Curious No32 MkIII, answers on a post card please????

[Lee Enfield]

We are of course assuming the 'girth enhancement' of the tube was done at the same time & by the same source as the mods to the drums. The drum mods look fairly well done to me, but the back end looks like Bubba's work. Could it not have been used in Trials & then further got at at a later date by someone entirely different?

Looking at the oddities of the scope itself I came to the same conclusion.

[Simon]

Looking at the quality of the fixing of those rings onto the tube I suspect that the telescope had been bodged to fit into a larger dia. commercial bracket or set of rings. Simple to do at the front with a set of split parallel rings but not so simple at the rear where the start of the taper would cause a problem in the bracket or position of the rings

No trials team would have got away with that workmanship in my humble opinion.......

Peter,

Any chance you could clarify the above please?

You say the quality of the fixing of the rings on the tube makes you suspect its a bodge job, yet the half rings where soldered to the tube. A method of firmly fixing rings etc that is still employed to this day, and is good enough to cope with the recoil of African Safari rifles. I agree that to make a parallel set of rings for the front end of the tube is relatively straight forward and that as you also say, is not so simple a task for the rear. The half rings we're talking about are in this case are made for the rear of the scope, they don't just nearly match the taper of the Ocular bell either but perfectly match it. I beg to differ but I believe the level workmanship involved in internally turning the half rings to such tolerances is not the work of a Bodger but that of a skilled Engineer.

Gil,

Firm Rings? Sorry I don't understand your point there I'm afraid, as we are only speculating as to the intended purpose of the half rings.

---------- Post added at 05:06 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:00 PM ----------

We are of course assuming the 'girth enhancement' of the tube was done at the same time & by the same source as the mods to the drums. The drum mods look fairly well done to me, but the back end looks like Bubba's work. Could it not have been used in Trials & then further got at at a later date by someone entirely different?

Rog,

Agreed, but then are we now assuming that the "mods to the drums" are just that? Why is it so implausible that the scope was not manufactured from scratch like that? Let's not forget we are after all discussing a MkIII scope by Watson & Sons, a scope that was allegedly never manufactured in the first place.

[Roger Payne]

Simon,
I'm sorry I did not express myself very clearly. When I mentioned 'mods to drums' I was referring to the design being different to the standard Mk3 R&D assemblies, not that they were literally modified from the norm after manufacture. They may not have been modified as such but may have been made like that. Like you, one of the things that most aroused my interest in this scope in the first place & made me sceptical about the 'It's Israeli' school of thought is the very fact that it was made by Watson.

I still think the solder job on the 'sleeves' is a bit messy to have been done by the military, but the photo's, as good as they are, are not like possessing the real thing. Maybe you could bring it to the Motorbike Museum show if you're coming?

ATB

[Simon]

Rog,

I'm not saying that the half rings are a Military fitment but I also don't believe they are the work of "Bubba" either.

When is the Brum show?

Simon.

[Gil Boyd]

Simon,
It does to me, look like a professional job but I am probably in the minority, because I know the hours it would take to get to that level of quality, and afterall, what would you benefit from if they did not do the job on the scope.
Whoever, made them, they were in the know and probably wanted the versatility they bring. Armourers had their wild cannons so to speak and I often saw them "tinkering" with new ideas............common Peter is that not true?
My point was I would loved to have tried them before and after to see what my MPI would have been

[Roger Payne]

Simon, it's the 15th.

[Peter Laidler]

You asked for an elaboration. 2nd para of mine: I think that photos 1 and 2 of chapter 1/page 1 of this thread amply illustrate in pictures far better that I could describe in words why I think that the fitting of these rings are a bit of butchery! The actual machining of the rings might well be perfect and the idea well thought out but the application of the rings on the tube with a soft soldered joint like that are not, in my opinion, the work of any trials team that I have ever had the experience of working with. Just my view of course. Put another more subtle way....... Same meat, different gravy, but what would you say if I, say, replaced an ocular end on your needy/rusty telescope with a snotty joint like that

1st para of mine: Yes they WERE soldered to the tube, but what a mess! It's what a plumber might call a snotty joint - see above
And the same method might be employed on an Africal safari rifle Simon, but with the best will in the world and upping the humour a tad, an africal safari shooter ain't being shot back at! And as I often say, target and game shooters ain't and never will be snipers!
Oh, Simon, really........... Please take it from me and every other 1st year machine shop apprentice that turning an exact ratio internal taper on a 1" or so length of steel is definately NOT a graduate job or even a skilled operators job, believe me. It's one of your very FIRST taper turning lathe work exercises. Machine a morse taper die nut holder!. And even easier ESPECIALLY when you have the main tube there from which to quickly set-up, turn the tool post to suit the taper (using a DTI if you REALLY need to) and away you go. EXACT first time. Part-off, slit the collar and there you have it. 10 mts max and exact first time! Skilled, it definately ain't! Any machinists disagree with this simple explanation?

