What's the concensus on the quality of the repro No32 MkI scopes I see for sale e-sarco and a few other places?
Printable View
What's the concensus on the quality of the repro No32 MkI scopes I see for sale e-sarco and a few other places?
I think the consensus was they weren't worth the powder to blow them to crap...
Does anyone make a good repro?
I know there was lots of chat about these here in the forums reference #4T rifles, you can probably glean more there than I can tell you. I don't think I'd trust a repro. A miss match stray would be what I'd look for. Costs more but works right.
Seems the cost of a real no32 scope is hovering around $1800+... Considering I'm looking at having a fake no4 (T) built as a shooter, it doesn't make much sense in spending that kind of money on a real scope. What other scope options do shooters use in the no32's stead?
Someone needs to convince Hi Lux/Malcolm to build no32 repro scopes. I have an M82 fake from them for my 1903a4-gery and couldn't be happier.
I know someone who has been asked to repair 4 or 5 of the repro scopes that were a tad newer than the old original ones. He's had a few years experience with all manner of optical instruments and has failed with 4 of the five. That alone has convinced me.
Its always a catch 22 when building something like a No4T, but if you take the cost of the repro scope and the resale value compared to an original and the resale value then the the repro is negative equity as soon as you buy it.Quote:
Originally Posted by amadeus76
The other thing is the amount of repro's that have needed repair when you compare the original......... which will probably plod on until you can't see through it or suffers accidental damage.
Okay I will use diplomacy if a real No.32's were tough enough to be parachuted out of a plane during the war and they did not have really good chutes then like they do today, with the scope banging into the dirt or where ever then attached to the rifle and still being on the money as far as tracking wise of course the resistance end user will have to sight it in but it speaks volumes for their robustness.
Thing is its fine to have a faker and if you tire of your sniper faker the No.32 (real one) will command even more as they will increase in value as a re-sale but the repro 32 well someone may pay you to keep it.
When a sage offers their experience with these repro's I would listen or why not instead of a No.32 do the faker up to be like a LB sniper with the Weaver scope even something that looks similar would suffice your being open about it being a faker so who cares if it is not quite there with the weaver it is in the spirit of the thing.
Thanks Paul its Lyman my error but you get the drift hunt for something that looks like that with a post reticle if you desire (Should open my books more just lazy)
Can you expand on this? I wasn't aware that any of the No4 (T) rifles ever used anything except for the no32 scopes. What would the correct Weaver scope be?Quote:
Originally Posted by CINDERS
Amadeus. Follow this link
https://www.milsurps.com/content.php...)-Sniper-Rifle
I have read the opinions and i have a genuine no4t, my veiw is a bit different, using a repro for feild use so an original doesnt get damaged.
I also have two of the repros both in brackets, both had problems with turrets. One for use on my no4t the other an L42a1 replica.
After repair no issues with either with 100's of rounds downrange. In fact the 308 has close to a k or more, they are clear and also have backlash issues. Apart from that my experience is they are ok.
Mmmmmmmm. I think that you've said it all HESH! After repairs....... and backlash issues and you only use them to preserve the originals. So that's all OK then? I'd say use the originals to save the repro's. You can fix the originals. But that's only my opinion
Quote:
Originally Posted by H.e.s.h
That would tell me what I wanted to know then. Firsthand experience.Quote:
Originally Posted by H.e.s.h
The idea of "Field use", we're talking about using them on a range. Normal shooting shouldn't harm anything if it's worthy. The real #32s won't go to pieces with regular shooting. Well, they might...they're only 70 plus years old.
Sounds like I might be better off looking for an old Weaver K3 then. They're not accurate, but they're still CMP legal.
Save twice and buy once is what my old mum used to tell us kids. We know for a fact, from this forum that there are old tatty No32's out there, unrecognised, unloved and unwanted. Just waiting to be found and restored. Just bide your time.....
I get that, but it isn't saving twice. It's saving 4-5 times over what the repro goes for. In the mean time is there any legitimate reason not to get an old K3 for $75 as a place holder?Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Laidler
Side question since the repro scopes seem to be questionable at best and junk at worst... What about the pads and mounts you see sold by the same vendors?
Peter , there is a fellow on Gun Broker today that has a overhauled Mk3 scope built in 1946 ?? . And you had overhaul it for him , He is asking $1800.00 or $1900.00 . or some thing along those lines . Gun Broker auction #657751269 .
Lots of issues here- like will the user actually be doing a lot of shooting with the outfit or is he really just looking for an affordable T replica that is mainly to look at and may only fire 50 rounds a year. Another issue- does one really want to use their real T and No. 32 for a lot of casual shooting of the sort I see the SKS boys doing at the range? I have two real T's/ No. 32's and love to drag them to the range for some careful target work or to a semi-formal military shoot, but I also have a T replica (fake) with a Taiwanese Mk I replica scope that saves wear and tear on my valued and cherished real ones. The fake T turns out to be a very accurate rifle, particularly with a $100 Weaver K3 on it which allows me to limit the wear and tear on the Taiwanese replica. perhaps part of the problem with the replica scope is price- I payed $600, for mine, directly to the fellow that imported a number of them. That's about $400 US and seems like the right price to me. The bigger importers are probably marking them up more than they should and as soon as they start to move into the same order of magnitude as a real No. 32 their junky nature makes them a poor choice.
Ridolpho
We've established that this part is as important if not more...the foundation. If the foundation is out of whack because of poor casting, you won't hit a flock of barns. You may not even find it...Quote:
Originally Posted by amadeus76
That would work, specially since that sort was actually used.Quote:
Originally Posted by amadeus76
And there you go...Quote:
Originally Posted by Ridolpho
Are there any vendors you would recommend?Quote:
Originally Posted by browningautorifle
To be honest, if I was going to do it, I'd use real parts...cast off. Still, the way I understand, they have to be regulated, or calibrated...however you want to say it. When they were done originally they were done and serialized for a reason. That's why some just use the screwless mounts to make a #4 shooter and don't try to make it look like a proper #4T. Like a "B square" for lack of a better example. There IS a UK site that produces what I think are real parts, though they're aftermarket for sure. We've discussed them here before...
Mount... Fultons of Bisley - SCOPE MOUNTING BRACKET FOR SCHMIDT AND BENDER L13A1 SR1
I know we had the blocks somewhere too...made in the UK I think.
You could make your own and fit them - or use some of the other repro stuff BUT........ Whatever you do or use you have GOT to make sure that they are fitted in accordance to the instructions written for the forum several years ago. And remember this. It is the BRACKET that is fitted to the rifle and not the telescope. It's the BRACKET that has to me collimated exactly mechanically to the bore
Or you can't hit sh*t...Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Laidler
Can i add that since repair the repro scopes track well, my concern with using the real one isnt wear and tear.
I was more concerned with damage or worse, theft. We use comunal racks for storage on the range, suffice to say i always keep any eye on my rifle. Hard to replace seeing the scope has already made one trip back across the pond for some attention by someone skilled.
I hear or rather read a lot of things about reproduction no.32 scopes,most of it isn't favourable-whilst others think they're the sunshine & lemons of the optics world.
You've asked for advice,it's been given,so it's your choice.
I'd say if you were going to build a no.4t on the cheap,go for it & tell us how it pans out.
Or you could hold off & save for a genuine no.32 scope,buy one of Roger's bracket's,purchase a scopeless Savage T & have Brian recalibrate the pads to mount your scope & viola!
Semi-instant gratification.