Thread: Options for fitting a scope to a No1Mk3 Sporter

As per the title. Looking for lived experience of the above. What works, what is available, what is a big bag of buyer regret and wasted projectiles putting holes everywhere and nowhere on the paper.

Hard thing to achieve, especially with a modern lightweight optic. The reason for this is the SMLE is a rear locking action, recoil lugs at the back of the bolt not the front. This means the side of the action flexes under recoil and everything that is nice and handy to bolt a scope mount too is not fully rigid.

The main issue is a two-piece mount with a base on the front of the action and something on the charger bridge means that the scope takes some of the recoil force and modern scopes don't handle that well.

The best approach is to avoid a setup where the scope has to span the length of the action, so that the recoil and flexing aren't transferred to the mounts and scope. I have a scope here that the screwed connection on the scope tube has been sheared off due to this.

I don't know what is out there at the moment as options, so it might be a case of needing to make a mount up that does the job. We used to use Parker Hale bridge mounts but even they weren't ideal - the best option is something that fits the side of the action on the left side and can be screwed and soldered on so that it aligns with the barrel, or failing that a cantilever mount that fits onto the front ring of the action and the scope has two rings reasonably closely spaced.

I hoped and knew you would be along sooner or later with the relevant information. Sounds like best option is to trawl back through the BSS section and look for a dedicated side mount. Not sure luck will be a lady with that plan though. Might have to look at other rifle options.

Originally Posted by No.3

Hard thing to achieve, especially with a modern lightweight optic. The reason for this is the SMLE is a rear locking action, recoil lugs at the back of the bolt not the front. This means the side of the action flexes under recoil and everything that is nice and handy to bolt a scope mount too is not fully rigid.

The main issue is a two-piece mount with a base on the front of the action and something on the charger bridge means that the scope takes some of the recoil force and modern scopes don't handle that well.

The best approach is to avoid a setup where the scope has to span the length of the action, so that the recoil and flexing aren't transferred to the mounts and scope. I have a scope here that the screwed connection on the scope tube has been sheared off due to this.

I don't know what is out there at the moment as options, so it might be a case of needing to make a mount up that does the job. We used to use Parker Hale bridge mounts but even they weren't ideal - the best option is something that fits the side of the action on the left side and can be screwed and soldered on so that it aligns with the barrel, or failing that a cantilever mount that fits onto the front ring of the action and the scope has two rings reasonably closely spaced.

Try these folks, never heard any complaints etc from folks that have used them (Mosin, K31 LE)....

https://www.redstarmountain.com/shopping/

I had a 3* and a parker hale type bridge mount put on by the Collings in the late 70s. It alway shot about 1.5” off a rest and zero seldom wandered. After 30 years the ally PH rings stripped out and I used CZ rings. Initially it had a 4x 32 Redfield and later 2-7 vx1 leupold.

The next owner has a 3.5-18 Z5 swaro and did have trouble with the mounting for a while but has solved that with some gunsmithing. Its shooting deer now, often past 200m.

So most people have got perfectly satisfactory results from scoped .303 just not as accurate as a tikka and factory ammo is a bit expensive.

I bought my last picatiny rail from Reloaders Supplies some years back. I have three. Two are steel and one is alloy. I would definitely go with steel as it will tie the top of the action together and stiffen it up which is a plus for the No 3


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Red dot mounted forward perhaps???

Parker Hale bridge base and rings work fine. Have done a few of them

Originally Posted by garyp

Parker Hale bridge base and rings work fine. Have done a few of them

They do, but just make sure your scope has plenty or non critical eye relief, because they end up quite forward. You don't wanna be craning you neck forward to get a proper sight picture.

I have to ask the question. why bother with the effort when the cost of these harder to find scope mounts and a clapped out 303 would equal a more modern rifle's cost. I only shoot my 303's because they are as issued.

Originally Posted by Russian 22.

I have to ask the question. why bother with the effort when the cost of these harder to find scope mounts and a clapped out 303 would equal a more modern rifle's cost. I only shoot my 303's because they are as issued.

I'm just asking on behalf of a friend.

Originally Posted by Russian 22.

I have to ask the question. why bother with the effort when the cost of these harder to find scope mounts and a clapped out 303 would equal a more modern rifle's cost. I only shoot my 303's because they are as issued.

Some people just like the 'blast from the past' (me included) and according to nzda survey results, quoted on this forum- apparently almost 90% of deer shot by nz hunters would be easily taken with a .303 with a 4x scope, if not the issue sight. Go figure....

Originally Posted by 00buck

Some people just like the 'blast from the past' (me included) and according to nzda survey results, quoted on this forum- apparently almost 90% of deer shot by nz hunters would be easily taken with a .303 with a 4x scope, if not the issue sight. Go figure....

Yup you are right but the statistics form middle.of last century with shit tons of deer bugger all rifle alternatives and callers using them etc may have skewed those results

Originally Posted by 00buck

They do, but just make sure your scope has plenty or non critical eye relief, because they end up quite forward. You don't wanna be craning you neck forward to get a proper sight picture.

I did shorten the butt by an inch.
Good riddance to un needed weight.
It was easy with a wooden stock.
I think in the past, rifles were all made for 6'2" blokes and you could cut a bit off the end if it was too long.

Originally Posted by csmiffy

Yup you are right but the statistics form middle.of last century with shit tons of deer bugger all rifle alternatives and callers using them etc may have skewed those results

More talking of recent surveys about average range that deer are shot, not about rifles, cal etc.