Are reproduction no.32 scopes any good?

[Brian Dick]

Robert, Your rifle is restored to MoD spec, just as it left British service and before "Bubba" got hold of it. It would be foolish not to invest in any British or Canadian No.32 and one of Roger Payne's scope mounts when they become available. To put a crap reproduction scope on this rifle will be a big disappointment to you from both the practical and investment standpoint in my humble opinion. That's just my two cents but even one of the repro scopes supposedly "tarted up" by someone who works on them will always be substandard crap in my view. I know it sounds harsh but this is one of only 1150 or so produced and deserves better. Brian

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.

[Seaspriter]

To put a crap reproduction scope on this rifle will be a big disappointment to you from both the practical and investment standpoint in my humble opinion.

Brian, I'm with you 100% -- I won't put something crummy on your work of art! And I'll certainly wait for Roger Payne's mounts in the Spring.

Here's the rub -- it might take a year or two to find an authentic REL scope to put on the Long Branch. In the interim, I'd guess a "temporary" scope would be in order. I'm leaning to an older El Paso Weaver K-3 or K-7 to use at the range (cost under $100 USD). And this is the other part of the dilemma: if I had a $3500 authentic REL No. 32 Scope, I'm not sure I'd want it to leave the house, stow in the trunk, and take to the range! Is it advisable to have a "shooting" scope (i.e. K-3) and then switch it out for a "display" scope (i.e. No. 32)? What's the chance of having to re-zero the scopes upon mounting and then dismounting and then remounting? (never did this before).

[vintage hunter]

Is it advisable to have a "shooting" scope (i.e. K-3) and then switch it out for a "display" scope (i.e. No. 32)?

All that's not necessary. The real deal will serve both purposes. If you're worrying about damaging it going to and from the range then transport it in the scope tin. That's what they were for, protecting/storing the scope/bracket when in actual use.

What's the chance of having to re-zero the scopes upon mounting and then dismounting and then remounting? (never did this before).

Little to none, as long as the scope isn't removed from the bracket and the bracket has been properly collimated. I store my L42 in it's transit chest with the scope stored separately in it's tin and have yet to experience any variations in POA/POI from the day I zero'd it.

[Seaspriter]

Robert, Your rifle is restored to MoD spec, just as it left British service and before "Bubba" got hold of it. It would be foolish not to invest in any British or Canadian No.32 and one of Roger Payne's scope mounts when they become available. To put a crap reproduction scope on this rifle will be a big disappointment to you from both the practical and investment standpoint in my humble opinion

Thanks Brian -- Your work of art won't be desecrated. To see what Brian is working on, I started a new thread: https://www.milsurps.com/showthread....55567&p=355224

[martins8589]

Well after all the posts about getting a genuine No32 scope and be done with it, I just saw this one on ebay in Germany. For only a MKI it is 2240GBP for buy it now. $5000AUD with shipping. Looks like I can't get enough spoon fulls of cement into my cup of tea so the Red Star Mountain MKII copy looks like the go for me.

http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/Original-...wAAOSw~OVWt5Xs

[Seaspriter]

after all the posts about getting a genuine No32 scope and be done with it, I just saw this one on ebay in Germany. For only a MKI it is 2240GBP for buy it now. $5000AUD with shipping.

With costs skyrocketing and fakes showing up, perhaps it's becoming time for someone to resurrect the No.32 with a high quality reproduction, just as Criterion has made barrels and Roger Payne has made scope brackets for our Enfields. Parts should be interchangeable with the originals, then the repro parts could be used with originals that are broken and need repair. If Wayne in Taiwan (waynemachine@mky.com) can make these for Numrich or Sarco, why can't someone in the US or Canada or UK make them to MoD standards today?

[vintage hunter]

Parts should be interchangeable with the originals, then the repro parts could be used with originals that are broken and need repair.

As I understand it some original parts are subject not to be a direct fit from one scope to another.

why can't someone in the US or Canada or UK make them to MoD standards today?

If the technology still exists it would probably be cost prohibitive, and it would still be a repro.