Planned PE replica- questions:
Results 1 to 20 of 20

Thread: Planned PE replica- questions:

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Calgary, Alberta
    Posts
    1,293

    Default Planned PE replica- questions:

    Managed to acquire a PE scope with the plan being to make a replica using a refurb upgraded Dragoon that has little collector value but is super accurate with the iron sights. With a bit of filing and stoning i have the repro fixed base (Accumounts) and removable bracket fitting together nicely and, through some luck, the axis of the bracket is pretty well aligned with the bore. I say luck because I can't see how one could easily adjust the vertical or lateral alignment of the whole setup. I would guess that original PE Snipers were built using rifles that had been checked for how well the bore was aligned with the facets of the receiver?

    My main question concerns the depth of the holes to be drilled in the receiver. Checking a lot of old threads I see 3.0mm being thrown out as max depth but looking at the length of thread sticking out below the mount and the depth of hole required with the Accumount tap to have enough fully formed thread I'd like to go deeper. The only concrete info I've found is, not surprisingly, from Ratnik's book and I've attached a scan of a portion of a diagram showing positions of the screw holes. Unfortunately there are no dimensions shown. However, I measured the width across the facets at the front of the receiver on a few rifles and attempted to use that to scale the drawing. As shown, this suggests the depth of the blind holes is close to 4.0mm (cylindrical part) or 4.8 to the end of the point. I tested the drill/ tap drilling to this depth on a piece of mild steel and it worked well. So, am I missing something? To any of you who have done this with an ex-sniper, could you tell how deep the original holes were when you drilled out the plugs?

    Otherwise, it appears the base will have to be as far rearward as possible to place the first hole safely back from the locking shoulder surface. Note that on the old drawing, the holes are not evenly spaced- the rear two are 18mm apart, the front two 19. The repro base has 18mm front and rear.

    I'd appreciate any thoughts.

    RuprechtClick image for larger version. 

Name:	2020-05-21_160237.jpg 
Views:	16 
Size:	90.2 KB 
ID:	3656657Click image for larger version. 

Name:	DSCN9035.JPG 
Views:	11 
Size:	392.2 KB 
ID:	3656661Click image for larger version. 

Name:	DSCN9037.JPG 
Views:	11 
Size:	545.8 KB 
ID:	3656663Click image for larger version. 

Name:	DSCN9040.jpg 
Views:	13 
Size:	1.31 MB 
ID:	3656667

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Location
    Assachusetts
    Posts
    1,196

    Default Planned PE replica- questions:

    I don't want to disassemble mine but I have some spare original screws for round base. From the point where the taper starts on the head of the screw all the way to the bottom of the screw is 5.75 mm plus or minus. I measured the round base thickness and it was 2.80 mm so the actual portion of the screw that goes into the receiver is 3 mm deep. Original Hex bases also measured at about 2.8 mm (some more some less) Unfortunatelly I dont have original hex base screws but good quality repros that I have also stick out 3mm when put into hex base.

    As for base placement on the rifle itself it varies. On some of mine it's in the most reward position on some it's not


    ____________________________________

    If it's Made in Russia and original, I'll buy it)

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Ukraine
    Posts
    1,456

    Default

    Measurements according to drawings are little off, because original image was angled, and was stretched by th image editor

    Quote Originally Posted by Ruprecht View Post
    As shown, this suggests the depth of the blind holes is close to 4.0mm (cylindrical part)
    According to the drawings, depth is 3.6 mm (+ 0.2 mm allowed deviation)

    Quote Originally Posted by Ruprecht View Post
    Otherwise, it appears the base will have to be as far rearward as possible to place the first hole safely back from the locking shoulder surface. Note that on the old drawing, the holes are not evenly spaced- the rear two are 18mm apart, the front two 19. The repro base has 18mm front and rear.
    Center of the first hole is 9,1mm (+ 0.2 mm allowed deviation) away from the front edge of the receiver
    Last edited by Ratnik; 05-22-2020 at 02:56 AM.

  4. Remove Advertisements
    GunBoards.com
    Advertisements
     

  5. #4
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Location
    Assachusetts
    Posts
    1,196

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ratnik View Post

    Center of the first hole is 9,1mm (+ 0.2 mm allowed deviation) away from the front edge of the receiver
    Alex was a 9.1mm standard distance for the first hole? Because on my pictures above those are all original PE snipers (not resnipered ones) and on some of them the base sits flush against the edge of the receiver but on some there is a substantial gap. I can measure it later but it looks like on some it as big as 2mm.
    Unless the base length varied greatly too...?


