Printable View
Ran into a problem with the rubber eye cup on a Lyman scoped 1903A4. With the eye cup installed the bolt handle hits it. I've checked everything except the ring height. Does anyone have an original setup with M81/82 that has the eye cup on and do you know the thickness of the ring bottoms?
Thanks,
Stupid question time...
Are you using a bent 1903a4 bolt body?
R Brown
Like Richard says, the bolt on areal '03A4 is relieved(not bent) to clear the scope. Has nothing to do with the ring height.
Yes, I have an original A4 and a clone that I built. The original A4 bolt is even slightly tighter fit that the clone. Yes, original arsenal 1903A4 bolts "are" bent (quite a bit) and ground. I posed the question with pics on the CMP forum before here: (I just found out yesterday that this site was back up......)
http://forums.thecmp.org/showthread....36#post1664936
The whole idea of M81/M82 use on the A4 is largely a measure of wishful thinking. When the A4 was approved the Lyman Alaskan was designated the M73 and furnished w/o the rubber eyecup or steel sunshade. The T5E1 eyeshade and T6 rain/sun shield were not approved until 1945 - by which time they would have mail been used on the M1 snipers.
Redfield produced commercial bases and rings in various heights but military issue was "one size fits all" :)
Yes, I am aware that this was not an intended combination for the A4, but I have seen them on A4s. What I was wondering was if anyone with said combination had issues with interference. If not I'm trying to figure out what I have going on that is different? By any chance do you know what the thickness of the ring bottom was on GI 7/8 rings?Quote:
Originally Posted by jgaynor
Thanks Jim,
The captions from this manual have some mistakes but note the position of the rings ins the lower photo which Illustrates an M73 (Lyman Alaskan) Scope. The bolt hand should clear the rear of the eyepiece.
Jim
:icon_queen:Attachment 42589
Even in the forward position the handle has to pass the ocular bell. This is fine in either position, unfortunately the added thickness of the cup is too much. May have to just go without, although it does help, more than I expected.
Thanks,
Stupid question guy returns.
2 ideas,
a. with another *relieved* A4 bolt, add some more relieft by grinding and then rebluing/parkerizing (as needed) to allow bolt operation. Course if you're really cheap, a standard replacement bolt body, and make your own relief cutout.
b. get a bunch of the brass shims or just brass sheet stock, and slowly raise the lower mount bracket up till it just clears the bolt relief area, or where ever it contacs the bolt handle.
R Brown
I set my own A4 up with an Alaskan, and the biggest problem that I ran into with the W/E turrets placed between the rings was not being able to fully engage the safety. By putting the W/E turrets forward of the front ring, there is just enough clearance to fully engage the safety in all three positions, and the Lyman has plenty of eye relief to use it effectively there. I'd have to say that without going to a higher ring, you're just gonna have to do without the cup. One thing you MIGHT try is to use 1" rings with reducers that install between the scope and the ring. That would raise the scope's ocular by the same amount as the thickness of the spacer. Might not be enough, still, though. Just a thought. Attachment 42678Attachment 42679Attachment 42680
Darreld:
I was on the 2 1903 groups on facebook, and somebody was asking about the safety hitting the scope. I looked in all my epub tm's and fm's and there didn't seem to be a scope safety for the A4's. I suspect that either the snipe just hand loaded 5 rnds into the mag well, and hit the cut off to keep the cartridge from loading, and closed the bolt on an empty chamber. Or had to dismount the scope and put it in it's carry case, to use the safety.
R Brown
PS Damn Book of Farce, wants me to upload a pix to review to see that I'm me, But since I never put a photo up to begin with... How magical is that? Idiots, and you can't contact support, except by logging in, and of course I can't log in, because I haven't a pix for them to compare with an uploaded one... circular idiotcy.
If you look at the original US Ordnance photos of the M1903A4 (probably taken before they realized they could not get enough M73 Alaskans and had to go with the less good Weaver M73B1 to get the rifles into service) the Alaskan/M73/M81/M82 was always intended to be mounted forward in the rings, and in that position it clears the safety fine.
The Alaskan has plenty of eye relief, and there is no reason to mount it back over the safety - also, mounted in the rear position there is a great opportunity to whack you in the eye under recoil. I did the same thing when I built my 03-AForgery, and immediately realized the Army would not issue a rifle that could not engage the safety. I moved it to the intended position and everything made sense. You are mounting the scope wrong if the safety doesn't work. The Alaskan was a far superior scope, but Bausch & Lomb (who supplied the lenses to Lyman for the Alaskan) was too busy with more critical optical demands (like Submarine periscopes) to provide the optical glass and the Weaver was "what was available". Note the M73 "B1" designator - not the first choice......CC