Eye relief for 1903 A4 w/ Weaver K2.5? [Archive]

View Full Version : Eye relief for 1903 A4 w/ Weaver K2.5?

dcat

11-09-2011, 04:50

Marine A5 Sniper Rifle

11-09-2011, 05:32

The scope sucks in my opinion. I am impressed with all that was done with that combination, but to me it was like putting a Yugo hood ornament on a Cadillac.

jt

Ed Byrns

11-10-2011, 06:58

Jim
What is a YUGO,Isn't that a Chocolate drink Yogie Berra used to sell?
Ed

dcat

11-10-2011, 07:59

Thanks for the replies. To clarify what I meant, I am asking about the 1" postwar commercial Weaver K Series with a 2.5X power because I am considering building a clone for the Vintage Sniper Matches. Having a 1903 A4 clone in 30-06 would be nice, but if the head position is akward, then a Swedish M41b or K98 with a 4X scope would probably be better. Agree?

dave

11-10-2011, 09:44

I can not give you a distance measurement but eye relief should always give you a full view in the scope. Every person will not be the same, depending on how they mount the rifle. In prone your head position will be much different then other shooting positions, much shorter. A Swed sniper will have a very hi-mounted scope, unlike a 03A4.

Marine A5 Sniper Rifle

11-10-2011, 06:33

Jim
What is a YUGO,Isn't that a Chocolate drink Yogie Berra used to sell?
Ed

Ed, you spent too much time on the trains. A Yugo was a hippie SUV.

jt

jgaynor

11-10-2011, 08:52

I am wondering how the eye relief is on a A4 clone with a Weaver K2.5. I know the head position can be awkward with the original scopes and was just wondering of it is better with the K2.5.

In other words, can you get a good comfortable position in prone or do you have to hold your head back on the stock to see through the scope?

Thanks in advance,
dcat

Both the Weaver 330C and the Lyman Alaskan scopes had fairly long eye-relief (I believe around 3.5" to 5"). The problem with the Weaver 330C was that when it was used in conjunction with the Redfield Jr. mount you couldn't take full advantage of the scopes eye relief since the front edge of the data plate interferes with the trailing edge of the rear scope ring. The Redfield Jr. mount works better with the Alaskan.

There were some reports of scope cuts from shooters using the Weaver K2.5 on "A4's" on the CMP forum right after the summer time match. Hard to sit here and say what the exact causal factor was but I believe some of the shooters felt the position of the K2.5 W/E turrets prevented the scope being mounted far enough forward.

Regards,
Jim

Darreld Walton

11-11-2011, 05:23

I've mounted two of 'em on rifles, one an original, another a fake, and with repop C stocks, they do seem to be a bit uncomfortable, at least for me. Not saying that they're not useable, just don't feel quite right. No issues so far with yet another crescent shaped scar on the forehead with this setup, though, even on the bags. In position, with a good sling, recoil is mitigated to the point that I have no issues, even with a .375 H&H and a K 2.5.

wolley

11-13-2011, 03:37

I have an A4orgery with the Weaver K2.5. The Weaver has a relatively long eye relief and because of this the rifle is a little awkward to shoot. It puts your head way back on the stock.
How someone could get a scope cut from this combination? Doesn't seem possible unless we are talking about shooters with no experience that don't place the rifle in the shoulder properly. Oh wait we're talking about CMP games right?

chuckindenver

11-13-2011, 02:13

iv built a few replica A4,s with a Weaver K2.5,, out of the choices available for the vintage sniper matches, by far the best to afford and use.
if set up right , they are nice to use, and see through..
the Lyman Ak is a little nicer, but hard to find one under 300.00 right now..i can get the Weaver for 50.00 to 100.00...and can have it repaired if needed.

dcat

11-13-2011, 08:00

Thank you all for the replies,
dcat

PhillipM

11-13-2011, 08:44

There are two different K2.5's, an early one with which the crosshairs do not stay centered in the tube when adjusted and a later one, the "B" series that keeps them centered. I think they are different enough posters should specify which one when describing attributes.