Nope............ The friction held drums do nothing better than the standard on the Mk3 and L1A1 scopes - as time has proved. The presumably after-market enlarged rear rings/collar are well thought out , well machined and may well do the job as I accept, But the workmanship of the application to the tube is crap. Others might think it's perfect but that's just my view of course!

[Simon]

Simon, it's the 15th.

Bugger!!! I can't make it.:@

---------- Post added at 07:28 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:27 AM ----------

You asked for an elaboration. 2nd para of mine: I think that photos 1 and 2 of chapter 1/page 1 of this thread amply illustrate in pictures far better that I could describe in words why I think that the fitting of these rings are a bit of butchery! The actual machining of the rings might well be perfect and the idea well thought out but the application of the rings on the tube with a soft soldered joint like that are not, in my opinion, the work of any trials team that I have ever had the experience of working with. Just my view of course. Put another more subtle way....... Same meat, different gravy, but what would you say if I, say, replaced an ocular end on your needy/rusty telescope with a snotty joint like that

1st para of mine: Yes they WERE soldered to the tube, but what a mess! It's what a plumber might call a snotty joint - see above
And the same method might be employed on an Africal safari rifle Simon, but with the best will in the world and upping the humour a tad, an africal safari shooter ain't being shot back at! And as I often say, target and game shooters ain't and never will be snipers!
Oh, Simon, really........... Please take it from me and every other 1st year machine shop apprentice that turning an exact ratio internal taper on a 1" or so length of steel is definately NOT a graduate job or even a skilled operators job, believe me. It's one of your very FIRST taper turning lathe work exercises. Machine a morse taper die nut holder!. And even easier ESPECIALLY when you have the main tube there from which to quickly set-up, turn the tool post to suit the taper (using a DTI if you REALLY need to) and away you go. EXACT first time. Part-off, slit the collar and there you have it. 10 mts max and exact first time! Skilled, it definately ain't! Any machinists disagree with this simple explanation?

Nope............ The friction held drums do nothing better than the standard on the Mk3 and L1A1 scopes - as time has proved. The presumably after-market enlarged rear rings/collar are well thought out , well machined and may well do the job as I accept, But the workmanship of the application to the tube is crap. Others might think it's perfect but that's just my view of course!

Thanks Peter,

I'm not saying that the mounts have anything at all to do with a trials team. Conversely though whoever produced them must have had at least some degree of training in a machine shop and also access to the correct equipment too. As you say they are well thought out and not just filed lumps of brass and that is why I don't believe the are the work a garden shed gunsmith.

Can't disagree with about the African game not shooting back but unfortunately for the Allies soldered rings didn't seem to hamper the Deutsche Sharfshutzen from going about his appointed task.

[Peter Laidler]

Mmmm..... I believe that the quality of the FITTING IS the work of an amateur but like I say, that's only my opinion. Incidentally, I have made efforts to get the 'identical' scope I declined to repair back for a second look so I can get under the thick paint to see the markings and measure against the usual No32 parts. But this tele certainly didn't have a set of large dia rings fitted or marks of a set. Hence my belief that those on yours were a home made set to use the tele for another application

[Simon]

Simon,
It does to me, look like a professional job but I am probably in the minority, because I know the hours it would take to get to that level of quality, and afterall, what would you benefit from if they did not do the job on the scope.
Whoever, made them, they were in the know and probably wanted the versatility they bring. Armourers had their wild cannons so to speak and I often saw them "tinkering" with new ideas............common Peter is that not true?
My point was I would loved to have tried them before and after to see what my MPI would have been

Gil.

The more I look at those half rings the less I am inclined to think "Bubba" Just my opinion I know but I hope more folk will agree when I can finally got my head around taking Macro photo's of them?

P.S. Can you PM me please RE- 2 Para Sniper teams in the South Atlantic as I have a query?

TTFN

Simon.