Phosphate Ajack Scope 52183 and Mount 99318

No, it is not. It is about the approach. Mine is scientific. Beginning from the Senich book collectors have done many combinations which are not correct. They get items which are historically correct and do something with the item, which results from my point of view in a catastrophe. Like putting a beard to the Mona Lisa. When I get a scope without mount and a mount without the scope they get stored separately. Of course I do not like these, but when scope and mount are rare, I have to keep them. I do not think that you personally want to see in a forum a bunch of put together combinations, which may result that some other collectors destroy their combinations, believing that what is shown in the forum is the truth. You use the forum to learn and when you have learned enough, to give knowledge to others. I could give more, but I am tired of being a thread killer, since this is often received as arrogance.
 
Honestly if there was something I could do to fix this I would. Delete my postings? Take the scope and mount apart and leave the mount without a scope or put the non original piece of junk scope back in the mount? Leave the mount empty? Find a better representative scope for the mount? The phosphate Ajack looks good even out of a mount. The empty mount looks silly. Just forget this whole thread? Help me out here.

How should I fix this? What scope should I put in my mount?
 
Last edited:
I am sorry, I do not want to put you in a conflict. The thread is an impulse for a direction to take so I am grateful to you that you gave me an opportunity to give this impulse to the collector community.
 
I don’t think anyone needs to apologize here. We all really like this stuff. I’m sure we all have imperfections in our collections. I’m serious and not upset. What scope should I put in my mount? When do phosphate Ajack scopes get used? Never? This mount is pretty late. I’m asking for expert advice on this scope and mount.
 
Here is a bmj in 84xxx range, notable to mention it is phosphate, with sunshade rain holes, and provision for arctic sunshade.

Jeff
 

Attachments

  • DSCF3103.JPG
    DSCF3103.JPG
    253.7 KB · Views: 24
I agree with nigromontanus from a scientific approach that it is good to know if something was assembled by anyone else than the factory or the soldier in the field, but this is only helpful for trying to document and form trends from this information. It however does not prohibit from putting things together. If something is assembled it doesn't mean it is destroyed nor that assumptions cannot be made - it only means the person who put them together has to be honest and when being asked by someone researching to mention these facts because otherwise research comes up with wrong results.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top