Early 32 Scope?

[maxman]

The negotiation took a lot longer that expected. I apologize for the delay. Attached are some pictures of the scope. It is 11" overall length and the turrets are made of brass. I'd appreciate hearing from anyone with any information. Thanks Maxman

Attachment 103804Attachment 103803Attachment 103802Attachment 103801Attachment 103800Attachment 103799

[Lee Enfield]

The negotiation took a lot longer that expected. I apologize for the delay. Attached are some pictures of the scope. It is 11" overall length and the turrets are made of brass. I'd appreciate hearing from anyone with any information. Thanks Maxman

Attachment 103804Attachment 103803Attachment 103802Attachment 103801Attachment 103800Attachment 103799

Looks very much like the C.No67 MkI without an adjustable eye piece.

Certainly the turret design comes from a similar design basis point.

Although windage appears to be on the left side (ala no 32).

Too bad it isn't dated

[Roger Payne]

The tube looks to me as though it is based on the No32/42/53 series, certainly in the ocular housing & parallel sided part, although the front end assembly looks rather different, as do the drums. The style of engraving on them (drums) makes me wonder too, if the scope could be Canadian, in spite of the lack of a 'C' anywhere in the designation. And it would not be the only 3.5 power experimental scope coming out of Canada. Is the parallel part of the tube 1" in diameter? My hunch is it will be. Will it fit into a conventional No32/No4 (T) scope bracket? It isn't dated, but the general look of it suggests WW2 era to me.

Anybody got any thoughts?

[Peter Laidler]

Agree with DRP. The engraved markings are Canada/REL without any shadow of doubt. Problem number 1 would be lack of any form of stop rings. Without stop rings it WILL slide within the mount during recoil. The flimsy turrets sticking out like a bulldogs balls would be as recipe for a speedy failure too

Given that the range drum is graduated to 1000 yds presumably would be the reason why the azimuth or deflection is only 24 MoA as opposed to the usual 32 MoA . That's for mechanical/tech reasons that I won't go into. I wonder what the FoView is too.

[rgg_7]

maxman - what country was this purchased? Did the previous Owner have any info? REL marked everything they produced. What is overall length? tube diameter? What's in it for a recticle? Maybe with a little more info the guys on this board can determine it's origin. Ron (Canada)

[Lee Enfield]

The turret housing and tube assembly method looks identical to the 3.5x "Gimbal" trials scopes. I was thinking that the dimensional differences may be related to attemps to improve waterproofing.

Canada made a big push of Tropical treating equipment in late '44 & '45, in the run up to the planned shift from the ETO to the Far East in preparation for the invasion of Japan.

[Surpmil]

A very interesting addition to our knowledge base Maxman, thank you. Looks like it adorned someone's hunting rifle for many a year after the war ended and interest was lost in tropicalized scopes. No doubt you've received offers from certain members already!?

So 24 minutes of windage adjustment and what to the range markings go up to please?

From the dirt in the screw slots it seems to have held zero pretty well.

Rather like the No.32 with the slipping scale mods that turned up a few years ago. Never say never.

Of course what was really needed was a fulled sealed and zeroed scope with no external adjustments as was used on the Arisaka. Simple enough to put the range markings up to 1300m on the reticule itself. Much quicker and easier to use as well. I believe the latest ELCANs incorporate such a reticule.

Another example of R.E.L. "getting on with it".

I happened to see for sale a set of "rabbit ear binoculars" made by them recently; something I had never seen any mention of before as one of their products.

[Lee Enfield]

The negotiation took a lot longer that expected. I apologize for the delay. Attached are some pictures of the scope. It is 11" overall length and the turrets are made of brass. I'd appreciate hearing from anyone with any information. Thanks Maxman

Attachment 103804Attachment 103803Attachment 103802Attachment 103801Attachment 103800Attachment 103799

Excerpt from the Canadian Military Historical Report Report No. 73:

