ATI Scope base for a No4 mk2. Any good? Other options?

mikeystew

mikeystew

CGN Ultra frequent flyer
Rating - 100%
51   0   0
Location
Beautiful BC
Hey gang. I've got a #4 mk2 that was sporterised by Churchill gunmakers out of the UK in the 60's, really nice rifle and shoots extremely well. I've got a hankering to put a scope on it to extend its useful range and am wondering what the best course of action is. The ATI mount looks nice, but I'm not sure how stable it is. Does anyone else here use one? There's no sense in scoping it if it isn't rock solid.

It also has two holes tapped into the left side of the action that I assume are for a scope mount but I don't know which one based on the spacing. I'll try to take a pic shortly.

Thanks!
 
Last edited:
Here's a pic for the No4Mk1, your receiver would have more than two holes drilled and tapped.
finished02.jpg


Here's a pic for the No4Mk2, your knox form would be tapped.
BerfjcB2kKGrHqUOKj8Erzk6U64BK-NfC3O.jpg
 
The ATI scope mount is not secure and will literally fly off your rifle. Get youself an Addley Pecission smith less scope mount. Best mount for the No 4 and they are made in Ontario.
 
I had a sporter that came with a B-Square mount and I've seen the ATI. What I dislike about both of those is that they mount in place of the rear sight, which means at best if the scope is damaged you can't just remove it and carry on with the iron sights, at worst it means you lose the rear sight. But of the two, the B-Square was solid and would have worked well and I haven't heard good things of the ATI.

I prefer the Cad-Technik to either of those because it allows the rear sight to stay in place and you can take the scope off if necessary and it goes back on still zeroed. I have two, they work just as they should so I'm keeping them, but I'm not going to reccommend them because I'm not sure if they are still around and the Addley that Garaldtao mentioned seems like a better design. If I needed another mount I'd try an Addley.
 
Last edited:
Thanks folks, I'll look into the addley. Hollowedpoint that's a beautiful rifle! Lol, mine had the red recoil pad too but it was super crusty and dry so I replaced it with a limb saver grind to fit. Is yours a good shooter too? Mine really impressed me. With hand loads and the right target it shoots an honest 1-1.5 MOA at 100m with the iron sights flipped up.
 
Au contraire...with the B Square mount I had I was able to use a Mk II rear flip sight. And you could see under the scope mount and use the sights. But the mount rail is out of spec, Picatinny rings wouldn't tighten properly on it, depending on the type. It's also very thin, flimsy aluminum, weighs like a couple of ounces. That's not to say it's not good but...

The Cad Technik sits way too high...as in chin weld on the stock. And it only mounts using the safety and ejector screws, rather small hardware.

I haven't heard rave reviews about the ATI, but admit to never handling one.

Best no gunsmithing mount I've found is the Addley Precision mount, made in Midland Ontario Canada.

But, since your receiver is already drilled and tapped...maybe the very cheap and very solid angle iron mount as seen on Steve Redgewell's site at .303 British, using those 2 holes that are already there.

Once you've made it (if you go that route), maybe get it blued, for a more attractive appearance as befits the Churchill.

http://www.303british.com/id32.html



TheTooner said:
I had a sporter that came with a B-Square mount and I've seen the ATI. What I dislike about both of those is that they mount in place of the rear sight, which means at best if the scope is damaged you can't just remove it and carry on with the iron sights, at worst it means you lose the rear sight. But of the two, the B-Square was solid and would have worked well and I haven't heard good things of the ATI.

I prefer the Cad-Technik to either of those because they allow the rear sight to stay in place and you can take the scope off if necessary and it goes back on still zeroed. I have two, they work just as they should so I'm keeping them, but I'm not going to reccommend them because I'm not sure if they are still around and the Addley that Garaldtao mentioned seems like a better design. If I needed another mount I'd try an Addley.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Read the reviews for the B Square. They are bang on to my experience(s).

ht tps://www.amazon.com/B-Square-Receiver-Mounted-Scope-Finish/dp/B0014VVRIS
 
Last edited:
cantom said:
Au contraire...with the B Square mount I had I was able to use a Mk II rear flip sight. And you could see under the scope mount and use the sights. But the mount rail is out of spec, Picatinny rings wouldn't tighten properly on it, depending on the type. It's also very thin, flimsy aluminum, weighs like a couple of ounces. That's not to say it's not good but...

The Cad Technik sits way too high...as in chin weld on the stock. And it only mounts using the safety and ejector screws, rather small hardware.

I haven't heard rave reviews about the ATI, but admit to never handling one.

Best no gunsmithing mount I've found is the Addley Precision mount, made in Midland Ontario Canada.

But, since your receiver is already drilled and tapped...maybe the very cheap and very solid angle iron mount as seen on Steve Redgewell's site at .303 British, using those 2 holes that are already there.

Once you've made it (if you go that route), maybe get it blued, for a more attractive appearance as befits the Churchill.

http://www.303british.com/id32.html
Click to expand...

I like that angle iron mount. I considered doing something like that as well but now seeing it I'm even more inclined. Anyone who knows me knows I like making stuff myself lol. Sometimes a little too much.

I built and rust blued this trigger guard for my mossberg from scratch with flatbar and some really basic tools, so a homemade scope mount should be no big deal.



 
Thanks milkeystew!
It shoots great with 174's and 180's with the flip up sight.
Yours looks definitely in better shape though, really nice bluing and the recoil pad looks way better then the red one lol

Btw That trigger guard looks heavy duty but nice! Good job man!
 
plinker 777 said:
Your rifle is actually a No4Mk1/2, (No4Mk1*) not a No4Mk2. (and a nice one:))
I'm uncertain as to what type of mount your receiver was drilled and tapped for, but I am certain that it is an after civilian market type mount. Not milsurp as per my pic.
Click to expand...


well just to be extra picky it is a No4 Mk1/3 :)


it may be set up for a parker hale side mount.
 
Here is the Addley Precision mount, I have one on my Lee Enfield and find it is the best of all the No.4 scope mounts on the market, and real solid. It also has a built in back up peep sight.


$_1.JPG
 
He's made generation after generation. Mine accepts a Mk II flip sight, just like you see in the pics of the B Square. Yours has the hole in it.

He even has a specific mount for Long Branch rifles now!

mkrnel said:
Here is the Addley Precision mount, I have one on my Lee Enfield and find it is the best of all the No.4 scope mounts on the market, and real solid. It also has a built in back up peep sight.


$_1.JPG
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
cantom said:
...

The Cad Technik sits way too high...as in chin weld on the stock. And it only mounts using the safety and ejector screws, rather small hardware.

...

Best no gunsmithing mount I've found is the Addley Precision mount, made in Midland Ontario Canada.

...
Click to expand...

The sporter I had with a B-Square mount didn't have the original rear sight and it didn't appear to me that it was compatible with one. I tried looking under it and did not get a satisfactory sight picture, but as I said it did seem to be a solid secure mount.

The height of the Cad-Technik is it's biggest fault but for me a Beartooth comb-raising kit answered that, as did a replica No.4T cheekpiece. (I sold the latter rifle and the cheekpiece and the Cad-Technik are in a box in case I want to set up another one like that. The other Cad-Techik and the Beartooth kit are still in use on the full-stocked No.4Mk.2 with which I took my first deer. That one won't change in my lifetime.)

Without trying an Addley I agree it's design is a better compromise. They weren't around when I got into this and the Cad-Techniks work well enough for me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom