Help with selecting a scope for Ishapore Enfield 2A1 in 7.62x51

[Brian Dick]

I recognize the S&K scope base. Without mincing words: it's pure unadulterated crap. All I can say is if you're going to put a telescope on it, keep it as light as possible and put the permanent red 271 Locktite on all the screws, then tighten them until your nuts are in your nostrils. It'll still shoot lose eventually.

---------- Post added at 03:31 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:30 PM ----------

Sorry for the spelling. Should be "loose".

[Peter Laidler]

But VERY wise words Brian! I'd suggest just leaving a scope off, saving the money but using it to slowly make up a replica No4T over the space of a year or so.

[tasum]

Thank you Brian and Peter for your helpful comments. Will do some measuring and thinking

[mrbungle]

my buddy has that same mount and rifle. he is hitting at 400 yards with it. we drilled and tap the stripper clip at the top to secure the mount. we also had to mod it so you could remove the bolt. pure crap unless bolted to the rifle. and my friend is still having wandering zero problems.


you will need a cheek rest also, because the scope sits crazy high.

[the old gringo]

that is a gibbs Rifle , i have one man the blast is deafening with that barrel length , i put a nikon buckmaster 3 x 9 x 40 on mine shoots great

---------- Post added at 10:56 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:54 PM ----------

you might check the scope base for tightness they are solid. people had a habit of not tightening enough .

[Peter Laidler]

Sorry to sound a tad contrary old gringo but tightening is not the problem with these mounts that screw into the Enfield breeching up ring. It's the pixx poor thinking and actual machanics of it all that are the problem. The breeching up ring is a) too narrow/thin to successfully thread anything into it and b) the steel quality is insufficient to hold any sort of thread against the clock/anticlockwise moments that are generated.

Additional to this is the simple engineering fact that there will only be a couple of threads that will bite into that thickness of steel and even then, as any engineer will quickly tell you, that on a rounded surface you can IMMEDIATELY discount TWO complete threads across a radius (won't go into why.....)

Any telescope bracket mounted onto an Enfield breeching up ring is a crap idea.

You could drill into the barrel that's underneath it of course but............. Look forumers, don't even GO there!

[jimmieZ]

Peter's not going to like me anymore after this post. I have 2 original No. 32 MK1 scopes (one HBM on a Rose Brothers bracket and a Kodak on a Roger Payne bracket). I also have 2 of the MKII scopes from Sarco on their own bracket (oh, the shame). Now, I have read all the comments from Peter and Roger and others concerning garbage repro. scopes that don't hold up - and there seems to be preponderance of evidence indicating the one manufacturer who didn't build to a reasonable facsimile of the original is the main offender. Now, others have said this other scope (identified as a MKI in the online catalog of Numrich Arms) didn't have dowels in the adjustment towers and used a relatively thin scribed line as the adjustment dial position reference. The Sarco scopes I have use towers screwed and dowelled and use a very similar "diamond" adjustment reference marks as seen on the originals. Recap: there are 2 different manufacturers of the reproduction (fake) scopes and they, apparently have different quality and performance.

I cannot speak for every one of the repro. scopes available - only the 2 I have. I also have 2 BSA and 1 Savage No.4 MKI (T) rifles - and none had scopes or mounts when I acquired them. These rifles did have the original scope mounting pads that are screwed and soldered to the receiver and then machined so the mounting pads are concentric with the axis of the barrel bore. Now, the original and repro. scopes have been laser bore-sighted to individual rifles and then swapped between rifles. I can confirm the swapped scopes had the POA and POI very, very close to the original rifle to which I mated it. This indicates the actual manner of mounting pad installation and final machining is far more important than who made the scope or mounting bracket.

It may be heresey to admit the repro. MKII scopes I have align very well to the original mounting pads (even with their "cheap?" import brackets) but in my current experience that is the case. I have had these rifles and scopes to the range fairly frequently for the last 6 months - at least as frequently as I can afford with the price and availability of MKVII ammo. I have had good luck to-date with these inexpensive alternatives. A buyer in the US can get the scope for $399 and the bracket for $129 - not cheap, but one hell of a lot less expensive than original equipment!

I recommend using the repro. items more of the time and not placing as much stress on the very valuable originals. So far, that has worked for me. I don't claim to be an "authority" on any of this - just one person's experience.

[No4Mk1(T)]

If you can get 30mm rings for your base I've had good luck with both the Hi-Lux CMR and Vortex Viper PST 1-4x24 scopes. As for the mount its self I have one for the No.4 that has worked great but I threw the one I had for the No.1 rifle away in the end. I suspect the D&T advice would have greatly improved its performance.

[Peter Laidler]

Hey Jimmie, I don't want you or anyone to think that I would EVER take offence at any suggestion contrary to mine. That just ain't me. But regarding those cheap repro No32 scopes, just let me ask you a few questions questions.
Have you ever had to or been asked to repair one?
Have you ever had to re-set one up that has gone out of focus for some reason or other?
Have you ever actually been inside one and seen the absolutely dire state of mechanical affairs inside of one?

Ask me any of these questions and I will answer 'yes' to each. Not many though I have to agree. But enough to gain the experience to offer and form a good opinion. And my opinion is don't touch one with a barge-pole. It's not to do with the line or arrow index mark or the locating dowels on the index plates....... These are just cosmetic red-herrings that have absolutely no bearing whatsoever on the mechanical quality of the telescope. Indeed, when I rebuild them I occasionally have cause to discard the locating pegs*! Save your money and buy a cheap crap condition real McCoy and have it rebuilt by any of the superb restorers. You'll STILL have it in 70 years time too

* And talking of locating pegs since you did bring the matter up. Can YOU tell me the value of these locating pins/pegs/dowels on Mk2/1 and 3 telescopes when the index plates are retained by countersunk screws? A load of crap or what we call 'fuzzy logic' The taper of the screws do all the locating! Not just ONE screw, but 4 of them!!!!!!

[mrbungle]

as a guy who does not want to buy a real no. 32 or want to shoot with one because i am pretty rough on firearms and scopes....i would be scared to break the dang thing and there goes 1500 bucks.......the Enfield Rifles are pretty tough. so no fear there.......i shoot every week and sometimes more than once. i would love a reliable and accurate replica no 32 scope that i would not be afraid to take to the range. on a real (t).

i think jimmy was saying the sarco one is alot better than the numrich replica........correct me if i am wrong , jimmy.


i just don't to shell out that kind of cash and it not work or i break it out of stupidity....