mounting scope on a 303 sporter

Just installed a scope on my SMLE sporter.
I'm looking for some period rings and a vintage scope eventually to make this a 1960s era deer culler rifle.
But for now I've thrown on a spare scope and mounts on the alloy weaver base, ideally I would want some higher mounts because the scope actually hits the wood which I've unclipped for now and the sights are in the way.
But this presents its own issues, one issue is that I've got it pretty much as far back as I can, but feels like it's still too far away from my eye to see the whole field of view. If I raise the scope, I won't really be able to rest my cheek on the stock either and kind of feels un-natural.
I'm wondering if this is because the stock on these was designed for the iron sights where you are aiming down along the barrel.
I dont know if I'm describing this accurately but these are just my observations.
Here is a photo of how it looks currently anyway.
I know the mounts are probably rubbish, but I just want it to tie me over until I find something better down the track.
Attachment 220300

same issue as has been around since Adam wore chaps n spurs and worked on a ranch.....a simple woolen sock cheek riser will help cheek weld,leave sights in place if you can...once get over about 6x on scope they will fade away anyhow....go too high they are a bitch to sight in and elevation at different ranges can be "interesting" you will want a recoil lug on scope base somehow...trustme on this one....

the scope you using is part of issue...a longer bodied model will allow it to come further back.Im guessing a no name 4x32 from gunshitty etc bought on a 22lr package?? or bought for under hundy$$$ tasco/nikkostirling knock off made in china.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Micky Duck

same issue as has been around since Adam wore chaps n spurs and worked on a ranch.....a simple woolen sock cheek riser will help cheek weld,leave sights in place if you can...once get over about 6x on scope they will fade away anyhow....go too high they are a bitch to sight in and elevation at different ranges can be "interesting" you will want a recoil lug on scope base somehow...trustme on this one....

---

I was looking at that, so its not just me then. Ive noticed that many of these rifles have had aftermarket stocks likely added for this reason. Ive got a recoil lug on the scope base, so I should be OK there.
Your right about the sights, I dont seem to notice them in the field of view, so is probably alright. Its really only the wood thats in the way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Micky Duck

the scope you using is part of issue...a longer bodied model will allow it to come further back.Im guessing a no name 4x32 from gunshitty etc bought on a 22lr package?? or bought for under hundy$$$ tasco/nikkostirling knock off made in china.

---

Its a 4x40 scope, is made in japan but dont see any make stamped anywhere on it.
I do actually have a tasco scope which is a 3-9x40 which I was going to use, and yes it is a longer scope, but I noticed it has a circlip rattling around inside and can see it behind the front lens. Seems a nice enough scope, but obviously its got some issues, so i didnt install it.

I can probably make do with it for now, but want to find something better eventually.

Greetings @ Old_School,
The base on your rifle is a Parker Hale, or copy, made for your No1 Lee Enfield. The rings are either low or medium Parker Hale or copy. Both are correct for the rifle, Your problem is the scope. A Pecar 4 power scope would have been a common scope mounted on cullers rifle but these are 26mm tube (wont fit you rings) and probably reticle moving (reticle does not remain centred when adjusted. They can also be dogs to adjust. If you can find a Leupold M8 4 power scope in good nick this would be a good substitute for your current scope.
Attachment 220369
The top scope in the photo is the Leupold and the lower one the Pecar. Both are 4 power. Both have ample tube available fore and aft adjustment plus the Leupold is a 4x28 so should clear your top wood.
One last thing, the No1 Lee Enfield No 1 rifles have a bridge that is riveted on and are prone to bedding problems. To counter this with mine I keep the loads light using reduced charges of AR2206H and the Hornady 174 grain round nose projectile.
All the best with it.
Regards Grandpamac.

Had a Pecar in 1967. Bought with the intention of fitting to my 308 Forester. 26mm rings unavailable at that time so got a refund and bought a Weaver K4. Optically a lesser animal but cheaper than the Pecar. (26 pounds IIRC for the Pecar, 18 for the K4.)
And thank goodness for that as although the Pecar 4x81 was one of the scopes of the day the moving reticle would have driven me nuts. My Forester did have windage adjustable rings so I could have minimised any offset of the reticle. Elevation may have lucked somewhere in the centre.

Still have a Nickel Supra 4x81 26mm which was another scope of the day but not as popular as the Pecar. IMO a better scope as it has image moving and diopter ajustment on the eyepiece, something that a lot of brands have only adopted in recent years. Only downside of the Nickel v Pecar is the Nickel has an alloy tube. My old Weaver (steel tube) took a terrific hammering with quite visible dents on the tube.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by grandpamac

Greetings @ Old_School,
The base on your rifle is a Parker Hale, or copy, made for your No1 Lee Enfield. The rings are either low or medium Parker Hale or copy. Both are correct for the rifle, Your problem is the scope. A Pecar 4 power scope would have been a common scope mounted on cullers rifle but these are 26mm tube (wont fit you rings) and probably reticle moving (reticle does not remain centred when adjusted. They can also be dogs to adjust. If you can find a Leupold M8 4 power scope in good nick this would be a good substitute for your current scope.
Attachment 220369
The top scope in the photo is the Leupold and the lower one the Pecar. Both are 4 power. Both have ample tube available fore and aft adjustment plus the Leupold is a 4x28 so should clear your top wood.
One last thing, the No1 Lee Enfield No 1 rifles have a bridge that is riveted on and are prone to bedding problems. To counter this with mine I keep the loads light using reduced charges of AR2206H and the Hornady 174 grain round nose projectile.
All the best with it.
Regards Grandpamac.

---

Yeah your right, I believe it is a Parker hale base. It's made of anodized aluminum, but I've seen steel ones out there.
The rings are likely a knockoff, I would say they are low height looking at them.
I will definitely go for a more suitable scope when one turns up, but I sighted it in and it wasn't actually that bad when I used it.
Ive seen other rifles with the wood removed on the top. Is there any real benefit or is it purely just cosmetic?
Either way, I'm getting real nice tight one inch groupings, so the accuracy is good at 50 meters anyway.

an inch at 50 with a SMLE is not good,its friggin GREAT groupings...they were only speced to do 4" or better at hundy from NEW.... dont be a hurry to change things.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Micky Duck

an inch at 50 with a SMLE is not good,its friggin GREAT groupings...they were only speced to do 4" or better at hundy from NEW.... dont be a hurry to change things.

---

wow, thats good to know!
I know when the gunsmith went through his bore gauges it was real tight, but cant remember the measurement, but it was far from a sloppy barrel like many are.
I have no idea how many rounds this barrel has had through it before I fitted it to the rifle, but even then i was told by one gunsmith that it looked like the barrel had still seen a fair bit of use/wear even with such a tight bore.

I wont be changing much other than a better scope, but definitely will be looking after this barrel!
Considering its not fully wooded, I would imagine this barrel would even perform better on a fully wooded rifle?