You have certainly "antiqued" it to perfection and it would fool the most expert without your "confession"!![]()
What strikes me is how much more robust the mounts are than the No.4(T), in particular the front spigot. I doubt one of those would ever shear off. The much larger locating shoulder is very noticeable as well. I assume this was designed by the same people who designed the No.4(T) mounting system, so the change between the two is interesting.
The problem of the front pad being the only directly opposed stop to the recoil of the scope and mount persists. I really don't know why it does, but we could guess that the beefed up front pad was at attempt to address that.
That said, the front base width and attachment actually does not look sufficient for the leverages exerted to me; two screws and a base twice as wide would have been better on the side where the scope mounts.
They're a fine rifle and I know you have a particular liking for them.Have fun at the range! (I'm assuming it's collimated?)
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.