Are reproduction no.32 scopes any good?

[jonh172]

Wow!
I thought this thread was dead the day after I started it!

Thanks to everyone who responded!
A nice no.4mk1T clone in 308 came up with repro scope and mount and I almost bit until I looked back here.

So again, thanks everyone for convincing me to get the real deal and be true to myself as well as the rifle being built!

Jon

[jmoore]

I agree with all the comments especially B.D and P.L summation of the rifle getting a scope and the repro's ~ imagine this you save like crazy to get the car of your dreams 2nd hand its a bit daggy so you send it away to a reputable mechanic and panel beater to have it returned to as near as possible to the day it left the factory but the bank balance suffered a tad and dollars are short. So you decide instead of placing say the factory recommended tyres maybe Pirellis you decide that a set of Yokahamas will suffice as you wish to drive it rather than wait to have the top tyre. You decide one day to test the car and the tyres give to much under steer and you miss a bend and plant it into the bush sad day for all........

The moral of this is whilst it is very tempting to perhaps put a scope which looks like a 32 it will never ever be a 32 because I am sure the factory producing them has not torture tested nor had wars to try and see the how much abuse the scope will take before failure, finally you feel sad because the car is back with the mechanic and he feels bad because all their hard work went out the window.

.

May not be the best analogy as I won my class regularly after a couple of years dialing in an old Mustang using Yokohama A008s when I was doing the SCCA thing.

But as for scopes, it's a hard call. If folk say the current repros are poo, then move along to something else! Weirdly, price isn't a good indicator as to serviceability with scopes. I've a pile of wretched scopes from US$1500 down that are worse than nothing! But some, such as the old Weavers mentioned are perfectly useful even though they can be had for under US$100. (The only "non No.32" scope I currently have on a No.4 Mk.1(T) is a Burris.) My Long Branch has been without scope for decades.

[Sentryduty]

I would like to see a side by side teardown and critical comparison of a modern reproduction and a genuine No.32 telescope, either in photos or video. Does such a thing exist?

[Peter Laidler]

It'd be a braver man than me to strip a repop down Darren. The optical principle isn't even the same......... well, it is, in as much as you see an enlarged image! Mind you, the down side is the while you see an image, the graticle or the image or both might be out of focus!........

[Lee Enfield]

I would like to see a side by side teardown and critical comparison of a modern reproduction and a genuine No.32 telescope, either in photos or video. Does such a thing exist?

https://www.milsurps.com/showthread.php?t=27180

[Ridolpho]

The optical principle isn't even the same......... .

Unfortunately the zeroing technique is! They seem to have reverse engineered that part perfectly. I have a Taiwanese repro on a fake T and, for me, the two serve a useful purpose. If I feel inclined to go do a little casual target shooting I can blaze away merrily without worrying that I'm wearing out one of my valuable, real T's. I payed about $500.00 (Can) for the repro scope and the fake T has very poorly installed pads but the combo is very accurate and has stood up to a couple of seasons of shooting.

Ridolpho