My No 32 Mk2 Scope

[Dens-Mil]

My guess is that it was used by the Dutch army. As you know we used No4T rifles and we even made No32 scopes.

I just got the square type case for the scope, so I am getting there

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.

[Roger Payne]

Peter, can you shed any light (or can anyone else) on UIC serial numbering? I've meant to look at it for years; but then I've been meaning to wash the car, too! I believe UIC manufactured Mk1, Mk2 & Mk2/1 scopes. I wonder just exactly how many of each type they did make & how many times they went back to serial number 1 again....

I currently own 4 UIC scopes marked as follows:

Serial no 9 marked as Mk2 but assembled as 2/1
Serial no 296 marked as Mk2 & assembled as such
Serial no 189 built on a former Mk1 tube, with Mk'2' replacing the Mk'1'
& with the 466A barred out & replaced by 1650A. Assembled as Mk2.
Serial no 43 marked & assembled as Mk2/1 - see Nigel's earlier post.

I suppose tubes may not always have been assembled in ascending numerical order.....

ATB

[jmoore]

Of course its the idea- for the 2/1. So why isn't it marked accordingly? That's what odd.

[Peter Laidler]

I saw about 60 or so ex Indian Army No32 scopes and there were several converted to Mk2/1 and not marked as we woulkd. It LOOKS to me that the ocular lens is a late Mk2 - Mk3 lens cell being used in a non lens cell tube. In those cases, the ocular lens cell assembly does remain out by a few threads. Another Indian Army trick! I'd say i was an ex Indian scope.....

[Surpmil]

I saw about 60 or so ex Indian Army No32 scopes and there were several converted to Mk2/1 and not marked as we woulkd. It LOOKS to me that the ocular lens is a late Mk2 - Mk3 lens cell being used in a non lens cell tube. In those cases, the ocular lens cell assembly does remain out by a few threads. Another Indian Army trick! I'd say i was an ex Indian scope.....

Ah, so they didn't bother to mill out/unsolder the original lens seating ring.

How unsurprising!

[jmoore]

I was not aware of a Vickers UIC No.32 Mk.2 scope before! "2/1", yes, have one, but not this...

So S/N 124 could be a "regular" Mk.2 as well...still looking!

[Peter Laidler]

We The UK) would machine out the inner lens seating ring on an early Mk2 if it was being upgraded to Mk2/1 spec but I didn't see an Indian one with the ring machined out or unsoldered (they're silver soldered in place and machined for 'square' afterwards.

DensMil, we have documentary evidence that most of the European armies that came to the UK on sniper courses in the immediate post war years, came armed with Canadian made and supplied No4T rifles fitted with TP telescopes (presumably Lymans) that didn't fit into the teaching syllabus so couldn't be used. Maybe the post war rearmament scheme, heavily funded by Canada - who used the opportunity to get rid of their non standard Lymans! They were issued with UK spec No4T's here and many were 'returned with student'. Once again, presumably under some agreement between the Governments.

[Surpmil]

....DensMil, we have documentary evidence that most of the European armies that came to the UK on sniper courses in the immediate post war years, came armed with Canadian made and supplied No4T rifles fitted with TP telescopes (presumably Lymans) that didn't fit into the teaching syllabus so couldn't be used. Maybe the post war rearmament scheme, heavily funded by Canada - who used the opportunity to get rid of their non standard Lymans! They were issued with UK spec No4T's here and many were 'returned with student'. Once again, presumably under some agreement between the Governments.

Interesting Peter! I don't think they were trying to 'get rid of' the Lymans though, as they were still in Canadian use in the 1950s and three even surfaced out of stores here in the last few years, as someone else posted about at the time. The C67 rifle with monte carlo style butt and Griffen & Howe style mounts were also Canadian issue in 1950s. Where the No32's that were on issue during the war went I don't know, but perhaps since they were issued from UK sources, even when Canadian made, they were returned at the end of the war?

There were 350 Lyman rifles done up according to Clive Law's book. The Alaskan was actually found better than the No32 MkI/II for "picking up targets" in low light conditions, according to tests done at the time. Tests which had no discernable 'agenda' attached as far as I can see. The lack of external drums must have been a bit of nuisance though.

[Peter Laidler]

Lymans............, yes! The waterproofing was abysmal and nobody really knows just what the clicks truly equate to. And without a range scale to work from, well...... As a hunting scope they might have been on the better side of 'dire' but quite where they fared on the richter scale of sniper telescopes is, well..................

It's strange that you say that the Lyman TP No4T's were still in Canadian Ordnance but this doesn't mean that they were in the Canadian Order of Battle. If they were, there WOULD be a user handbook available, even if it were a simple pamphlet for instructors to use. Like the 7.92mm Bren. And there wasn't one for that either! Without that, how to they teach?

My view is that these no-hopers were off loaded to the needy emerging European armies first

On the subject of the No67 version, would there be a demand for repro No4T/No67 butts?

There is a No 53 scope on that auction site

[Surpmil]

The Lymans weren't that bad were they?! After all, John B. George used one in the South Pacific with some success....maybe he was lucky!

As we all know, they were scraping the barrel for scopes in 1940/41, even considered that horrible Weaver didn't they? Clive Law mentions how Lyman's production was held up at one point by a lack of suitable sewing needles to use as reticule posts.

I can't say whether the Lymans were actually in use, or just in stores, but for some odd reason they show up in a 1980s dated workshop manual for the No4 Rifle. But, I have the impression that manual reflects a real 'generation-gap' in the knowledge of the No4. Or it could be just that it was written by some DND drones who never actually laid hands on a rifle since basic training.

Speaking of No53s, do we know what company used the diamond shaped trade mark with "WRP" or who "R.S.A." was?