Motorcop

12-11-2011, 02:45

jgaynor

12-12-2011, 04:04

I built an A4 clone with a Weaver K2.5 and I didn't like it. The scope was too far to the rear to get good eye relief in prone. I took it off and mounted a clone 330C from Gibbs and it is much nicer now. In my rush for a cure I sold my Weaver K2.5 and I wish now that I would have kept it. I would have liked to have repositioned the scope so the adjustment caps would have been in front of the front mount if that is possible. That said, I also didn't care for the width of the crosshair lines. They were very thick.

Rick H.

Rick I don't have a K 2.5 to try myself but when the military mounted the Lyman Alaskan on the A4 they positioned the W/E turrets ahead of the front ring. This allowed them to take full advantage of the fairly generous eye relief. I don't know if the dimensions and construction of the K2.5 would permit mounting in this manner but it would be interesting to try.

The attached photo is to the best of my knowledge the only official picture of an A4 with an Alaskan extant. Its from the Oct 43 edition of TM 9-2200 Small Arms Material

Regards,

Jim

Motorcop

12-12-2011, 05:53

Hi Jim: As I recall I "think" I tried to mount the K2.5 with the adjustment caps in front of the ring but I didn't have clearence in the rear. I could be wrong but I think if I would have had the room I would have at the least tried it before selling the scope. I just could not get the eye relief I needed but I sure wish it would have worked. I would have saved some money......Rick

PhillipM

12-13-2011, 05:41

If someone would post the thickness and spacing between the rings I will measure my K2.5 and we will see.

Motorcop

12-13-2011, 09:29

I would love to be able to help you out Phillip but I won't be home until Friday afternoon. If I can remember I will get you the measurements. Thanks, Rick

George in NH

12-15-2011, 11:22

Question time,
Would the eyepiece end be unscrewed from the tube of the Alaskan and then the tube slid through the rings for mounting? Would that also apply to mounting a M84 using the same type of rings? I happen to have what I think are 7/8 inch rings for the Junior mount. Each ring has a reducer in it to enable a 3/4 inch tube to be used. I have not unscrewed anything at this point because I do not want to make a mistake and damage my scopes. TIA........George in NH

emmagee1917

12-15-2011, 12:19

The M84 is nitrogen filled and sealed . You do not want to unscrew it . That is why you must use the two piece ring with it.
I believe you are correct on the other scope , but wait for conformation from another who has had one.
Chris

Lngrngshtr

12-16-2011, 09:49

I have a K2.5 El Paso Tx. (early moving reticle post and horizontal wire) mounted on my A4 will try and get some pics the next few days..

Currently, with the rifle in the fired state the back of the scope is approx 1/4" to the rear of a vertical line drawn up from the cocking knob with eye relief being approx. 1 hand width back from there so eye relief is approx 3 "

looks like you might be able to mount it forward of the front ring but the eye bell and lock ring come very close to the mount and the aft ring will be into the threaded portion just before lock ring for eyepiece as the adjust block on my 2.5 measures 1.150" and comparison measuring puts the back edge of ring on the 3rd. thread hey that might also make it so the safety can work..

mine isn't sighted in at the moment so give me a few days and I will try the alternate mounting and post a pic

John

PhillipM

12-17-2011, 10:43

I've measured my Weaver K2.5 60-B. From the ocular bell adjustment threads to the adjustment turrets is 3.550". The adjustment turret is .980", adjustment turret to front is 3.050".

Eye relief on mine is approximately 3.70" - 4"

Therefore to put the adjustment turret in front of the front ring the outside to outside dimension of the rings cannot be much over 3.550" I have about a 1/4" of threads exposed I suppose could be put under a ring. Just thinking, an 06 round's max length is 3.340" and I know the rings have to be further apart than that on the inside dimension so I don't think it's possible.

Lngrngshtr

12-19-2011, 08:44

well without removing eye bell and lock ring or bending a scope ring open this isn't happening... not really interested in bending a scope ring open and not sure how I am feeling about disassembling a scope

perhaps a braver soul than I will chime in...

whats the going rate for a K2.5 (early model with moving reticle) these days ? I gave $40.00 about 6 years ago and "rescued it" off a Bubba'd M1917 rings and all..

jgaynor

12-19-2011, 09:27

Oh yes. Removing the eyepiece and sliding both rings on from the rear is a given when using the top split (one piece) rings. Its the only way to do it whether you install one ring or two.
Sealed scopes like the M84 absolutely require the use of two-piece horizontally split rings. But thanks for looking anyway.

Regards,

Jim