Sniper's Equipment
38. Subsequent to a general survey of the situation on snipers equipment (109), a meeting
was held in June 1943 to determine how best to meet both immediate and long term requirements
(110). A number of comparative firing trials had been carried out on various commercial and
service sights which appeared to indicate there was considerable room for improvement (111)
(112) (113). For the longer term policy specifications were drawn up for a 5X telescope sight
(114) (115) and 3-1/2X sight (116), and the production of prototypes was instituted (115) (117).
The decision to design the lower power model came as a result of a suggestion originating in the
United Kingdom (118). The War Office evinced considerable interest in the development of the
two sights (119), and by the end of November, 1943, were so actively concerned about the sniper
situation that it seemed doubtful if the Canadian prototypes would be completed in time for full
P.14
consideration to be given to them by the War Office (120). In December an added requirement
was introduced into the operational specification (121). This called for sights to be proofed
against fungus growth under tropical conditions. Prototype samples of the telescope sights were
sent to the United Kingdom in March 1944 (122), and at the same time steps were taken to
modify the design in order to make it fungus-proof (123) (124). As a result of reports from the
United Kingdom, which all indicated preference for the 5X over 3-1/2X model, an educational
order for 100, 5X telescope sights was placed (125) (126) (127) (128) (129) (130). Speaking of
the Canadian sights the Assistant Chief of the Imperial General Staff stated "that the Canadian
5X and 3-1/2X telescopes were incomparably better in every way than anything that we or the
Germans had so far produced, the 5X being better than the 3-1/2 X " (128). It caused no small
surprise to learn in July 1944 that the provisional adoption of the 3-1/2X rather than the 5X sight
had been recommended (131). This necessitated changing the educational order previously
placed (132) (133). Concurrently, at War Office request, the Ministry of Supply initiated
inquiries for production information based on a requirement for 4000 3-1/2X instruments (134),
but were disappointed to learn that no deliveries could be made before April 1945 (135), whereas
they had understood, on a basis of unofficial information (136) given without reference to the
proper authorities (137), that deliveries could be completed by April 1945 (135). On account of
the length of time required to start production the War Office order was not forthcoming (138).
Nevertheless, interest in the sights remained (139), and found expression in a renewed inquiry for
delivery estimates in March 1945 (140), although a 21 Army Group Report to the War Office
(141) had stated: "there is no particular advantage to be obtained from the adoption of the
Canadian Sniper's rifle". Four telescopes, two of each power, had been sent to the Western
Theatre of Operations for user trial (142); two of these were "destroyed by enemy action" and a
third captured complete with sniper (143).

REFERENCES
109. H.Q.S. 8928-11-54A, Vol 1. Crang, J.H. Possibility of Improvement of Present Sniping
Rifle 11 Jun 43.
110. Ibid, Minutes of Meeting held at A.T.D.B. 17 Jun 43.
111. H.Q.S. 8928-11-54A, Vol 1, A.T.D.B. to D.S.D.(W) 15 Apr 43.
112. Ibid, Macdonald, J.H.B. to Martin, T.B. 3 Jun 43.
113. O.B. Procs 22211, 17 Mar 43.
114. H.Q.S. 8928-11-54A, Vol 1, Minutes of Meeting held at R.E.L., 26 & 27 Jun 43.
115. Ibid, Minutes of Meeting held at R.E.L. 17 Jul 43, 19 Jull 43.
116. Ibid, R.E.L. to A.T.D.B. 10 Sep 43.
117. Ibid, A.T.D.B. to D.O.S. (TS) 1 Sep 43.
118. Ibid, Cable S.D.W. 156 to N.D.H.Q. 21 Aug 43.
119. Ibid, Cable S.D.W. 576 to N.D.H.Q. 4 Nov 43.
120. Ibid, Cable S.D.W. 728 to N.D.H.Q. 27 Nov 43.
121. H.Q.S. 8928-11-54, Vol 2, S.D.W. 935 to N.D.H.Q., 24 Dec 43.
122. Ibid, M.G.O. to C.M.H.Q., 2 Mar 44.
123. H.Q.S. 8928-11-54A, Vol 3, R.E.L. to D.V.S.A. 18 Feb 44.
124. H.Q.S. 8928-11-54, Vol 2, A.T.D.B. to D.M.G.O. (C), 9 Mar 44.
125. Ibid, Vol 3, Report of Examination by N.P.L., Teddington, 3 Apr 44.
126. Ibid, A.G.E. report 8 May 44.
127. Ibid, Cable D.V.A. 739 to C.M.H.Q. 27 Jun 44.
128. Ibid, Extracts from M. of S. Monthly Review of Research and Development Programmes,
Field Weapons Programme, Item 12, undated.
129. H.Q.S. 8928-11-54A, Vol 3, Experimental Establishment (Pendine) to Ordnance Board,
5 Jun 44.
130. Ibid, C.L.O. (T.L.G.) Pendine to S.D. 12, C.M.H.Q., undated.
131. H.Q.S. 8928-11-54, Vol 3, Cable S.D.W. 2322 to N.D.H.Q. 3 Jul 44.
132. Ibid, Cable D.V.A. 759 to C.M.H.Q. 6 Jul 44.
133. H.Q.S. 8928-11-54A, Vol 3, D.V.S.A. to D. of M. & S., 6 Jul 44.
134. Ibid, Cable S.D.W. 2379 to N.D.H.Q., 8 Jul 44.
135. H.Q.S. 8928-11-54, Vol 3, Cable S.D.W. 2705 to N.D.H.Q., 17 Aug 44.
136. H.Q.S. 8928-11-54A, Vol 3, copy of C.M.H.Q., 55/6252/P54.
137. H.Q.S. 8928-11-54, Vol 3, D. of M&S to C.M.H.Q., 24 Aug 44.
138. H.Q.S. 8928-11-54A, Vol 3, Cable S.D.W. 2858 to N.D.H.Q., 5 Sep 44.
139. Ibid, Cable S.D.W. 3732 to N.D.H.Q., 19 Dec 44.
140. Ibid, Vol 4, Cable D.V.S.A. 1281 to C.M.H.Q., 6 Mar 45.
141. Ibid, Vol 3, 21 Army Group Report to W.O. (copy), 26 Dec 44.
142. Ibid, C.M.H.Q. to N.D.H.Q. 11 Dec 44.
143. Ibid, C.M.H.Q. to N.D.H.Q. 22 Dec 44.

