Also if anyone has a recommendation of where to get an original no32 scope please PM
There is a No32 Mk1 scope listed on ebay at the moment at $4500.
Prices are certainly thru' the roof at the moment.
Mine are not the best, but they are not too bad. I can think of lots of Enfields I'd rather have but instead of constantly striving for more, sometimes it's good to be satisfied with what one has...
May be the one I saw on E-Bay ADE apparently refurbished $4000/Aud.
It was in the US
But if those are a bit 'spendy' and you just want a look alike there are plenty of repros (unknown quality) complete with all mountings for around US$699
Comes with a 12 month warranty.
Mine are not the best, but they are not too bad. I can think of lots of Enfields I'd rather have but instead of constantly striving for more, sometimes it's good to be satisfied with what one has...
Looks like one, the guy in Tiawan makes along with the tins and brackets..........Shawn Hssu of Wayne's Machine shop in Taiwan ?!!
Last edited by Gil Boyd; 12-30-2022 at 07:14 AM.
'Tonight my men and I have been through hell and back again, but the look on your faces when we let you out of the hall - we'd do it all again tomorrow.' Major Chris Keeble's words to Goose Green villagers on 29th May 1982 - 2 PARA
In answer to the OP's earlier question about the first digit of a MkI scope serial number possibly being an "8"; the answer is "yes" and according to Peter's No.32 book that would be a Kershaw. At least some in that range had uniquely large and thick markings. Thinking about it now, they almost looked as though they could have been acid-etched rather than engraved.(?)
A "3" might be another option, depending on how clear the stamping is now. Lots of 3000 range numbers seen from H.B.M. Co. and on early fittings such as ex-trials rifles too.
“There are invisible rulers who control the destinies of millions. It is not generally realized to what extent the words and actions of our most influential public men are dictated by shrewd persons operating behind the scenes.”
Sure looks kosher to me...
Most of the early 4(t) 's have galled screws as it was not a requirement to solder the early pads.
The Brits got their knickers in a knot when a lot of the screws sheared off after heavy use and Canada bore the brunt of their eyre.
First the REL scopes were not waterproof (and small wonder) then came the soldering incident.
I've opened untouched REL mk.3 scopes to find the seals were just greased cotton cord.
Canada soldered every screw on the REL Mk.3 in many cases. They are a real treat to work on !!!
Ever seen a waterproof No32 MkI from the UK makers Warren? Can't say I have.
In fact I never saw any "waterproofing" in the UK-made Mk.I's I had apart except a bit of mastic here and there. And where's the first place the water is going to pool? Right around the elevation lead screw, drip, drip, drip. Mastic around the lenses? Jolly good idea chaps, but gravity has other plans! How ______g hard would it have been to give the locking collars a V bottom edge so that they "split" a fibre or oil-impregnanted packing and push it against the lead screw shank and the opposite inner wall of the drum? Anchor Packing anyone!? Rubber did exist at the time too I believe.
Someday I'd love to see this correspondence about REL's "waterproofing". But bureaucrats in war like to keep even busier than in peacetime as in wartime a lack of "busy-ness" can end up in khaki! Besides, the best defence is a good offence, so keep those colonials on the defensive!
Let's face it, the No32 mount was a cobble-up of the usual kind: "we've got this here bracket for the Bren, let's slap it on the rifle." Time spent playing with the Ainley Rifle might have been better spent on sorting out a proper sniping set-up while Hitler was still digesting Czechoslovakia.
The screws shear-off because the design is inherently flawed: all the recoil forces go onto that dinky little spigot, which as time went on I understand used to shear off itself, on that dinky little front pad. And how many times do we see staking marks all around the screw holes because soldered or not, they keep breaking loose?
All the rear pad offers by way of resistance is friction, if you reef the "thumbscrew" down tight enough to create some, but anything less than spanner-tight and the fun begins; a good oil film in between probably helps too! Which, as I know you know, is why REL got to work on better and stronger mounting systems.
A bit funny to be squawking about whatever Long Branch and REL were doing, when they clearly had thousands of No.4(T)s sitting in store unissued in 1943, or much more likely: thousands of No.32 Mk.I's sitting around unfitted to rifles, which could have been shipped over here for fitting. Except of course that it would never do to admit it wasn't getting done there! This fact is easily worked out from the inventory of sniper rifles taken at the end of 1943 and the dates and serial numbers we see on surviving No32's and No.4(T)s, as I've posted about in the past.
And as you found out, our Army hanging around in the UK going through basic training four times to keep busy*, got so tired of waiting for No4(T)s to be doled out from His Majesty's Board of Ordnance, that word must have filtered back to Canada through other channels and they started putting the Long Branch rifles on newly-made bombers being sent over empty. Got them past the go-slows and strikes on the docks probably.
So why bother with the Lyman Alaskans when so many Mk.I scopes were sitting around waiting for H&H to get to them? Either they got "lost" in the UK supply system or they were simply hiding the fact that they had them sitting in store, but couldn't get organized enough to fit them to rifles. The first option is a little too rarefied even for that crowd, but Clive Law documented the bureaucratic deceits and shell games over the REL TOS, C67 etc., so I'd tend to go with that option myself. Not like there weren't plenty of ships coming back empty a few scopes could have been sent on.
In almost every case where we tried, we built it better and faster and our real mistake was falling for the "cooperation" schtick and allowing those incompetent _______s in the Ministry of Supply/War Office to act like they were fit to be in charge of our supply system. As for innovation, no bloody comparison IMHO.
Happy New Year!
*statement to me by a vet who was there, and who wasn't given to BS.
Last edited by Surpmil; 01-01-2023 at 04:17 PM.
Reason: More
“There are invisible rulers who control the destinies of millions. It is not generally realized to what extent the words and actions of our most influential public men are dictated by shrewd persons operating behind the scenes.”
Don't let me hurt anyone's feelings - it's "all in the family" in the end, and I suggest we earned the right to a little remonstration anyway!
Just too bad we had that Rockefeller lackey Mackenzie-King in power, not someone like Sir Robert Borden who wasn't afraid to take Lloyd-George by the lapels and give him a little shake.
“There are invisible rulers who control the destinies of millions. It is not generally realized to what extent the words and actions of our most influential public men are dictated by shrewd persons operating behind the scenes.”
Originally Posted by EnfieldC
PM
Besides, the best defence is a good offence, so keep those colonials on the defensive! 
that word must have filtered back to 