Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 18 of 18

Thread: 03a4 thoughts?

  1. Default

    The Lyman Alaskan is FAR Superior to the 330 Weaver - and was in fact the original scope chosen for the M1903A4 - and designated M73. You will note that the 330 Weaver is designed as M73b - second choice, and very second rate. The original Army Techical manuals show the M1903A4 with the Lyman mounted - not the Weaver. Much of the 03A4s lackluster reputation is the fault of the lousy Weaver scope. The small tube and poor sealing made the Weaver a poor choice, and it was roundly criticised.

    If you examine an original 03A4 Redfield mount, you will notice the taper on the back portion. This serves no purpose if you mount a 330 Weaver, but is required for the Lyman Alaskan to fit properly. The fact that they continued to make them to fit the Alaskan would seem to mean that they hoped to obtain them, some time in the future.

    The reason the Lyman Alaskan was not issued was that Lyman's lens supplier was the famous Bausch & Lomb optical firm out of Rochester, New York. They were so swamped with high priority war work (like periscope lenses and artillery lenses) that they could not supply the lens sets to Lyman to build sufficent quantities of Alaskans for the contract. CC
    Colt, Glock and Remington factory trained LE Armorer
    LE Trained Firearms Instructor

  2. #12

    Default

    I ask about the "proper" placement of the turrets; I installed my scope so that the turrets would be behind the front ring figuring that rifle recoil would not let the scope move forward if I had not sufficiently tightened the screws on the rings. I have been firing my 03A4orgery in local CMP shoots and at the 2012/13 National Sniper tournaments. It works perfectly, I just wish I could hold better to shoot "cleans" or nearly so. You might be interested to know that last Wednesday I fired FA T291 with a head stamp date of 1957. If I did my part, the bullet flew into the X ring. I did manage a
    180 with a small X count, which is two points higher than 2012. I also check the tension on all screws before I go to the range. I have been finding the stock screws somewhat loose every spring.
    George in NH

  3. #13

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by George in NH View Post
    I ask about the "proper" placement of the turrets; I installed my scope so that the turrets would be behind the front ring figuring that rifle recoil would not let the scope move forward if I had not sufficiently tightened the screws on the rings. I have been firing my 03A4orgery in local CMP shoots and at the 2012/13 National Sniper tournaments. It works perfectly, I just wish I could hold better to shoot "cleans" or nearly so. You might be interested to know that last Wednesday I fired FA T291 with a head stamp date of 1957. If I did my part, the bullet flew into the X ring. I did manage a
    180 with a small X count, which is two points higher than 2012. I also check the tension on all screws before I go to the range. I have been finding the stock screws somewhat loose every spring.
    George in NH
    George,
    Mounting the scope that way, do you find it better as far as head / eye position? I shot one with the scope mounted forward and found I had to creep up pretty far on the stock because of the scope's limited eye relief.

  4. Default

    I would think that in prone you might be almost too close to the bell - the original GI manual picture of an Alaskan has the turrets in front of the front ring, which also makes the stock safety work fine. I originally mounted it with the turrets behind the ring, but was afraid of getting whacked by the scope and moved it to match the military photo. What are others doing at the events, and does CMP care how we mount our scopes?
    Colt, Glock and Remington factory trained LE Armorer
    LE Trained Firearms Instructor

  5. Default

    I have an A3 modified to A4 configuration, was lucky to get a real A4 bolt. I have both Weaver and Alaskan scopes, find the Alaskan scope light years ahead of the Weaver.

  6. Default

    Bill, I have the same deal - it all started with a well used "boxed SA" 03A4 GI scant stock set off of ebay for cheap - which grew into an A4 project! A month latter in a pawn shop I found a very mildly sporterized 03A3 that came already drilled and tapped for Redfield Jr. mount. Sadly, someone had shortened an original 03A4 stock to sporter length when they put it together. Gunsmith customized bolt was replaced with a real one that I had chuckindenver Parkerize, and another local gun guy had an Alaskan with post and mounts.

    After messing with later Redfield mounts, I broke down and ordered one of the unmarked Lyman postwar GI replacement bases - which fit perfectly - amazing! All stock metal replaced with new GI, rifle came with a "pad" trigger guard/magazine assembly. Pretty much a GI parts gun with a latter date Alaskan scope and mounts.

    Interestingly, the GI A4 bolt handle does not quite close all the way in the GI scant stock bolt cut, just a very slight interferance. on the right side, front edge of cutout. Possibly due to stock swelling over sixty plus years. I will have to fix that, slight though it is. Again, strangely, the "cutdown A4 stock" cut takes the bolt perfectly. Pictures when I have had time to oil the dried out stock - and feel up to it! CC
    Last edited by Col. Colt; 08-07-2013 at 07:42.
    Colt, Glock and Remington factory trained LE Armorer
    LE Trained Firearms Instructor

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Yuma , Arizona
    Posts
    1,492

    Default

    Check the edge of the reciever in the stock bolt cut out. Does it have a bevel / relief cut there ? Not all A3s have them. If it doesn't , then your bolt may be hitting there and not the wood. To be sure , remove the wood and see if the bolt closes fine then .
    Chris

  8. Default

    emmagee1917, I asked if the reciever bevel was actually needed on this or another Forum months ago, and was told very firmly that a "REAL" A4 bolt does not need the notch! I duplicated the notch, though not as deep as the real A4 reciever I looked at - I will go back and give it a look. My question was and is, if an 03A4 didn't need that notch, why was Remington wasting machine time and cutters with a War On, to cut the reciever, if it was not needed? There is a mark on the wood inside the bolt cutout, so that will need addressing anyway. Thanks, CC

    NEWS FLASH: At emmagee's suggestion I pulled the stock off - the M1903A4 Bolt WILL NOT CLOSE COMPLETELY in an unmodified 03A3 Action without the 03A4 cutout for the Bolt Root. The safety lug should be all the way down on the reciever rail. I made a slight bevel similar looking to a friend's Real 03A4 - but I obviously did not cut it deep enough. Check your 03A4gery - if you did not notch the reciever for the bolt handle, you are probably firing the gun with the locking lugs a little short of their intended seat. CC
    Last edited by Col. Colt; 08-07-2013 at 10:35. Reason: Verify emmagee's suggestion!!
    Colt, Glock and Remington factory trained LE Armorer
    LE Trained Firearms Instructor

Similar Threads

  1. 3 carbines i was looking at today - thoughts??
    By anton67 in forum M1 Carbine Forum
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 01-03-2015, 07:21
  2. Thoughts on this one?
    By TDP0311 in forum M1903/1903A3/A4 Springfield
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 06-16-2014, 06:31
  3. SRS check and thoughts NRA sporter?
    By MichaelMorris in forum M1903/1903A3/A4 Springfield
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 02-25-2014, 05:12
  4. Novice Reloader Thoughts
    By Art in forum The Reloading Bench
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 02-19-2014, 12:13
  5. Thoughts on Milsurp collecting
    By jerrbear in forum M1903/1903A3/A4 Springfield
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 01-31-2014, 08:13

Posting Permissions

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