine being the earlier of the 2