http://www.scoutscopes.comhttp://www.mojosights.comhttp://smith-sights.com

It is currently Sat Nov 01, 2014 7:00 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 9 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri May 15, 2009 10:22 pm 
Offline
Mil-Surp Owner
Mil-Surp Owner

Joined: Thu Jul 24, 2008 4:20 pm
Posts: 54
Location: Maryland
Age: 44
I was searching the internet last night and saw 2 different mounting positions for the Lyman Alaskan on the 1903A4. The first is with the adjustment knobs just behind the forward scope ring(does not allow the use of the safety). The second is with the knobs just forward of the front ring(looks awkward but allows use of safety). Any idea which is the proper position?
Image

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat May 16, 2009 1:49 am 
Offline
Benefactor
Benefactor
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 9:58 pm
Posts: 2035
Location: Florida
Age: 64
In the bottom photo the scope is so far foward that your nose would be against the knob to get a good sight picture. If you were prone,you would probably break your nose, or stand a good chance. Thus I'd opt for the top photo placement.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat May 16, 2009 9:45 am 
Offline
Mil-Surp Owner
Mil-Surp Owner

Joined: Thu Jul 24, 2008 4:20 pm
Posts: 54
Location: Maryland
Age: 44
There is enough eye relief with the Alaskan that your cheek is resting on the base of your thumb when holding the rifle while standing. I'll have to check to see how it works when in the prone position.
The photos I posted are of my rifle. The photos I saw on the internet of the forward mounting looked like they came from a military manual.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat May 16, 2009 11:35 am 
Offline
Benefactor
Benefactor
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 9:58 pm
Posts: 2035
Location: Florida
Age: 64
Mine is a clone, not real, and see how far back I like the eyepiece?


Attachments:
A4rt.jpg
A4rt.jpg [ 82.65 KiB | Viewed 2531 times ]
Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat May 16, 2009 1:42 pm 
Offline
Mil-Surp Shooter
Mil-Surp Shooter

Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2008 11:01 pm
Posts: 238
Location: NNJ
Age: 63
Kind of a paradox. Can there be a "right" position for a scope that was never issued?

FWIW had Ordnance been able to get the Alaskans they certainly would have used them as the following picture from a 1943 Tech Manual Illustrates.

NB: BTW The caption on the lower photograph is incorrect it should read: "Lyman Alaskan (M73)".

The safety at least can be fully engaged with the scope in the forward position. Something the Weaver scope does not permit.

Bottom line: it's probably just fine to mount it which ever way "feels" best to the individual.

Regards,

Jim


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat May 16, 2009 8:03 pm 
Offline
Mil-Surp Owner
Mil-Surp Owner

Joined: Thu Jul 24, 2008 4:20 pm
Posts: 54
Location: Maryland
Age: 44
That's the picture. Thanks.
There is a big argument over what is the appropriate scope. The Weaver 330 was the original issue scope (330c from what I understand). The Lyman Alaskan was an approved replacement but was never issued with the rifle. Was it ever used? If there is a military tech manual showing a mounted Alaskan then it must have been used. The photo does show the scope in the forward position, so I think I'll try it in that position(being able to use the safety is a plus).

Just to throw more fuel on the fire, I've also read that during Korea and Vietnam, the m-84 and Weaver K-4 were used as well.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 17, 2009 2:02 am 
Offline
Mil-Surp Shooter
Mil-Surp Shooter

Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2008 11:01 pm
Posts: 238
Location: NNJ
Age: 63
TM 9-270 published in Sept 43 is the first manual specific to the A4 sniper rifle. It specifies that the standard scope for the A4 was the Weaver 330C (M73B1 nomenclature did not make it into the manual which was approved in July 43). The same manual contains several pictures of the 330C and makes passing reference to the Lyman Alaskan stating it "will be used as an alternate but no details are available".

In Jan 44 TM 9-1270 was published covering all models of the 03 including the A4. By that time all reference to the Alaskan had been deleted. Scope nomenclature had been updated to reflect that the 330C had been militarized as the M73B1.

