Putting a scope on a No 4 Mk II

[David TS]

I've got a nice Irish contract 1954 Faz. I'm currently shooting it out to 600 yards with an AJP TZ 4/47 rear sight, but someone offered me a Fultons scope mount which I bought last week so now need to find a scope for it.

I thought at first about a Tasco 4x20 as they are blued and it would look sort of period, but I probably wouldn't get enough elevation on it as i'd like to use it scoped out to 600 yards.

Do the Fulton's scope mounts have any inclination built in (20MOA or whatever), or are they parallel?

I've also looked at the Simmons White Tail Classic 1-5x20, but again wonder if it has enough elevation to go 600 yards with a 20mm tube.

I'm only scoping it for fun just to do something different so I don't want to put a Mk 32 on it, and I certainly don't want to spend that sort of money, nor do I want to try and turn it into some sort of No 4 (T) fake. With the Fultons mount I can put it back to standard in five minutes

Any suggestions from the collective?

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.

[spinecracker]

The Fulton's scope mount is parallel. I am experimenting with Burris signature Zee rings, which can be installed with different inserts to help align the scope to the rifle without using up all of your windage and elevation, and it seems that they can add sufficient inclination to allow for long range shooting. They seem to get good reviews. As for scopes, I've have reasonably good luck with Tasco, and have just bought a Tasco world class 3-9x40 scope with a mildot reticle for my 1941 Long Branch. We shall see how she does.

[Peter Laidler]

Unless I am missing something, then surely, as the Fulton scope mount is articulated at the rear, then it can be raised slightly by the use of shim(s) where it meets the bridge charger guide. When it's raised, then the taper clamping block will pull it down of course, but only to the position allowed by the shim.

If the optical geometry is the wrong way, then lowering the mount should be achieveable by removing metal in the same way.

Don't forget that an optical sight graticle is always treated as a foresight so to get more range/increase the range, you lower the grat which will cause you to raise the muzzle and so on. But that well made and thought out mount should allow for a degree of adjustment if you'll excuse the pun!

[David TS]

Thanks for your input chaps. I've bought a secondhand Simmons WTC 1-5x20 today, cheap enough at £55 posted to have a play about with

I'll mount the Fulton's mount and then have a play around to see how I can get it to incline downwards a bit.

The Burris Zee rings are a good idea, i'll hold that in reserve.

[jss]

When using one of these Fultons mounts, does it mean having to fit a sniper cheekpiece and thus having to drill the Butt?.

[spinecracker]

I use a cheekrest that can be strapped in place. It works and comes off easy enough.

[Thunderbox]

When using one of these Fultons mounts, does it mean having to fit a sniper cheekpiece and thus having to drill the Butt?.

Frankly, none of the mounts are much good unless you use very low-profile rings & scope. People tend to put a large scope onto a Fultons/Armalon mount, and then find that they need a large cheekpiece or a target butt to get any sort of sight picture. This rig then becomes unwieldy, with some people mistaking severe scope cant for "my rifle doesn't shoot straight", before going on to the next stage of fitting a Harris stud & bipod..... which then brings in to play the No4s sensitivity to sling/support points.... etc. I've had a number of scoped No4s in, p-ex'd because they were "no good" - only to find perfectly good rifles once tested in their bare iron sight configuration.

[jss]

Frankly, none of the mounts are much good unless you use very low-profile rings & scope

So are rings and scope available for use with these mounts which are so low that they avoid the need for a heightened cheekpiece at all, or will it always be necessary to add a raised cheekpiece of some sort?.

[David TS]

Frankly, none of the mounts are much good unless you use very low-profile rings & scope. People tend to put a large scope onto a Fultons/Armalon mount, and then find that they need a large cheekpiece or a target butt to get any sort of sight picture. This rig then becomes unwieldy, with some people mistaking severe scope cant for "my rifle doesn't shoot straight", before going on to the next stage of fitting a Harris stud & bipod..... which then brings in to play the No4s sensitivity to sling/support points.... etc. I've had a number of scoped No4s in, p-ex'd because they were "no good" - only to find perfectly good rifles once tested in their bare iron sight configuration.

That's why I have gone for a scope with only a 20mm objective - partly because it will look the closest to a No 32 (in profile, whilst looking nothing like it), and partly so I can fit the lowest mounts possible

Trust me, mine will be going nowhere near a bipod

[David TS]

The issue of putting a scope on my No 4 Mk II seems to have gone away.......I seem to have just bought a BSA 1944 No 4 (T), refurbed by Dr Roger Payne, and scope refurbed by Capt Laidler

Anyone like to buy a nice '54 Fazakerley Mk II?