No.42 Scope

Hi,
Can anyone tell me the date at which the No.42 scope went into production?
I am trying to bottom out the mythology around its supposed use in Aux. Unit and SOE .22 ‘sniper’ rifles. I appreciate the arguments (not least from Peter Laidler on this Forum) on how poorly it would have performed. The famous illustration showing a No.42 on a ‘silenced’ Winchester 74 from a supposed ‘SOE manual’ is also now known to be a mock-up of 1991. I also suspect Parker Hale might have knocked some up out of war surplus to make an impressive-looking rifle for post-war sales. Nonetheless, its use on the Winchester 74 has been reported from four, possibly five, Aux Unit patrols and cannot, I think, be dismissed simply as ‘false memory syndrome’. I wonder if it might have been briefly issued as part of a trial - ultimately unsuccessful for obvious reasons (incapable of adjustment beyond what was on the PH mount) in the later war period. Does anyone, therefore, know when the No.42 sight might first have been available?
Malcolm

Although i do not have the information on when production began, the earliest dated example i have seen is 1942.

On a side note, i have seen a No.42 with a post and rail which appeared to be original as the sealing putty was still present around the lenses on both ends. I have only ever seen one in this configuration which from memory the illustration in question implies it had post and rail.

Many thanks for response. The suggestion of 1942 is useful as the main run of rifles was made up in March 1942 and began distribution in April. I thought the No.42 scope might have been later. My No.42 also has a post and rail.

Post and rail No.42's are very rare, its usually just a vertical wire.

I have H.B.M.C S/N 1674 with crosshairs.

As there was nothing else on hand, presumably the No42 was an option, though of course the real problem was that the PH rings it is shown as set up in had no provision for adjustment!

So unless PH worked some magic when setting them up (if indeed they did), it would be a case of finding out where the MPI was for your particular rifle and then remembering to hold off the point of aim as required!

Better than nothing?

The whole idea suggests an afterthought as when the rifles were bought from the USA, some sort of commercial scope and mounts could have been ordered for them, not to mention the obvious Maxim silencers.

My No.42 sight with post and crossrail is marked
TEL STG No. 42 Mk1.
H.H.S. O.S. 617. GA.
Reg. No. 5269

Don’t know if this helps with date?

I have a Winchester 74 with a No.42 scope fitted. It has the vertical post and single cross-hair. The Parker Hale mounts do have provision for windage adjustments so it is quite straightforward to zero. There are two zero points for elevation - the first where the bullet crosses the line of sight and the second when the bullet passes back through that line of sight. The crossing points are partly determined by the height of the sights above the bore. I have a pre-war Mauser .22 with high mounts/rings so that the bolt handle clears the scope. The crossing points are 25 yards and 50 meters. Quite handy when shooting on an indoor range and then taking it outside for running boar. I can see that the Winchester 74/No.42 combination would have been very effective and quite sturdy.

Pictures or it doesn't exist!!

Be nice to see it please...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nigel

I have a Winchester 74 with a No.42 scope fitted. It has the vertical post and single cross-hair. The Parker Hale mounts do have provision for windage adjustments so it is quite straightforward to zero. There are two zero points for elevation - the first where the bullet crosses the line of sight and the second when the bullet passes back through that line of sight. The crossing points are partly determined by the height of the sights above the bore. I have a pre-war Mauser .22 with high mounts/rings so that the bolt handle clears the scope. The crossing points are 25 yards and 50 meters. Quite handy when shooting on an indoor range and then taking it outside for running boar. I can see that the Winchester 74/No.42 combination would have been very effective and quite sturdy.

---

I’d love to see some photos of the Winchester 74/No.42!

I had these photos saved of a No53 set up in PH rings and indeed as you say Nigel, there is a windage provision in one ring. Whether the other ring pivoted or just "did the twist again" as per many continental claw mounts I can't tell! :D

Probably NOT a military assemblage, given that the No53 can't have appeared before late 1943 or early 1944 from its once piece ocular lens cell.

Have seen photos of the Winchester .22s with No42 or 53 scopes on them, but don't seem to have saved any.

Previous discussion here: https://www.milsurps.com/showthread.php?t=65366

Much more detailed info here: https://www.rifleman.org.uk/Winchest...er_rifles.html

Though the purported SOE manual is indeed good for a :lol: !

The Winchester shown with an A5 or B4 scope fitted at the bottom of that section might suggest that the logical step of ordering the scopes as well as the rifles may in fact have been carried out? Though by WWII Winchester had long since sold their scope designs to Lyman.

Somewhat tangential, but there is a reference in Clive Law's Without Warning to "General Currie" [G.O.C. Canadian Corps] requesting the issue of silenced .22 automatics for snipers. Given the apocryphal references to "whispering death" in regard to the use of silencers by snipers in France in WWI, one wonders if in fact some such rifles were used there, and were the origin of these tales?

I'm not at home at the moment so can't take pictures of my rifle but here are some of one of a member's rifle that was previously posted on this forum. Also a picture of the cardboard tube that housed the 53 scopes (it doesn't have a date on it). As a matter of interest where and when was it that the SOE catalogue entry for the scoped Winchester 74 was debunked as a myth? I know that the IWM does have two catalogues - I can't imagine that someone reprinting them would want to insert a spurious entry about a rifle that very few people would know anything about in the first place. Somewhere I have a copy in the ledger for the 660 rifles that were converted by Parker Hale - I'll dig it out when I get home.

