Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 12
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Eastern Montana
    Posts
    615

    Default 1903A4 7/8" scope ring height (Lyman M81/M82)

    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,

  2. #2

    Default

    Stupid question time...

    Are you using a bent 1903a4 bolt body?

    R Brown

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    London, Ontario
    Posts
    3,251

    Default

    Like Richard says, the bolt on areal '03A4 is relieved(not bent) to clear the scope. Has nothing to do with the ring height.
    Spelling and grammar count!

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Eastern Montana
    Posts
    615

    Default

    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
    Last edited by Randy A; 12-17-2017 at 01:36.

  5. #5

    Default

    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"

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Eastern Montana
    Posts
    615

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jgaynor View Post
    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?
    Thanks Jim,

  7. #7

    Default

    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

    032..jpg

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Eastern Montana
    Posts
    615

    Default

    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,

  9. #9

    Default

    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

  10. #10

    Default

    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. IMG_0182.jpgIMG_0183.jpgIMG_0184.jpg
    Last edited by Darreld Walton; 12-27-2017 at 06:02.

Posting Permissions

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