S&K 1370 scope mount on #1 Mk.III

[xlman]

Hey, i have a 1923 GRI Ishapore III that i'd like to try scoping with the S&K Insta-mount #1370 that accepts weaver rings. Anybody in here have/install them? Seems like a nice way to go scope or back to iron without drilling the receiver. Thanks.

Information

Warning: This is a relatively older thread This discussion is older than 360 days. Some information contained in it may no longer be current.

[Brian Dick]

Sorry to be negative but they are a load of crap. There really is no decent SMLE no-gunsmithing type scope mount on the market. I've bought, sold and installed them all over the years and refuse to inventory any of them anymore.

[Peter Laidler]

I agree but I'd have used a few more choice words that the politically correct and gentlemanly Brian!

[xlman]

Ooo-k, ... guess i got 2 NFW's (ha,ha). I've heard good about the S&K mount that i pointed out (having a receiver ring). But, If you guys say they wont hold zero, i'll believe ya because i've got some good info from other posts on this site. Thanks and additional specific input is welcome.

[Surpmil]

There is a scope scope mount sold on eBay that replaces the SMLE rearsight base. It is made in aluminum, but does have a better chance of being collimated to the bore than the receiver mounts.

It does require driving out the pin holding the base and driving off the foresight block to remove that from the barrel, so it is not something you just take on and off as you can a No.4 S&K/Fultons/Armalon mount.

[xlman]

Surpmil, thanks for your info but, i believe that is the (forward) barrel mount that uses a long eye relief and IMHO is a butt ugly placement (LOL). I prefer the reciever mount (and i can machine). Believe me, i REALLY appreciate all and any suggestions from the members here. I'm a retired machinist/fabricator but still the furthest thing from a know-it-all. Always willing to learn.

[Brian Dick]

That's why I apologized first Peter! I've had them shear off because the little aluminum recoil plate at the back that fits on the charger bridge had to be filed so thin in order to fit. They do have to be fitted carefully and it's not exactly a no-gunsmith mount either in my humble opinion as the forend has to be relieved for the front band and base filed to fit.

[xlman]

Good info guys!

[Surpmil]

Surpmil, thanks for your info but, i believe that is the (forward) barrel mount that uses a long eye relief and IMHO is a butt ugly placement (LOL). I prefer the reciever mount (and i can machine). Believe me, i REALLY appreciate all and any suggestions from the members here. I'm a retired machinist/fabricator but still the furthest thing from a know-it-all. Always willing to learn.

Yes, they cannot be described as anything but functional! I've got a few of the S&K mounts here but have never fitted one oddly enough. You could reproduce it in steel with some lightening holes and cuts probably.

The problem is of course that the surfaces it is attached to on the charger bridge and receiver ring are not consistently surfaced/located, with the possible exception of the inside faces of the charger bridge.

And as Brian said, the wood needs to be relieved.

[Peter Laidler]

Anything that is made to be screwed or in any other way fixed (except by welding.........) to a No1 or a No4 breeching up ring is a candidate for failure. The radial surface that by definition will take away the first thread - and same as the last thread - and minimal thickness for the remaining screw thread is poor craftsmanship and engineering standards