03a4 thoughts?

[1563621]

copy, but a pretty good one

[JAYFMT]

Not bad at all, did you build or buy as is? Though it will work as is the scope should be mounted with the front rings behind the turret housing. Any range trips yet?

[Tony-in-NH]

Not even a good copy. I would walk right by it without a second look.

[GA-Dave]

Not even a good copy. I would walk right by it without a second look.

What's so wrong, except the obvious incorrect receiver markings? If I was cruising a gunshow, I'd stop and check it out. Maybe buy it if the price was right.

[musketshooter]

I agree with Tony. Very poorly done copy. Bolt has completely incorrect contours and the stock cut for the bolt is poorly done. The Alaskan is the poorest choice for a scope, even on a fake.

[JAYFMT]

I agree with Tony. Very poorly done copy. Bolt has completely incorrect contours and the stock cut for the bolt is poorly done. The Alaskan is the poorest choice for a scope, even on a fake.

Yes the bolt is incorrect and the stock cut is off, but I bet this started off as a sporter from some time ago. For a personal clone to take to the range for fun it will do the job. What's wrong with an Alaskan, it's better than a Weaver.

[jgaynor]

Beside the bolt and and bolt handle notch the base, rings and safety are incorrect. However, the Lyman Alaskan(M73) was superior to the Weaver 330C (M73B1). Both the Alaskan and the 330c were approved for the A4 and are depicted or listed in Technical manuals from the period.
Some of the features of the A4 are the way they are specifically so as to accomodate the Alaskan. Lyman could not deliver Alaskans in time for A4 production so while approved they were not used during WW2.

[Mike D]

Almost looks like the bolt is not closing all the way. Wonder if it is hitting the receiver?

Mike

[chuckindenver]

you guys are missing the fact that this is a replica...
bolt needs some work, safety lug should sit on the rail.
once you get the bolt worked out, it should shoot well

[Allen Humphrey]

Looks like a pretty good A4 replica to me. Bolt isn't a perfect match and needs a little work to close, but that is easily done. I have seen a few better stock cuts and lots that were way worse. I've never used the Alaskan, but its hard to believe that it could be inferior to a 330.

[Col. Colt]

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

[George in NH]

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

[Dollar Bill]

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.

[Col. Colt]

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?

[Bill H]

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.