Printable View
What do you guys think about this base? I am double checking on this to make sure its real.https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...DSCF1036-1.jpghttps://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...DSCF1037-1.jpghttps://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...DSCF1038-1.jpghttps://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...DSCF1039-1.jpghttps://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...DSCF1042-1.jpg
base is real, the rings are not..
Lyman as well as Redfield made bases.
Why are the rings not?
For a 1952 date I don't see a problem.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jrb572
Korean War Era replacement base. It would be most appropriate on a rifle with other signs of a rebuild. (Stock markings, barrel swap etc.)
Other examples of these (similar packaging) were supplied without the maker's name.
The rings look GI to me.
Regards,
Jim
I agree the rings look fine to me, I don't see anything that would indicate they are not real.
Thanks for the thumbs up on the rings - I looked at them and thought yes - but not being an expert I questioned myself - - -
I would be interested in any help on proper id'ing - - I've always looked at the shape of the top being rounded vs square - but someone with the knowledge - how about drawing on the picture and teaching us all EXACTLY what to look for.
Thanks
Steve :dunno:
Around what is one of these worth?
A lot of grade "B" a4's were sold by the CMP w/o bases. Just a WAG but i would think between $125. - $250. for someone doing a restoration.
A commercial base is much cheaper, on the order of $20. but the contours, markings and finish are different so they tend to be obvious.
Regards,
Jim
I think we need to see better close-ups of the rings; they look like commercially parked Redfield rings to me. The USGI rings I've seen come out of the envelope have a finer grain park, & show horizontal buffing marks.
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...g?t=1240084142
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neal Myers
Neal, I think the type you are talking about are WW2 vintage and Redfield manufactured. I have seen another set of these Lyman made bases and rings and the parkerization was quite a bit different than the originals. I am by no means an expert on rings but the parkerization looks consistant with the base to me.
I checked my A4,the screws on my rings are not parkerized.
the finish on the rings is too nice, smooth, and rounded edges,
the screws are also phoshate finished, they should be color case hardened,
if they are 7/8,s they are not GI, the 7/8,s GI rings were 2 piece and made by lyman, not by Redfield.
by the 1950,s the Weaver 330 scope was being replaced with other scopes, for replacements, the M82 M84 ect, you cant use the Redfield one piece rings with the M84, as the scope has a large bell and wont slide over the ring.
also,
the close up pic of the screw, show that it was buggerd at one time, dressed and parked.
the military would have replaced the screw, if not the ring and trashed the it.
not dressed it.
That's how it came in the bag. I asembled it.
Rings are 3/4
hmmm, maybe a repack,? i cant see them dressing and using a buggered screw, a first for everything i guess.
but come to think about it , i have a few hundred repacked cocking rods, with some that should have been trashed.
things that make you go, hmmmmmm.
Hey what happened to the for sale section on here?
Its at the top of the page now, threw me for a loop also for a day or so!