TM 9-2200, which is where i got the page posted earlier, is essentially a catalog of weapons, ammuniton and related items. That particular edition dates from Oct 43. It reflects what the service wanted and was expecting to get - not what they finally wound up with. Other than a few prototypes or samples the Alaskan was not used in A4 production or as a WW2 replacement.

During the war Lyman was very busy on a number of military parts contracts. In addition Lyman got their lenses from Bausch and Lomb who were likewise occupied on priority contracts making binoculars and the like.

It had been the ordnance department's intention to begin receiving Lyman Alaskans (M73) in September 43 and to phase out procurement of the Weaver 330C (M73B1) in November. Ordnance had also notified Remington in July 43 of a change order for an additional 24,558 M1903A4 rifles. This was on top of the initial order of 20,000 and the second order for 8,365. Ordnance was clearly counting on Lyman coming online as a supplier.

Unfortunately it never happened, at least as far A4 production was concerned, for the reasons cited above.
Without the Lyman scopes Ordnance cancelled the third order of A4's and continued using Weaver as the primary scope supplier through the end of production. (A few M73B1's were manufactured at Frankford Arsenal and the French firm OPL produced the M73B2 on a test basis in the ETO in 45.)

A few thousand sets of 7/8" GI rings were apparently delivered in anticipation of the Alaskan becoming available. These rings were undoubtedly used to mount M81's, M82's and possibly some M73's during Korea and later.

As to the use of the M84. The M84 was adopted after A4 production was finished and they don't seem to have been available in quantity for several years after the war. By the mid 50's the M84 was an approved alternate scope and by the late 60's - early 70's it was the primary.

There were some A4's with Weaver K4's in the USMC collection at Quantico and in the FBI inventory. Its possible a few might have been used early in Vietnam but the evidence is pretty thin.

Regards,

Jim


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 17, 2009 7:08 am 
Offline
Mil-Surp Owner
Mil-Surp Owner

Joined: Thu Jul 24, 2008 4:20 pm
Posts: 54
Location: Maryland
Age: 44
Is the M-81 and M-82 the military designations for the two styles of Lyman Alaskan adopted by the military. One had fine crosshairs and the other a post reticle.

Yes the Alaskan was never issued with the 1903A4, but it sound like it was used later as a replacement when the rifle was sent back to the armoror for work, be it late WWII or Korea or Vietnam.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 17, 2009 11:57 am 
Offline
Mil-Surp Shooter
Mil-Surp Shooter

Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2008 11:01 pm
Posts: 238
Location: NNJ
Age: 63
fogman wrote:
Is the M-81 and M-82 the military designations for the two styles of Lyman Alaskan adopted by the military. One had fine crosshairs and the other a post reticle.

Yes the Alaskan was never issued with the 1903A4, but it sound like it was used later as a replacement when the rifle was sent back to the armoror for work, be it late WWII or Korea or Vietnam.


1. Yes - the M81 and M82 were Lyman Alaskans with a rubber eyeshield and sliding steel sunshield on the objective lens.

2. Officially the Alaskan, be it the plain vanilla M73, M81 or M82 was not authorized for the M1903A4 until October 1956 whith the publication of Ord 8 SNL B 3 which permitted supplying agencies to substitute those scopes (with appropriate rings) for the preferred scopes (by that time the M73B1 and M84) on a "substitute exhaust item" basis. In other words "use them up" we are buying any more.

The primary use of the M73, M81 and M82 would have been on the M1C and M1D. Its possible that some found their way on to A4's at unit level during the Korean War. Very unlikely during WW2 as they were not in supply and its unlikely any were used in any systematic depot rebuild program at least until 1956.

Regards,

Jim


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 9 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
FAIR USE NOTICE: This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not been pre-authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available to advance understanding of political, economic, scientific, social, art, media, and cultural issues. The 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material that may exist on this site is provided for under U.S. Copyright Law. In accordance with U.S. Code Title 17, Section 107, material on this site is distributed without profit to persons interested in such information for research and educational purposes. If you want to use any copyrighted material that may exist on this site for purposes that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.