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    ____________________________________

    If it's Made in Russia and original, I'll buy it)

  6. #5
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Ukraine
    Posts
    1,456

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pavlin View Post
    Alex was a 9.1mm standard distance for the first hole? Because on my pictures above those are all original PE snipers (not resnipered ones) and on some of them the base sits flush against the edge of the receiver but on some there is a substantial gap. I can measure it later but it looks like on some it as big as 2mm.
    Unless the base length varied greatly too...?


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

    It's a size according to 1934 drawings. 1930, 1932 drawings do not mention base position. Likely there was one more pattern of drawings between 1934-1936, but I don't have it. Next drawings I have after 1934 are 1936 round receiver top mount sniper drawings (interesting, but according to them distance is also 9.1 mm)

  7. #6
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Calgary, Alberta
    Posts
    1,293

    Default

    Pavlin: Thanks very much for the info and for showing those examples! My Accumount screws appear to be a bit shorter than the ones you describe although the base thickness is identical.

    Alex: Thanks very much for providing the proper dimensions for the screw holes- just to verify, that is the depth of the cylindrical portion and doesn't include the triangular point? Regarding the hole position, do you know, offhand, what the distance from center rear screw to the rear of the receiver on the right side is? On my scanned copy the distance appears to be approximately 5.6mm. I love your book, by the way. Courtesy of my very limited Russian and Google Translate I've managed to get through a fairly large portion of it.

    Best Regards.

    Ruprecht

  8. #7
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Location
    Assachusetts
    Posts
    1,196

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ruprecht View Post
    Pavlin: that is the depth of the cylindrical portion and doesn't include the triangular point?
    Ruprecht
    I don't think it matters much especially if you use straight flute carbide bit. It's angled at 145 degrees so the deviation between cylindrical portion of the hole and the actual bottom would be minimal and thus negligible.
    If you drill with regular twist flute bit it's angled at 118 degrees the difference will increase up to 0.5mm I'm pretty sure the 3.6 mm depth that the drawings suggest are to the actual bottom of the hole.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ruprecht View Post
    Regarding the hole position, do you know, offhand, what the distance from center rear screw to the rear of the receiver on the right side is? On my scanned copy the distance appears to be approximately 5.6mm.
    Ruprecht
    As Alex mentioned already it's 9.1 mm however as you can see from my pictures it varied. I'll check later if there's some regularity by year basis but looks like there was at least another set of drawings with different spacing.
    ____________________________________

    If it's Made in Russia and original, I'll buy it)

  9. #8
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Ukraine
    Posts
    1,456

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ruprecht View Post

    Alex: Thanks very much for providing the proper dimensions for the screw holes- just to verify, that is the depth of the cylindrical portion and doesn't include the triangular point? Regarding the hole position, do you know, offhand, what the distance from center rear screw to the rear of the receiver on the right side is? On my scanned copy the distance appears to be approximately 5.6mm.

    Yes, it's depth of the cylindrical portion only
    Distance is 9.1 mm (+0.2 mm). It doesn't look such on the drawing, but another image clearly mention this distance.
    Last edited by Ratnik; 05-23-2020 at 12:10 AM.

  10. #9
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Location
    Assachusetts
    Posts
    1,196

    Default

    Ok I checked 6 Rifles 5 hex PEs and one PE round

    PE hex snipers were 1934, 1935/36 restamp, 1936, 1934/35 restamp. The front hole is in fact 9.1 mm from the edge of the receiver on all of the hex receiver rifles

    1938 PE round on the other hand is 7.1 mm from the edge of the receiver

    Why some hex bases are flush on the back and some not? I've noticed two things:
    1. All my hex bases varied in length Some being as low as 44.8mm and the longest being 45.85 mm
    2. Hole pattern is different on all bases. On some rear holes closer to the edge of the base than front ones on some they are positioned equally.
    so this explains the gap on the back
    ____________________________________

    If it's Made in Russia and original, I'll buy it)

  11. #10
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Calgary, Alberta
    Posts
    1,293

    Default

    Ratnik/ Pavlin: More great info- thanks to both of you. I feel confident about getting the holes in the correct position and drilled/ tapped to the correct depth now. Regards.

    Ruprecht

  12. #11
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Ukraine
    Posts
    1,456

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pavlin View Post
    1. All my hex bases varied in length Some being as low as 44.8mm and the longest being 45.85 mm
    2. Hole pattern is different on all bases. On some rear holes closer to the edge of the base than front ones on some they are positioned equally.
    so this explains the gap on the back
    1.Are those bases are relic? In all drawing that I have (round and hex) length of the base is 46 mm (allowed deviation - 0.5 mm)
    2. Yes, spacing was different, I already mentioned this
    https://forums.gunboards.com/showthr...29#post9341029

  13. #12
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    13,313

    Default

    Good info gentlemen. Thanks.