The rifle in the picture from an earlier post is mine.
The "Highwoods Fertilisers book" is original. It does not mention anything about firearms.
It does however tell you in its 42 pages how to blow all sorts of stuff up.
I purchased the rifle, book, shoulder flashes, revolver and medal from the son of a known
"stay behind".
Their hide is still visible in the woods just north of Rye in Sussex.
There was talk that the patrol Tommy gun is still around so hopefully one day!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nigel

I'm not at home at the moment so can't take pictures of my rifle but here are some of one of a member's rifle that was previously posted on this forum. Also a picture of the cardboard tube that housed the 53 scopes (it doesn't have a date on it). As a matter of interest where and when was it that the SOE catalogue entry for the scoped Winchester 74 was debunked as a myth? I know that the IWM does have two catalogues - I can't imagine that someone reprinting them would want to insert a spurious entry about a rifle that very few people would know anything about in the first place. Somewhere I have a copy in the ledger for the 660 rifles that were converted by Parker Hale - I'll dig it out when I get home.

---

The purported SOE manual is IMHO obviously a cut-and-paste job: the fonts are wrong, the definition is too good, the graphics are pinched from old manuals, the photo would be very unlikely, the text itself is the sort of thing one would find in the most "general interest" book on small arms and is just plain "wrong" for a publication of that type and time, even if one makes the unlikely assumption that S.O.E. ever published such manuals! If they did I suspect it would much more likely be in French.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 303 Collector

The rifle in the picture from an earlier post is mine.
The "Highwoods Fertilisers book" is original. It does not mention anything about firearms.
It does however tell you in its 42 pages how to blow all sorts of stuff up.
I purchased the rifle, book, shoulder flashes, revolver and medal from the son of a known "stay behind".

---

Very interesting, thanks for that explanation. Clever how the cover of the booklet gives nothing away about the contents.

I came across this about a month ago! If you look at an image of the supposed page from the ‘SOE Manual’ as originally captioned in rifleman.org, you will note an asterisk on the title ‘Sniper’s rifle with silencer*’. I ignored that * for years and the editor from rifleman.org can’t track down who originally sent the info But in the Intro to the original point of publication (Melton’s ‘OSS Weapons’ (1991)) it clearly states ‘ Using the [OSS] 1944 catalog as a base, I have updated it to include weapons .. that were being designed and produced up to the very end of the war.... The presence of an asterisk following the item’s name will indicate that this page has been added to update the original 1944 publication’. I have checked the 1945 OSS catalogue and it does not appear there. The book was written before the internet meant that illustrations could be copied without context far and wide. So far, there are 4-5 Aux Units patrols who reported using Win74 and only 2 with No.42 scope - possibly as a trial as one patrol then reported exchanging the No.42 temporarily with a No.32 (which proved too heavy). No evidence that this was a standard configuration and it does not appear in any known Aux Units record (where the only specific record of issue is to Winchester 69).
I do not know where the SOE link came from. Were surviving examples so unusual that it was thought only SOE would use it?!!! There is a distinct risk that Parker Hale made some up, at least, post war from war surplus for commercial resale in the late 1960s/1970s and many ended up in the USA. So if anyone has ever seen reference to the rifle with No.42 scope in an SOE document, or know of its use in the field then I would be very pleased to hear of it.

The SOE link for a silenced .22 may come from the De Lisle Carbine that was built as a .22 during it's initial development then obviously changed to the .45 before production started.

Personally I wouldn't be too confident about getting a kill shot with a .22!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 30Three

Personally I wouldn't be too confident about getting a kill shot with a .22!

---

I agree! And its also for that reason i don't believe it was a legitimate SOE sniping rig.
For the caliber of the rifle it is hardly compact and i don't believe you would be in the field with essentially a training round.

All previous SOE weapons other maybe a palm pistol are usually 9mm or other enemy calibre so ammo can be obtained over enemy lines. Certainly during WW2 there is zero chance of finding .22, and that is the reason the Inglis Hi Power and Welrod were 9mm.

---------- Post added at 06:03 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:55 PM ----------

This is worth a look, about ⅔ down the page it details the rifle in question and agree's they were more than likely for training purposes.

https://www.rifleman.org.uk/Winchest...er_rifles.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 30Three

The SOE link for a silenced .22 may come from the De Lisle Carbine that was built as a .22 during it's initial development then obviously changed to the .45 before production started.

Personally I wouldn't be too confident about getting a kill shot with a .22!

---

I wouldn't underestimate the .22 It is a favourite for "wet affairs" with certain secret services, and would be quite deadly at 200 yards or more if well placed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Surpmil

I wouldn't underestimate the .22 It is a favourite for "wet affairs" with certain secret services, and would be quite deadly at 200 yards or more if well placed.

---

Interesting results from your research - but the essential points to bear in mind in the possible operational use of the .22 rifle by the Auxiliaries was that they were expected to operate principally at night and if using a rifle to take out a sentry, who unlike your turkey target might be moving, it had to be a kill on the first shot. Add to that equation a scope you couldn’t fully adjust and it does not seem a reliable option! Incidentally their inter-patrol competition shoots were at only 20yds which I think gives an indication of the anticipated useful range- essentially they may have been a token stopgap until arrival of the .32 suppressed Welrod.