Phosphate Ajack Scope 52183 and Mount 99318

Apologize for the pics. They were taken several years ago in haste and have yet to upgrade them.

This is the very first sniper scope I purchased. Little did I know that DaveR and I were battling it out on ebay on the night of the auction . He took 3 shots @ me in the closing seconds and came up shy by 25 bucks. Didnt know it was him till we spoke a few months later and I told him aobut the purchase and he said "that was me..!"
 

Attachments

  • 045.jpg
    045.jpg
    328.3 KB · Views: 50
  • 046.jpg
    046.jpg
    329.9 KB · Views: 35
  • 047.jpg
    047.jpg
    328.7 KB · Views: 38
  • 048.jpg
    048.jpg
    327.6 KB · Views: 37
  • 044.jpg
    044.jpg
    275.4 KB · Views: 44
  • 040.jpg
    040.jpg
    276.3 KB · Views: 38
Last edited:
I have serial 52443 here. It is in a Gustloff mount as well.

The finish is not as nice as your guys', but I love it.

Not quite sequential serials, agalland, but close.

Jeff
 

Attachments

  • DSCF2500.jpg
    DSCF2500.jpg
    198.9 KB · Views: 26
  • DSCF2504.jpg
    DSCF2504.jpg
    195.3 KB · Views: 39
  • DSCF2512.jpg
    DSCF2512.jpg
    175.7 KB · Views: 28
Ajack 52183 was sold without scope on ebay in 2013. I would recommend to present only original combinations and no private put-togethers.

Sauron
 

Attachments

  • 4.jpg
    4.jpg
    155.2 KB · Views: 19
Well, it is the only one I have relevant to the original posting, and it is mounted on a rifle and it isn't coming off for a photo.

Ignore the mount if you must, it is not an original pairing.

Jeff
 
Well, I did not refer to your post, but thank you for the addendum. I did not have 52443 in database so far, but added it. May I know the SN of your mount, please?

I am not fully sure, but I think the only confirmed combination of a late ajack with mount is unnumbered, thus being a factory (or correctly spoken gunsmith) leftover.
 
I'm sorry, I misunderstood, I didn't mean to be gruff. My apologies.

The mount number is 75828. Interestingly the rifle the mount is fitted to is 75832.

What scope would be most appropriate for this serial range?

Jeff
 
75828 dow 24459 narrow bands.

I have your mount in database, but do not know the source, which I would add nowadays.

This is a number area with almost no data. I have only this also:

75818 bek 77916 wide bands
 
I have that dow scope, it used to be in that mount but I assumed that it should (the scope) be on a Sauer LSR, so I added this Ajack as it seemed more appropriate.

So you likely got that info from me in some regard.

Sorry about the thread hijack, Brian.

Jeff
 
Ajack scopes

Hello
I agree with Paul. Both ajack scope 52183 and 52443 were sold initially without any LSR mount.
I noticed that and wrote it down in my database.
best regards
 
see here: 80476 dow 24466 wide bands scope+can

I think that your combination could be very possibly original, so I recommend that you put it back into original configuration.
 
Xavier said:
Hello
I agree with Paul. Both ajack scope 52183 and 52443 were sold initially without any LSR mount.
I noticed that and wrote it down in my database.
best regards
Click to expand...

Yes 52183 did not have Mount. Also the mount it is in was purchased with a non original scope. So, I did the best I could. I think at one time I had a spare BEK in there. People before me took things apart and never replaced the scope. If you are trying to keep track of where these phosphate Ajack Scopes got used and in what Mount then this would be a problem for you.

I really have given it no thought in that regard. I had a mount that needed a scope and therefore I used the coolest looking scope I had. It’s that simple. Thanks for making note of it.

Also, I made note of it in the beginning post.
 
Last edited:
ditch68 said:
I have serial 52443 here. It is in a Gustloff mount as well.
Click to expand...
Jeff,
I need to agree with nigromontanus here - your sentence and used wording above suggests it came with the Gustloff mount pictured, at least I would had understood this without the additional information provided.
 
I totally agree as well, I was vague and did not at all mean to imply it was original to the scope. I'm sorry if I caused any confusion. My mistake entirely.

Jeff
 
I personally think this is a lot to do about nothing. I’m scratching my head.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top