1903A4 scope mount

[Randy A]

I know this has been debated many times on many forums and it's been getting harder to find one in original packaging so here is. These were the unmarked ones that some claim were the first mounts used, (they were actually the second mount used). BTW I'm not in any way involved in this auction.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Vintage-Lyma...#ht_3091wt_758

[Kurt]

Randy, I picked up one like that awhile back but not in the wrapper. I exchange some emails with the guy I bought it from and he said in one of them when I asked if there were any stampings on it;

"No the base is not stamped Redfield. I have owned and sold 10 A4 rifles and have never seen a base marked with Redfield. One rifle came from DCM and one came from CMP that I hand picked. This is a USGI parkerized base with the slant back. I worked at CMP in Anniston, AL for several years and a friend and I were in charge of getting the 03/A3 rifles ready for sale. One day we received a box of 20 A4 rifles from the Army. They all had bases installed but no scopes or rings. All bases are unmarked. Harrison in his book mentions redfield marked bases but I have never seen one."

Thanks for the post.

Kurt

[Johnny in Texas]

Kurt I have own 15+ A4's over the years and have made just the opposite observation. I have never seen an unmarked base on any A4's that came from CMP , DCM or the NRA sales in the 60's.

[Kurt]

Johnny, As Randy aptly said, this has been debated many times. Somewhere in all the haze there lies the truth or even serveral. I have seen them every which way from Sunday and most all think they are correct. I only own one A4 I put together, one part at a time. I suppose if I built it according to all the debate, it would have twin bolts, dual trigger guards, quad signt bases and a series of scopes longer than the gun itself.....LOL. Hopefully, someday someone will dig up a document and answer some of the questions...or not.

Kurt

[chuckindenver]

these bases were used during the 1950,s along with the Lyman rings that everyone calls Redfield, to be used with the M82 and M84 scopes.
and or replacements.
date on the box pictured is 1952..

[jgaynor]

I know this has been debated many times on many forums and it's been getting harder to find one in original packaging so here is. These were the unmarked ones that some claim were the first mounts used, (they were actually the second mount used). BTW I'm not in any way involved in this auction.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Vintage-Lyma...#ht_3091wt_758

Thanks for posting the auction it never hurts to have another set of pictures in the file. When cataloguing the A4 components JC Harrison assigned the "TYPE 1" nomenclature to the unmarked, late Korean War bases. Over the years i have accumulated a lot of pictures of A4's including some very early first block rifles. They have all had the word "REDFIELD" Stamped in block letters on the right rear quarter. Leads me to believe that that style mount was used exclusively on Remington original production.

Harrison's book also shows two styles of commercial vintage mount. I don't believe either is correct.

Bottom line I believe Mr. Harrison accumulated data and catalogued as best he could. In this case he never actually says the "TYPE 1" was the first base used or even the most frequently used. Easy to see how some folks might be confused though.

Another assetion he makes is that one inch Redfiield style rings (regardless of who might have made them ) were used to mount the USMC MC-1 (Kollmorgen 4XD) scope on the A4. I am not sure where that story came from but I can guess .

Regards,

Jim

[Randy A]

I've owned one of every one of them, including a variation that Harrison didn't have pictured. I believe it to be one of the first types, prior to the step cut and bevel of the tail.
I also agree about the non marked bases, you will only find them on rebuilt rifles, every original A4 I've seen had the Redfield on the right rear corner. Supporting evidence is the simple fact that the design and patent were held by Redfield, the only way Lyman could have been producing them would have been by contract. Which indicates a production volume issue on Redfields part, either they or the Ordnance Dept. required a second party to get involved. As said earlier, it would be nice for some paperwork to surface regarding this issue.

[chuckindenver]

actually.
Tilden held the patent on the turret style base.
Burris, Leopuld, Redfield, Tasco, Lyman, and many others produce other varations of said mounting system.
i know his widow personally, and ended up with a large lot of military parts ect from his estate.
him and old man Redfield used to work together, and his claim is that Redfield stole his idea, they all the way till his death, had legal issues over this.
i used to have all the tooling, parts, and a big pile of scope mount parts for years...i got sick of tripping over them and gave them to friend who thinks he will do something with them.
so, Lyman, likely did have a contract on the bases, along with Redfield, on the mounts and the rings, if you look at Redfield rings next to Lyman you can see the difference,
as replacement scopes were being used by the 1950s Lyman stepped into the mix, as far as Redfield goes, many military contract mounts and scopes that never saw service were made.
a close friend of my dad worked at Redfield when i was a teenager, i remember a 12 power parked scope that my dad used to have that was made in the late 60s, that and other green scopes were laying around my dads work bench that he scored from this guy..
wish i had the foresite to grab up this stuff.
i belive the 1 inch rings were used with the Weaver K-4-60-B. Rockisland has a few rifles on display with Weaver 4 powers.

[Randy A]

Here is another one not seen very often, before I laid my hands on one like it, I'd only seen them listed as a prototype. That's what the caption on the phoot said anyhow.
I hope Jim chimes in here, but as I understand this was the very first intended A4 base,,, until they discovered that the tail needed modified for the M73.

http://forums.thecmp.org/showthread.php?t=105374

[jgaynor]

Those who are really interested in the subject may wish to look at the patent documents. They can be viewed on line by going to "Google Patents" then enter the Patent Number (or other search term) in the box and hit Enter

Redfield patents:
1816195
1837290
2187054

Tilden Patent
2135774

I have only seen the military Redfield Jr. base without the rear bevel twice. The first is the closeup photograph of the scope base in TM 9 - 270 (and later used in TM 9 -1270). The second time was last week in (I believe) the Gunboards forum where a poster published pictures of a recent acquisition. The rifle is a late first block A4. The base has the chamfered edges, square corners and parked finish but no maker's mark or rear bevel. According to the post the original owner obtained the rifle from the DCM. The DCM paperwork was not yet reproduced in the post.

While Redfield Jr bases in GI packaging marked Lyman 1953 are relatively common, I personally cannot say that I have ever seen a set of rings ( of any size or type) in similar GI packaging. If any one has such a package or a picture of one i would appreciate seeing it. The part and drawing numbers may help us track back to a contract.

Regards,

Jim

[chuckindenver]

i can tell you first hand, iv held, seen and looked over Tildens paper work.. the original paper work was for the system that Redfield used.
i dont know all the legal outcome, ect...im sure Redfield had better lawers. ect... and the Widow didnt keep anything active, and i never really cared enough to dig out any records ect.
only from what i was told by the man himself, until is last day, he held a hard grudge for Redfield.. didnt have any good words for Burris for that matter.
maybe it was the money and success that those companies gained, while his floundered.
if you look at the Rings that the seller of said base is selling, he has a set of Redfield, and a set of Lyman.
the lyman rings arent as nicely fitted or finished as the Redfields.