No.32 mk3 maybe

[Micheal Doyne]

It LOOKS pretty kosher to me but having said that, it looks tooooooo good! I would take the desiccation screw out and test the thread against a 2BA and the segment cover screws against 8BA's. If you have a Mk3 alongside you could test the lead screw locking nuts against the model. That's all you can really do externally.

Thanks Peter, glad your “looks Kosha but a tad too good” with your significant experience conures with my extremely limited knowledge.

Thank very much for advice for screws to check, I am however not 100% sure which is the desiccation screw you are referring too, on the exploded diagram in your book would this be item no. Plate reference 11, screw machine BA steel slot drive no.2 x 0.187 in. lg.

If these screws match diameter and length would it be reasonable to assume this is at lease period built by TH&C?

[Peter Laidler]

The desiccation screw is the red painted screw with either a rusty coloured or black fibre sealing washer underneath.

[Roy W]

The Seller just replied to the questions I had asked about it. He said he thinks its a reproduction and it's going in the bin ..............

[Micheal Doyne]

The Seller just replied to the questions I had asked about it. He said he thinks its a reproduction and it's going in the bin ..............

Our agreement was that if it was worthless eg a repro that was unusable as sight it would be sent back. If if not id pay him its value. Until Peter’s comment of it looks kosha i was very much expecting to paying for an expensive paper weight. If it is a kosha No32 I very much intend to pay him going rate for a serviced No32 Mk3 less service cost

[Warren]

I've worked on all 4 models of the repro scopes that appear to be on the market and I am quite sure it is not a repro.
Also, being a Mk. III, as all repro's so far, are Mk.1/2 configuration.
There is a repro dealer with a CNC engraving machine and could have done the logo but the scope just does not have the features of a repro scope or not those of the ones I have worked on.
Considering the number of lunch bucket 32 scopes I have worked on over the years, you would have to tear it down to be 100% sure.
Probably the best way is to have the owner remove the erector cell adjusting cover and see what is under there.
All the repro's so far, did not have a zamac or brass segment.
No harm done to the scope and a way to check.
cheers,

[Micheal Doyne]

So going back to this looks real and assuming it is, any one got any ideas why it has no OS numbers or scope id?

Has any one seen one marked modle before?

Additionally the turrets are immovable, is this a common failing and if so is it fixable?

Finally given I’ve committed to paying going rate to a properly operational No32 Mk3 (if it can become one) what is that, I had assumed about £1,350: but if it as pristine as it looks and has an interesting story I presume it might be a tad more.

[Warren]

Seized turrets are a common fault on the Mk. 3 scope.
Of the scopes I get in for repairs I'd say 75% are seized turrets and subsequent damage from someone trying to fix them with a pocket knife.
The old "spray it with WD 40 and hair drier" does not work and makes one hell of a mess when you do get into it to do the repairs.

[Roger Payne]

I would also agree that it's unlikely to be a fake. It just has the aged look of period production. I wonder if it could have been a test piece or pre-production instrument? It looks externally to be a typical THCo Mk3 in every way apart from the markings. I have a 1946 dated incomplete Kershaw Mk3 that bears the typical markings save for the scope serial number. I have had it for years & just assumed that it was a lunch box special. It appears never to have borne a serial number, rather than having had one erased. The 6 of the date 1946 is also marked by hand.

I also have the scope that Simon aired on this forum several years ago (I prized it out of him), that bears a different R&D adjustment mechanism but within the general profile of the Mk3 scope tube. It also bears typical British wartime style engraving, including 'No32 MkIII', yet appears as though it may have been made by William Watson (a known No32 manufacturer, but NOT of the Mk3). This one also lacks a serial number & the OS number, but is otherwise fairly typically engraved, with that rather shallow engraving seen on Watson scopes in the 1000 to high 2000s & c.14,000 serial range. I don't have a leg to stand on, but if I were to hazard a guess I'd go for it being Watson's design submission for the Mk3, losing out to the pattern we now know so well.

There's probably a perfectly sensible explanation for the markings on the OP's scope, but whether we will ever be able to prove what it is for sure is a different matter.

Yep, 'Model' is in a different font to the rest of the markings.............

[bigduke6]

The finish looks to be original, as Warren points out, the repro's are all based on Mk11's. Wonder if it was an Example of what the Mk3 was going to be like or what the finish needed to be etc? maybe a display peice for display cabinet etc.

A lot of companies took pride in what they produced and probably even more just after the war as they would of been touting for business..........

[HOOKED ON HISTORY]

The best example I have seen in a while of the fact this if the best place to get expert advice on all things milsurp.
Cheers to all who contributed.