1903a4

SN is 4,997,661, M84 scope.
Opinions Please as this may be my new A4.


Thanks!!!

Todd

Looks like a nice rifle, but your pictures need to be larger. At between 3 and 4 kb they are hardly larger than the thumbnails.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Johnny Peppers

Looks like a nice rifle, but your pictures need to be larger. At between 3 and 4 kb they are hardly larger than the thumbnails.

---

DITTO to Johnny's coment. I'll look again later...:wave:

Hmmmnnn...... How bout this:


Picture1124.jpg picture by Jaegerbomb - Photobucket

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y14...icture1126.jpg

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y14...icture1127.jpg

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y14...icture1134.jpg

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y14...icture1133.jpg

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y14...icture1138.jpg

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y14...icture1147.jpg

Looks great, all seems to be correct! Very nice rifle indeed.

The barrel seems to be marked "13-44" with the 3 being very faint. Rifles around yours seem to be a mix of Dec 43 and Jan 44 Barrels.

Otherwise every thing seems consistent. Can you tell us if it is a 2 groove or 4 groove barrel? Thanks

Regards,

Jim

I think it is 1-44 with indent from the die being hard struck on the left side? The indent for the "3" is a burr on the "-"? Appears "refurb" was only check-test with parts in original finish.

Nice looking rifle! Your not gettin' off that easy, you must to tell us the story of how you got it. There's probable some story that the seller had as well.

thanks

-Jeff L

Ha. Yeah the shop I work at got in a collection. M1D, no papers though. Nice early Devine Tx. M1A, FN 49, 03 mkI, Krags. All sorts of neat stuff.
But yeah I though this A4 was pretty clean. I just took the scope off and see that the base screws have been restaked but that the screws are case hardend so I guess that's ok. This thing sure beats the sporterized A4 I've been working on!!!!!
Thanks for the help!!!!

Todd

Did you take a close look at the barrel date? From the initial photo i thought it was a bit odd. But looking at the original under magnification might make it more clear.

Regards,

Jim