Gibb A4 Query

[1750Shooter]

From comments here & elsewhere, I gather that the scope on the Giibs A4 isn't very durable. I have an original Alaskan, so that isn't really a problem, but how are the mounts? If they're not good, what can I replace them with that are period-correct (I want to shoot Vintage Sniper with this rifle). Thanks for any input.

[Sunray]

Gibb's '03A4's are supposedly cobbled together from drill and other questionable receivers. The Hi-Lux/Leatherwood scopes don't appear to be horrible though. You may find an early scope like that a gigantic pain to work with though. Windage is adjusted via the base.

[1750Shooter]

Sunray, thanks for your scope comments. PLEASE stop passing on this misinformation that has been floating around for a while - Gibbs are NOT built on drill rifle receivers, rewelded demils, reheatreated low-number receivers, or Israeli fakes made to pay for new fighters (How many receivers do you have to make to buy a $30mil. jet?)! They are from a huge bunch bought by Parker Hale after the war to convert into sporters - I had a 9.3x62 on a Rock Island receiver & a friend still has a 22-250 on a Springfield one. When PH went to commercial Mauser actions in the '70s, they just stored them. Val Folgett found & bought them with the intention of building "new/old" '03s but couldn't find a foolproof (or maybe forgery-proof) way to do it. So they sat again until he decided on an A4 that is too obvious a copy to "fix". Sorry about the rant, but it's -2*, the cat got me up early, & I'm trying to set people straight about this. It's unfair to Folgett, without whom tens of thousands of guns would have gone in smelters or burn piles.

[musketshooter]

The last name of the owner of Gibbs is Forgette.

[blackhawk2]

Head down to the Chantilly Va Gun Show this weekend, and look at the 03A3 receiver's on his table....Then report back.....regards alex

[BlitzKrieg]

Guy asks about optics and some good time expert wants to lecture him that his Gibbs is a POS .

Learning disorder or can't read and focus on an answer ?

To answer the question, the Chinese mount will work just fine on your Lyman Alaskan scope if you use the correct 7/8 size Redfield Jr Rings. Just go over to CMP board and you'll get more confirmation of this fact.

On drill rifle receivers. What is on that table at Chantilly is not what is on my Gibbs rifle. Anyhow, if the weld was on the On/Off tab as was the case on my rifle, it makes not a molecule of difference in the structural safety of my rifle.

The real bias , is repro 03A4 offend purists here and they are the same purists that don't shoot their O3A4 . They are behind the times, many folks today want to shoot history and the repro 03A4 allow that to happen.

[twh]

Then there is the subset of people who get their panties in a twist when someone correctly points out that Gibbs and others produce a poorly executed copy using recycled drill rifle receivers and Chinese repro parts. Tough to decide which is worse and to clarify your point he asked about the mounts not the optics. The mount should work fine and I would use it as is and see if a problem develops and then change as necessary with either the military version or the commercial production mounts which may be easier to find.

[joem]

Guy at the range hasor had one. Rifle looks pretty good, scope optics fell apart on 6th or 7 th shot. That's all I saw.

[blackhawk2]

BlitzKrieg, Perhaps you should read post #3...The OP has stated that Gibb's, thru Rock Ridge, are original...He is living in La La land....regards alex

[Col. Colt]

Why are all drill rifle recievers "questionable"? I'm a bit puzzled by all the concern over selected, usable drill rifle recievers being reclaimed when they would have been scrapped, assuming that was what was used on the rifle in question. From the ones I have examined, it's a non-issue, for a SHOOTER grade Rifle. Most have an easily broken small tack weld holding the barrel, which is unlikely to have generated enough heat to affect strength (usually on the bottom where it is invisible anyway). And the ugliness some find around the cutoff opening varies from unattractive to not even noticable. It can be fixed, if you care, but it at least makes sure a buyer does not purchase a rebuild thinking it is untouched GI, since it is hard to get the contours perfect or get finish to take evenly over the repair. I've been waiting for reports of these reborn rifles to develop headspace, failure or wear problems - so far - nothing.....

Either way, a lot of fully functional, quite enjoyable Springfield rifles are reborn to continue their service to our nation as target rifles - and I have yet to hear of a single authenticated case of one failing and injuring someone - please cite documented, provable cases if you have one. Otherwise, what's wrong with a few thousand more M1903's in the world we thought were lost forever?? Is that somehow a bad thing?? Saves the pristine originals from being worn out on the range, or, worse, being drilled and tapped to make reproduction Sniper rifles! I care how it shoots, not it's ancestry, if I am building for the range. CC