  14. #13
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    2,220

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pavlin View Post
    Ok I checked 6 Rifles 5 hex PEs and one PE round

    PE hex snipers were 1934, 1935/36 restamp, 1936, 1934/35 restamp. The front hole is in fact 9.1 mm from the edge of the receiver on all of the hex receiver rifles

    1938 PE round on the other hand is 7.1 mm from the edge of the receiver

    Why some hex bases are flush on the back and some not? I've noticed two things:
    1. All my hex bases varied in length Some being as low as 44.8mm and the longest being 45.85 mm
    2. Hole pattern is different on all bases. On some rear holes closer to the edge of the base than front ones on some they are positioned equally.
    so this explains the gap on the back
    original hex bases do seem to vary in length and hole pattern. I always wondered if they machined the base profile on a long piece of bar stock and then cut the bases from it or machined them individually.

  15. #14
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Location
    Assachusetts
    Posts
    1,196

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mjmd View Post
    original hex bases do seem to vary in length and hole pattern. I always wondered if they machined the base profile on a long piece of bar stock and then cut the bases from it or machined them individually.
    Making them from long pre made long bar stock would totally make sense and cut time and production costs but who knows


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    ____________________________________

    If it's Made in Russia and original, I'll buy it)

  16. #15
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Location
    Assachusetts
    Posts
    1,196

    Default Planned PE replica- questions:

    Quote Originally Posted by Ratnik View Post
    1.Are those bases are relic? In all drawing that I have (round and hex) length of the base is 46 mm (allowed deviation - 0.5 mm)
    2. Yes, spacing was different, I already mentioned this
    https://forums.gunboards.com/showthr...29#post9341029
    Alex almost all of them in a relic condition some worse some better except two. And the funny thing is that one of the non relic condition (my second picture above) measures 44.8mm.




    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    ____________________________________

    If it's Made in Russia and original, I'll buy it)

  17. #16
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    2,220

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pavlin View Post
    Ok I checked 6 Rifles 5 hex PEs and one PE round

    PE hex snipers were 1934, 1935/36 restamp, 1936, 1934/35 restamp. The front hole is in fact 9.1 mm from the edge of the receiver on all of the hex receiver rifles

    1938 PE round on the other hand is 7.1 mm from the edge of the receiver

    Why some hex bases are flush on the back and some not? I've noticed two things:
    1. All my hex bases varied in length Some being as low as 44.8mm and the longest being 45.85 mm
    2. Hole pattern is different on all bases. On some rear holes closer to the edge of the base than front ones on some they are positioned equally.
    so this explains the gap on the back
    I have seen originals as long as 46 mm . A bad saw blade day? Larger blade kerf? Worn blade Kerf?

  18. #17
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    928

    Default

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	IMG_0458.JPG 
Views:	9 
Size:	182.5 KB 
ID:	3659403 1936 Tula on the original holes....all the way back and aligned with receiver cut out.Click image for larger version. 

Name:	IMG_0464.JPG 
Views:	8 
Size:	200.9 KB 
ID:	3659405

  19. #18
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Location
    Assachusetts
    Posts
    1,196

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by reiver1 View Post
    1936 Tula on the original holes....all the way back and aligned with receiver cut out.
    A bit off the subject.
    Eric is it SA marked? Am asking because afik all original PE snipers with open holes were Finn captures and thus marked as such and I donít see SA mark on yours.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    ____________________________________

    If it's Made in Russia and original, I'll buy it)

  20. #19
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Calgary, Alberta
    Posts
    1,293

    Default

    After a fair bit of work to make the base sit solidly down on the top of the receiver it came together quickly. The Accumount tap worked quite well and I had no problem getting it all lined up. I had no confidence in center-punching working so I started each hole with the base clamped onto the receiver and using a bit that just fit inside the holes. Just touched it enough to form a nice dimple- each of which was perfectly centered. I started the tapping with the tap chucked up in the drill but only did about one half of the depth then finished with the hand brace which, I think, gives better feedback. I was pleased to see that the final alignment of the bracket could be done by simply stoning the appropriate face on the mating surface of the mount to a slightly different angle. Now the post is dead-center in the field of view while bore-sighting on a distant object. Can't wait to get it to the range. Thanks for all the helpful comments and inspirational photos.

    Ruprecht
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails DSCN9046.jpg  


  21. #20
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    928

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pavlin View Post
    A bit off the subject.
    Eric is it SA marked? Am asking because afik all original PE snipers with open holes were Finn captures and thus marked as such and I don’t see SA mark on yours.



    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    No, not SA, and by original holes I meant the originally welded up holes that were obvious.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •