Looking for Input on my No. 32 Mk1 Optic

Hello,

I must start by saying I'm glad to be able to join another forum of knowledgeable people from across the globe. While I am not new to firearms collecting, I have avoided military surplus weapons as other areas piqued my interest more. However I recently acquired a No. 4 Mk 1 (T) from a widow of a elderly gentleman who had collected military weapons throughout the 1960s and 1970s. The rifle itself has been a rabbit hole of research, and I will be presenting what I know and asking for input on that in the near future.

What I have here is a Kodak Ltd produced No. 32 Mk 1 optic, serial 7169 with a date of 1941 on it. It is mated to a N92 Dalglish of Glasgow bracket with sequential serial numbers. The rifle serial on the mount is AN6092, denoting a 1943 BSA Shirley made rifle (which is mismatched from my 1945 BSA Shirley made rifle). The adjustments on the scope feel like a modern mid-range (1000-1500 dollars) tactical scope. I was amazed when I turned the knobs. However the scope was covered in 20+ years of dust and neglect. After a thorough cleaning, the glass still leaves a little to be desired by today's standards, but there have been a ton of advancements in optics over the past 77 years.

I guess my questions are: Is it feasible that this optic and bracket have been mated together since 1943, or is this too a mismatch? The staking job does not appear to have been messed with. However there does appear to be some grinding where the current serial number sits. I found several other examples of the 'grinding' like this 1941 Watson, although the rifle serial number seems a bit fishy for the time period 1941 Watson No.32 Mk1 Sniper Scope. I have read quite a bit, and understand that the Mk2 optics were introduced in April of 1943. I suppose it is plausible that a Mk1 optic made its way onto a mid 1943 produced (T). However my uncertainty is why I am asking.

I am also unsure of the "D" prefix in the scope bracket number. My somewhat limited research there has turned up nothing...does it denote 'damage'? The bracket sports quite a bit of pitting similar to what less honest dealers always attribute to "blood pitting". It actually does resemble the few legitimate examples I found on the internet. However I am skeptical. I know that many of these sat in storage for quite some time. The rifle this scope was attached to bears London Proof House marks and "England", suggesting that it was a 1954-1968 export to the US. *This rifle was not sold to me with any stories other than it sat in the safe as long as the widow could remember.

Any input and insight that you can give is greatly appreciated. Thanks!

Photo attempt #1

Yat Yas has shared 6 photos with you! | Flickr

Hello, & welcome to the forum. You've certainly picked a choice rifle to start your Enfield addiction!

The scope & bracket you have are clearly mis-matched to your BSA 1945 rifle, as you intimate. The question of whether the scope & bracket have always been together is a little more difficult to be dogmatic about. It is possible that they have always been together, but it is most unusual, in my experience, to find scopes (where dated) mated to later dated rifles. In practice, all genuinely matched British 4T's that I've seen (as far as I can remember) have been fitted with scopes made in the same year as the rifle, or made after the rifle. However, these are just my anecdotal observations, & there may be others that would dispute this. The scope & bracket could have been mated together as part of an ordnance replacement to a needy 4T, & the centre-punching of the screw slots could have taken place then. I can't be sure from your photo's if the very rough surface of your bracket is due to pitting that has been cleaned off (& the bracket does look rather as though it has been gently tickled at some point), or whether it is just a very rough casting. If the former, the cleaned up pitted surface would not be consistent with the very good exterior finish on the scope, supporting the possibility of them being mated together from different origins.

The 'D' prefix on the cradle clamps is just a letter prefix as commonly seen on Dalgleish produced brackets. They worked their way through the alphabet & just happened to have got to 'D' when your bracket was made.

Hope this helps a little.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Roger Payne

Hello, & welcome to the forum. You've certainly picked a choice rifle to start your Enfield addiction!

The scope & bracket you have are clearly mis-matched to your BSA 1945 rifle, as you intimate. The question of whether the scope & bracket have always been together is a little more difficult to be dogmatic about. It is possible that they have always been together, but it is most unusual, in my experience, to find scopes (where dated) mated to later dated rifles. In practice, all genuinely matched British 4T's that I've seen (as far as I can remember) have been fitted with scopes made in the same year as the rifle, or made after the rifle. However, these are just my anecdotal observations, & there may be others that would dispute this. The scope & bracket could have been mated together as part of an ordnance replacement to a needy 4T, & the centre-punching of the screw slots could have taken place then. I can't be sure from your photo's if the very rough surface of your bracket is due to pitting that has been cleaned off (& the bracket does look rather as though it has been gently tickled at some point), or whether it is just a very rough casting. If the former, the cleaned up pitted surface would not be consistent with the very good exterior finish on the scope, supporting the possibility of them being mated together from different origins.

The 'D' prefix on the cradle clamps is just a letter prefix as commonly seen on Dalgleish produced brackets. They worked their way through the alphabet & just happened to have got to 'D' when your bracket was made.

Hope this helps a little.

---

Mr. Payne, thank you very much for your assistance. I appreciate your confirmation on the scope and mount most likely being mismatched.