L42A1 Clone

[Macca]

Usual introduction,long time lurker,first time poster.
I'm toying with the idea of building an L42A1 & am in the feasibility stage,availability of parts,costs etc.
I know it's achievable,albeit with difficulty & am no stranger to taking years to collect the parts required for a build.
Is it possible to convert an existing No32 Mk 2 scope to L42A1 specs?I suspect it is,but I would like to know if the process is reversible.
For instance if ever the scope were to be sold,could it be returned to it's original configuration.

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.

[Gil Boyd]

Macca,
That choice of course is yours, but personally I can't see the point in what you propose. To fiddle with a 32 scope can only produce poor results on the range eventually and to waterproof it is a separate matter that I am sure others will raise.

Surely there are enough 42's in Australia that can be bought at a reasonable price and are 100% authentic.
Regardless of the hours you will spend on this and the hours trying to source authentic bits, the rifle won't be, so I'm afraid I wouldn't waste valuable time. IMHO

[Peter Laidler]

On the other hand, it is a very simple job to convert a Mk2 into an L1A2 telescope. If you don't over engrave with new markings then it's an equally simple matter to revert it to a bog standard Mk2. It is a little known fact that the Mk2 was a more expensive telescope than the Mk3

[Roger Payne]

I would echo what Peter has said; it's the new designation engraving on the scope tube that makes it irreversible. If you can find a metric range scale it is a simple job to convert a Mk2/1 or Mk3 to the version used on the L42. Of course, converting a Mk1 or Mk2 scope would be rather more involved as they have totally different drum assemblies - you'd probably need to convert the Mk2 to a 2/1 effectively, but with the metric (7.62mm) rather than imperial (303) range scale. And so long as you don't get the tube engraved you can always swap things back again at a later date.

[Macca]

Some valid points Gil.
In respect to poor range results,do you mean the difficulty in creating an accurate load that would correspond to the range scale deflections?
I couldn't say with confidence how many L42's there are here,but my trouble is having champagne tastes with a beer budget.I'm aware that I may be putting a silk lining on a sow's ear,that's why i'm only assessing the pro's & con's of such a project & reaching out for advice & opinion.
Thanks for your input Peter,I wouldn't feel the need to engrave the scope to reflect it's new characteristic,hence my concern that it could be restored to it's original condition.
Surely if a suitable scope & range scale is found & sent to a optics technician with experience in No32's then waterproofing as Gil warned about shouldn't be an issue should it?

---------- Post added at 08:11 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:04 PM ----------

Thanks Roger,
You must've posted whilst I was replying.
Yes there's the rub in sourcing the parts.
I'm concentrating on the scope at the moment as I feel that it would be the hardest part to source followed of course by the magazine.(or 2)

[RobD]

If it were me, I wouldn't see much point in changing the elevation scale on the drum just because I'd be shooting 7.62.
For one thing, why mess around with a perfectly good Mk 2 scope? I don't know what I'm doing and I'd likely mess it up, and lose £££ in the process.
I'd use the scope I had, and zero the rifle at a few distances [or on the zero range], and interpolate from there.
In fact, when I had an L42A1, my ammo didn't have the same ballistics as 7.62 NATO, so I needed to refer a table of clicks that I'd worked out previously.

[Peter Laidler]

Waterproofed No32 telescopes are about as waterproofed as Army G-10 watches - or oil leak proof Norton motorcycles in my honest opinion, both based on absolutely nothing more than experience. Shower proof would be a better phrase...........

[Gil Boyd]

Rob,
Spot on, totally agree.

[Macca]

Thanks for your responses,these have helped me clarify my views.

[Gil Boyd]

Macca,
Whats that...........to search for a proper one