[Surpmil]

There is much there for further research. Do you know if any of the primary documents cited still exist?

The War Office evinced considerable interest in the development of the two sights (119)[/B], and by the end of November, 1943, were so actively concerned about the sniper situation that it seemed doubtful if the Canadian prototypes would be completed in time for full consideration to be given to them by the War Office (120).[B

This curious statement implies some deadline for such "consideration"; do we know when exactly that was?

It is curious because while the WO was huffing and puffing about all these various technical requirements and deadlines, production of the same old Mk.I and Mk.II scopes was continuing merrily on at Watson's, Houghton Butcher etc. right into 1944 and in the Watson case, Mk.I's in the 14,000 SN range, with no pretense of sealing, waterproofing, fungus-proofing etc. etc.!

The Mk.3 scope begins production at about SN 16,000 in late 1944, while H&H carries on fitting MkI and II scopes most if not all the way through 1944, this while they had the REL 3.5x and 5x scopes already in the UK for trials early in 1944. Not until October 1944 does the No32 Mk.3 design appear. One might wonder to what extent it was based on, if not prompted by, the REL scopes sent for trial earlier that year?

We know from the inventory of sniping rifles taken in Nov. 1943 which Clive Law cited, that production of the No.4(T) at Holland & Holland was only about 180 rifles a month, rather than the purported 800.

https://www.milsurps.com/showthread....l=1#post362178

So, given that they had thousands of No.32 Mk.Is sitting somewhere in the UK unfitted and unused, one wonders why the Ministry of Supply didn't just send them over to Long Branch and solve the purported "problem"? It's not like there weren't some ships going back empty.

Or would that have involved admitting that they hadn't got anything like the expected supply of conversions underway, and had no prospect of doing so?

Then of course there's the problem of sending your sorry old MkI's over to Long Branch and letting them look them over and of course find out that they didn't remotely correspond to the standards that were being demanded of the REL production...that could be trifle awkward!

In fact the low priority given to No.32 production at REL can only have been based on the priority given in the largely British contracts for dozens of other devices which REL was fulfilling. Compared to what else REL was building the No32 MkI was a piece of cake - albeit a very stale one which the experts at REL felt was not worth developing further, just like the three draw telescopes.

So, suddenly the War Office gets a bee in their bonnet about sniper rifles at the end of 1943; presumably they had now noticed that the invasion of N. W. Europe was impending and H&H's production was nowhere near what it was supposed to be under the contracts.

Was H&H just in violation thereof or had they been told "unofficially" to just carry on regardless? IIRC when Peter visited the H&H factory and spoke to the gent who had worked there at the time, he was shown the one milling machine which had been set up with jigs to machine the pads after fitting to the rifles. (40+ years after the end of the war and the contracts, there were still drawers full of finished and semi-finished pads, "thumbscrews" etc.!)

Logically, if BSA had not been involved earlier, late '43 would be when their reputed 100 or so conversions were put in hand: the WO casting around for some way to get production of rifles closer to the production of scopes. Presumably BSA didn't have the spare capacity, or didn't want to be bothered beyond the hundred or so. (Unless those were .22 conversions as previously discussed elsewhere)

Such of course is the nature of private contractors: if they don't want to cooperate or extract their digits, not much can be done about it unless contracts stipulate penalties. Crown corporations get the order and they carry it out, even if they need to hire more people and make capital investments to do it. In fairness though, they may well have just given No.4(T) conversions the priority which the WO set; we'll probably never know. It doesn't appear the contracts were amended however.

The full story, or most of it, must lie in those primary documents; I hope you can turn some of them up.

[Surpmil]

There's another interesting facet to this story of the H&H contracts: why would they be seeking thousands of scopes and rifles from Canada at all if 800 a month were coming out of H&H?

This begs another question: how many No4(T)s had if fact been produced by H&H when the contracts ended in 1946?

I am thinking it must be some thousands fewer than previously believed, when I recall that H.W. English had over 5000 MkI scopes they purchased loose from surplus sales after WWII.

We have always assumed that the number of rifles converted was similar to the number of scopes produced, but most of those MkI scopes were in a used condition they must have been from rifles that were refitted with Mk.3 scopes post-WWII

This can only(?) mean that many Mk.3 scopes were available "loose" to be used for such refitting, and that therefore the number of No.4(T)s produced must be commensurately less than the total number of scopes produced.