Tweet
were did you get that info from?
-
if it aint broke...fix it till it finally is. -
Well said and that is also why I didn't do anything with it, it flat out shoots accurately the way it sits and I guess you could say a chip off the old block, I haven't done anything with it either and to be honest not sure I will, he said the old scope was awful and why he upgraded, the scope I have on it is probably worth something too, it's a redfield, I actually like the scope. At least the way it is now I can hunt with it and if I put it back to original not sure I would.Last edited by Zadmat; 07-23-2015, 05:48.Comment
-
OP: IMHO it was your fathers and it was they way he wanted it, so I would leave it as is and remember him and his gift to you.Comment
-
Yeah I've seen several pics of the Marines with scant stocks on the A4 as well. But I don't think it was so much they liked them more than the C, I just sort of imagine since the scant was manufactured as a replacement, that is how they probably ended up on there.
I have a lot of documents on the A4 from the Marines, and they were not that found of them. But they did have them. The mostly complained about the beddng and trigger pull. And during the Korean war timeframe they said the 2.5 scope wasn't adequate fore the terrain of korea.
As Louis said it was pretty common for officers to be able to purchase these weapons after about the 1954 timeframe.Last edited by cplnorton; 07-23-2015, 07:12.Comment
-
On a interesting side note, I have seen one A4 that I think was a Marine A4. It was in a block of Marine A4 serials in the SRS. The trigger had been modified to about a 3lb pull and the stock had the same style 6 o'clock bed done to it just like the Unertl sniper/team stocks. I just found it interesting about the trigger pull and bedding, as that was the main two things in the Marine documents that they said was wrong with the rifle.Comment
-
Yes cplnorton the Usmc was not fond of them at all. But they did have them. Like you I'm always looking for info on marine equipment and info. I too have run across an A4 that looked like it may have had Usmc ties. They are very rare.Comment
-
I'm not sure where I read it but the scant stock a4 came directly from Remington when they went to the marines. The marine corps didn't have a many of them. Love to find oneComment
-
Louis we will have to talk offline. I love to do any research with anyone interested in anything Marine.
In the Marine documents from the sniper program in WWII, they talk about switching to the A4 from the 03 Unertl. In those they comment that they will get them from "Army channels." So I suspect the ones they did get, were probably acquired from the Army. Which sort of makes sense as you look at the Marine serialed A4's in the SRS. Many are intertwined with 6th Army serial numbers as well. Which the 6th Army was in the South Pacific during the War. So it sort of fits with the Army Channel's description.
Initially the Marines wanted 1000 of them when they ran out of Unertl scopes, to build the Unertl snipers. But I sort of doubt they received very many before the war was over. It's hard saying as I've never found any documents that gives a detailed number.
Post WWII, is anyone's guess, as there is several mentions of them in the sniper documents from Korea.Comment
-
My gut instinct is that the A4's were used mostly for training post WWII. According to the documents, Marines had a shortage of Unertl and M1C's leading into Korea. And I sort of guess the A4 was used in some sort of a supplemental training role during the Korean War timeframe. But that is just speculation on my part.Comment
-
Patience and it can be restored. I was at the Allentown show a few months ago and someone beat me to a nice 1903 stocked in an original 03A4 stock. It sold for around $700, which sort of made the stock free in my eyes. I'm sure a scope can be stolen in a similar way. All you need is patience.Comment
-
Thanks and I will start looking more for one. Isn't it real important to get the right stamps or markings? Also I was told that the original bolt was not parkerized and was blued or black, so what I struggle with is why on earth would someone parkerize a bolt that never was and to me would have been easier to keep natural as blued, why try to match the gun when it never did? Can someone make sense of this, it would have made more sense to keep it blued.Last edited by Zadmat; 07-23-2015, 01:32.Comment
-
The M1903A1 w/ 8x Unertl was basically a flop as a combat sniper rifle. The scope was too long and unwieldly, it was not sufficiently moisture proof, the magnification was too high leading to dim images around dusk and dawn and finally the adjustments were too delicate and finicky.
By Feb 1944, barely 6 months after its introduction, the Commandant issued orders to his QM to obtain the M1903A4 w/Weaver 330C since the M1903A1 w/8x Unertl "had not proven effective in combat".
On the other hand the USMC reportedly never throws any serviceable equipment away so the M1903A1 Snipers continued to be issued. One hundred of them (about a tenth of the total production) were given to the US Navy for mine sweeping duty.
The use of the Unertl scope had been the brainchild of USMC Captain George Van Orden and Master Gunner Calvin Lloyd who were tasked with evaluating potential sniper's equipment in 1940. Their initial recommendation was to mount the Unertl's on Winchester Model 70 sporting rifles. USMC brass balked at introducing a new rifle so the sniper rifles were ultimately built from M1903 or M1903A1 match rifles the Corps had in inventory.
In one of Peter Senichs books he interviewed a former USMC sniper and inquired as to the average range that Japanese targets were engaged. The answer supplied was about 400 yards. Probably well with in the capability of the Weaver 330C or Lyman Alaskan.
Regards,
JimComment
Comment