Scope Mount for A4

[jt2778]

I have an O3-A4 with the usual Redfield Jr base. I would like to mount an M84 scope and shoot it some. Does someone have some suggestions about a mounting set-up? Thanks in advance. Jt2778 in Georgia

[m1903rifle]

You just have to find some Redfield 7/8" rings for the M-84 scope.

[jgaynor]

The setup is a bit of a kluge but you might look for a set of 1" Redfield or Leupold rings and use the inserts that step the diameter down to 7/8". GI 7/8" rings can be a bit hard to find. However, Gibbs Rifle Co has been promising to bring out versions of the A4 with reproduction Lyman Alaskans and M84's so they might be worth a phone call.

Regards,
Jim

[Entry Level]

Ring setup for M84. I broke the reticule on my scope, an M71B2, so while waiting for the repair here is what I did. Redfield or Leupold rings won't fit the slots on the base I have so I replaced the base with a Leupold base and 1" rings for the Weaver scope, K10c, that I am using. The Springfield 03 base from Leupold fits fine, it just has an extra screw hole for mounting. I also picked up a 26S to try also. Brownells has 7/8 and 3/4 inch inserts for 1 inch rings so whichever size the M84 is you can mount with that setup. Toughest part was finding screws that fit Leupold base and tapped holes on action. I am now spoiled with the 10x scope so am not eager to put the 7/8 2.5 power back on, but I will. So that's it. Good luck.

[jt2778]

O.K. This is what I was looking for. I think what you are saying is modern Redfield rings won't fit that old Redfield base. Is that Correct? The Redfield base on the gun is the one that has been on it for ?? years.

[Entry Level]

The Redfield and Leupold rings look to have a slightly bigger foot, the rear ring works but the front ring that has to turn will enter but not turn 90 degrees. Maybe some filing will allow it to turn. Once mounted on my rifle the Leupold base and rings is a nice secure setup.

[Johnny in Texas]

I would not remove your base from your A4 if the screws are original and staked in place. Just find some older Redfield 2 piece rings 1". They are not that hard to find, they are square or block looking not rounded.

[chuckindenver]

Lyman actually made the 2 piece rings for the M84 scope, not redfield.
though many of them will be advertised as Redfield rings. you cant use the 7/8s once piece rings on the M84, how would you get the bell of the scope through that little 7/8s hole?

[Peconga]

With all the bits and pieces of advice being floated around on this thread, I thought it might be useful to summarize and add my $0.02 to help you along:

1. Chuckindenver is right. You will need two-piece horizontally split rings for the M84, not the more common vertically split rings as used with the Lyman Alaskan (aka M81/82) scope. He is also right about Lyman making the rings, not Redfield but that is a minor point since they are not marked.

2. The correct 7/8" two-piece horizontally split rings are available for a price, usually $250 and up unless you get very lucky. They are not common but show up frequently enough that you should be able to find a set with with a few inquiries and WTB ads on this Forum and maybe a couple other places.

3. While not original issue, an M84 scope would be entirely correct for a Korean War era 03-A4 rifle. Given the value of such a rifle ($3K ++) spending the extra time and money to procure the correct rings (see #2) is a worthwhile investment.

4. IMHO fooling around with kludged 1" rings and spacers is a waste of time and money; either do it right or don't bother. If you need a short term expedient (as in "Want to shoot it this weekend") just mount a common-as-dirt Weaver K2.5 with 1" RF rings and have at it; save the M84 until you have the correct rings for it.

5. I've had Redfield JR bases and rings on literally hundreds of rifles over the decades, and can't ever recall having a problem with the "foot" on the front rings not fitting the base properly regardless of the manufacture date. Are you sure the parts are all legitimate Redfield manufacture, and not some other maker or Chinese clone? Leupold copied the basic Redfield mounting system, but did not exactly duplicate the Redfield designs nor do they guarantee 100% compatibility.

6. Unless the part is damaged, there is no good reason to remove the original Redfield base from your 03-A4, and several good reasons not to. The main ones are the risk of stripping threads and buggering screw heads, especially if the screw heads have been staked in place (as noted by Johnny in Texas). Military armorers did that for a reason, and that was to keep people from mucking with them later. Unless you are completely refinishing the rifle or somehow need an additional elevation shim under base, my advise is to just leave it well enough alone.

Best of luck with your project!

[jt2778]

To Peconga: you're right on all statements. The redfield base has been on this forever and i'll not attempt to remove it. I'll take your advice about the Weaver K2.5. Thanks to everyone who offered suggestions. JT2778 in Ga.

[Darreld Walton]

+1 on the K2.5. I recently picked one up, with the vintage top split Redfield dovetail rings, for under $50.00. It ain't a lot of things, but it IS a decent, serviceable piece that definitely gives the "look".

[Marcus]

The Weaver K4 60-B that saw limited use on Viet Nam War era U.S. sniper rifles in the 1960's is also a good choice for an A4. The version with crosshair reticle can sometimes be found at reasonable prices. These take the 1" parkerized horizontal split rings, which also turn up sometimes relatively cheap - don't use the low height blued ones, as the front bell of the scope will be in contact with the handguard.

[pelago]

http://i173.photobucket.com/albums/w57/pelago177/1903A41.jpg

i have an original redfield junior base and it had been milled to accomadate the bell for the alaskan scope i have, the bell needed the base to be modified somewhat. this was done years and years ago by original armorer that put mount on gun
also allows for the full use of safety

[Col. Colt]

pelago, your rifle, as illustrated, is apparently what US Army Ordnance actually WANTED the 03A4 to be - with the Lyman Alaskan as "First Choice", which was then designated "M73".
Unfortunately, Lyman got their finished lens sets from Bausch & Lomb, who was too booked up with other WWII glass work to fill the orders when needed. Thus the adoption of the M73b1, or Weaver 330, as the standard 03A4 scope. Second choice, and very much second best.

Latter on, the M81/M82 Lyman Alaskans, with post and crosshair reticles, became available in the system, and apparently were used in Korea and possibly even Vietnam, and on the M1C, although my 1970 Vietnam era M1903A4 Field Manual shows the M84 as the latest standard military scope. CC

[Johnny in Texas]

Also note the the large bow in the bolt handle of the A4 fits the radius of the M84 rubber eye piece perfectly.

[jgaynor]

Also note that the bevel at the rear of the Redfield Jr. base fits perfectly with the eyepiece bell of the Lyman Alaskan. The bevel serves no purpose when an M73B1 (Weaver 330) is mounted as the W & E adjustment plate limits how far forward the scope can be located. Both the Weaver and the Lyman were fairly long eye relief scopes but the Weaver was not able to be used to full advantage since the leading edge of the W & E plate interferes with the back of the rear mounting ring.

Regards,

Jim

[pelago]

just for information
shot fifty rounds today at 300 yards, used various loads, and the rifle hit well with all of them
strayed into the 9 ring 1/2 dozen times but stayed in the ten ring for the most part, shot
178 AMax,175 sierra, 175 grain vld berger, some moly 175's, probably could pick any one of them and shoot the rifle and narrow it down to a knats ass, but generally speaking, i think i like the Hornady 168 Gr A Max commercial loads that CMP has
had it been in combat, and shot at 300 yards, all would have been center mass/chest shots and all would have scored direct hit
that aint bad for a 69 yr old rifle