Sniper MG34
- Thread starter tokarev38
- Start date
pzjgr
EOD - bombs and bullets
The No. 32 scope used on the Brit No.4 Mk 1 (T) sniper was originally developed to mount on the BREN lmg...
Never really was used, as I think it would have dubious effectiveness.
Looks cool though!
Of course the HMG Lafette had an optic attached, which continued use post war with the MG 3...
Never really was used, as I think it would have dubious effectiveness.
Looks cool though!
Of course the HMG Lafette had an optic attached, which continued use post war with the MG 3...
Absolut
Senior Member
We're getting OT, but they also made drawings for usage of the No. 32 scope on the P.14 rifle in May 1940. They never produced them, but fortunately the drawings survived. And I went through the hassle to make myself one of these mounts, based on the drawings. Looks like this complete.
Attachments
John Strunk
Senior Member
Captured Russian PEM Scope.
mike radford
Senior Member
Wow..........amazing
Yes, a PEM scope and I hate to think of potential scope eye if it is on full auto.
That would seem the logical impression, based upon what we know regarding proper deployment of the GPMG. However, the Bren's "problem" was that it was too accurate. It had a very tight cone of fire. The No. 32 scope would have worked great on it for a kind of "full auto sniper rifle". The Germans got it right with the MG.34/42, belt fed, cone of fire with infantry based around that for accuracy and support.
Mike is referring to the picture in the OP. The machine gun has a Russian PEM scope.
mike radford
Senior Member
You can call the scope in the original post and topic a No.32 all you like. It is a PEM in my experience, and I have several of each.
If you think the scope in post 1, the topic of this thread, looks like the scope in Post 3 you need eye surgery IMO. Can you not see the larger ring at the top of the elevation ring? A PEMs is near flush.
Last edited:
I have no idea what you're on about?
I posted a complimentary post to Absolut's post of him showing how he fitted a No. 32 scope on to his P14, and you quoted my post and mentioning full auto, which is why I queried you post, as a P14 rifle is a bolt action, not a full auto and now you have the cheek to say I need eye surgery, when its quite clear you are the one that's gone off half cocked.
Show me where I even mentioned anything about the scope of the MG34 in post #1 looking like the 32 scope in post #3...?
Suggest you go back and re-read the posts again, or go an see an eye surgeon yourself.
I wasn't though, my reply had nothing to do with that, I was complimenting Absolut's post of fitting the 32 on his P14, which is bleedin obvious to anyone that can read.
You quoted Mike Radford when he was talking about the OP. I was merely trying to help clarify things. No need to get offensive.
Absolut
Senior Member
GeeRam quoted my post with the pictures of my P.14 rifle that carries a No. 32 scope on it with "wow amazing". Then Mike Radford quoted GeeRam referring to the PEM scope in the original post. He must had missed that GeeRam was not referring to the PEM in the OP but to my pictures. This started the confusion where GeeRam corrected Mike Radford claiming that it was a No. 32 scope with a bolt action rifle and not a fully automatic gun. Yes Matt, you were correct that Mike Radford was referring to the PEM scope in the original post, but he directed his reply to GeeRam who was speaking of something fully different.
I was the one who caused the confusion by posting pictures of a rather different rifle with a different goal: to show that the exact opposite, a scope designed for a MG, in fact turned out to become a standard sniper scope and was also considered to be mounted on a P.14 rifle. The confusion was not my goal and I'm sorry that two members here had such an argument over who was wrong and correct!
I was the one who caused the confusion by posting pictures of a rather different rifle with a different goal: to show that the exact opposite, a scope designed for a MG, in fact turned out to become a standard sniper scope and was also considered to be mounted on a P.14 rifle. The confusion was not my goal and I'm sorry that two members here had such an argument over who was wrong and correct!
mike radford
Senior Member
I apologize for any confusion. We obviously had a confusion of subjects. Sometimes someone is posting and another post is posted first. Not sure what happened but it appears nobody was wrong. No disrespect intended and your eyes are fine, at least as far as I know. Mine, not so much
Thanks for the support Matt.
Seems like some people are very sensitive. Sensitive on the net is a loosing proposition in my experience, been there, done that. My panties now rarely twist but some mutual respect is always a safe bet. I will try to note those who are always right, not me, and listen. GeeRam has been show to be knowing and thanks for contributing.
Interesting posts none the less and sorry for the diversion.
I am aware of various scopes tried on the Pattern 14/17. A very interesting topic in and of itself. And thanks to Absolut for trying to clarify the mess I helped make.
Thanks for the support Matt.
Seems like some people are very sensitive. Sensitive on the net is a loosing proposition in my experience, been there, done that. My panties now rarely twist but some mutual respect is always a safe bet. I will try to note those who are always right, not me, and listen. GeeRam has been show to be knowing and thanks for contributing.
Interesting posts none the less and sorry for the diversion.
I am aware of various scopes tried on the Pattern 14/17. A very interesting topic in and of itself. And thanks to Absolut for trying to clarify the mess I helped make.
mike radford
Senior Member
We need cease argument here since the OP and others were on a different frequency.
The one thing to always note is the poster's knowledge for future reference. The poster is obviously knowledgeable IMO.