WTK: 1903A3 Redfield Base Mount

Are there any visible Military markings on the 1903 A3/A4 Redfield Base Scope Mount? I am looking at a Remington 1903A3 without sites with an attached Redfield Base Scope Mount. There are No Visible Markings at all on the mount. I found out the mount is a Redfield Base Mount by using Bing.

The barrel is marked RP 9-43 with the Flaming Bomb. It does have the Checkered Butt Plate.

I was told this was a bring back from WWII. I want to determine if this could be a sniper rifle. Any suggestions on what to look for?

Dane

Dane,
Can you read the serial number with the scope base mounted? If you post the first 3 digits of the serial number, we can tell you if it is/was a WW2 sniper rifle.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by m1903rifle

Dane,
Can you read the serial number with the scope base mounted? If you post the first 3 digits of the serial number, we can tell you if it is/was a WW2 sniper rifle.

---

The serial number is 3424267.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by md66948

Are there any visible Military markings on the 1903 A3/A4 Redfield Base Scope Mount? I am looking at a Remington 1903A3 without sites with an attached Redfield Base Scope Mount. There are No Visible Markings at all on the mount. I found out the mount is a Redfield Base Mount by using Bing.

The barrel is marked RP 9-43 with the Flaming Bomb. It does have the Checkered Butt Plate.

I was told this was a bring back from WWII. I want to determine if this could be a sniper rifle. Any suggestions on what to look for?

Dane

---

Here is a picture I have of the 1903A3. I don't have any others yet.

Dane I can't tell what you have from your picture, but here is a way to get a quick answer.

Look at the left side of your receiver and compare it to this picture, if your 03A3 does not look like this then its not a sniper.
Attachment 46960

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomwatts

Dane I can't tell what you have from your picture, but here is a way to get a quick answer.

Look at the left side of your receiver and compare it to this picture, if your 03A3 does not look like this then its not a sniper.
Attachment 46960

---

Yes it does and I bought it. I will be posting pictures in the very near future.

Thanks!

Dane

The serial number is within the range of the first block assigned to the sniper version.
Most of the times the Redfield base is marked REDFIELD or with a circled R on the right side.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by md66948

Yes it does and I bought it. I will be posting pictures in the very near future.

Thanks!

Dane

---

Congradulations did he throw the carbine in?

I had no interest in the carbine. The scope base is marked Redfield on the right rear. I didn't have my reading glasses with me when I first looked at it. I believe the 1903 is an arsenal rework. It appears un-issued and has a double P on the pistol grip. It also has double A cartouche on the left side. It is completely parkerized.

My son and I also walked out with a 1941 Johnson. It appears as if it has never been fired. The barrel has no bayonet lug and has a front blade site without ears. The site is marked SW. The barrel has no caliber markings on it and looks NEW. I can put a 30-06 in the chamber, (barrel removed from rifle) with just the base protruding enough to be encased by the bolt head. It does have the Cranston Arms (Dutch Contract) Triangle with a Star over it. It is blued so we think it is a Winfield Rifle. The stock is a Military stock, not sporterized.

I will be posting pictures soon of both rifles.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by md66948

I had no interest in the carbine. The scope base is marked Redfield on the right rear. I didn't have my reading glasses with me when I first looked at it. I believe the 1903 is an arsenal rework. It appears un-issued and has a double P on the pistol grip. It also has double A cartouche on the left side. It is completely parkerized.

My son and I also walked out with a 1941 Johnson. It appears as if it has never been fired. The barrel has no bayonet lug and has a front blade site without ears. The site is marked SW. The barrel has no caliber markings on it and looks NEW. I can put a 30-06 in the chamber, (barrel removed from rifle) with just the base protruding enough to be encased by the bolt head. It does have the Cranston Arms (Dutch Contract) Triangle with a Star over it. It is blued so we think it is a Winfield Rifle. The stock is a Military stock, not sporterized.

I will be posting pictures soon of both rifles.

---

I stated in the above post that the finish on the 1941 Johnson was blued, I made a mistake, it is parkerized.

Here are some pictures of the 1903A3/A4 and the 1941 Johnson Rifle. I did not clean the 1903. It is in the same condition as when we purchased it last Wednesday. I will post more pictures after I clean it.

I did wipe down the Johnson before taking these pictures.

If you want to return the Johnson to mil-spec , you can send the bbl to Joseph Scott and he can put on the bayo lug and correct style front sight. He is recovering from eye problems and hopes to be able to turn out a run of reproduction barrels in a month or two . That would be a second option open to you.
Chris

Thank You emmagee1917! I will discuss that with my son as an option. We actually invested in the Johnson to flip.

Dane

As you have been informed the receiver markings and serial number range positively identifies your rifle as an A4. The barrel date is consistent with other A4's in that range so the so the barrel is most likely the original.

The AA mark is a depot rebuild mark which is quite common on A4's encountered today. Since the mark has been partially sanded out the stock may have been subsequently refinished.
If the rifle had come back in someones duffle bag the stock would have different markings, the bolt would be blued or black oxide and more than likely it would show some more signs of use.

Its a nice find and you should know that all A4's were marked "03-A3" the intention being that if they were not accurate enough for sniper duty standard iron sights could be installed and they would be issued as "03-A3" 's.

Regards,
Jim

That's a really nice rebuild, fresh from the arsenal. I would guess it is a "Condition A" rifle sold by CMP in their 1999 lottery. If so, they will be able to send you a letter to that effect for a nominal charge.

It looks like your next project will be to find a correct scope & rings. Note that most of the mounting base screws are staked (dimple on the base); do not attempt to remove these screws. The only screw meant for user adjustment is the right windage adjustment screw.

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...1903A4_8-1.jpg

Also note the shims under the front of the base; they were arsenal installed & you don't want to risk having them fall out.

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...1903A4_h-1.jpg

Neal

Neil, it's not on the CMP 1999 inventory that was posted on SRS. Possibly its a DCM rifle. DCM released several batches of A4's during the 60's. Also the "AA" appears to have been sanded.

Regards,
Jim

The shim story goes a lot deeper. As the Weavers, Lymans and M82s all had elevation adjustments, the shims were not there for them. The shims were used when Alaskans with no internal adjustments were used (I have 2 one mint in box, the second NIB w/all papers) The shims were used to correct elevation and came in an envelope of 6 different thicknesses. They were smooth not lined like the one in the photo and covered the whole bottom of the base with a screw hold for the front screw. Rifles were battle zeroed at 400 yards with the shims for elevation and the Redfield screws for windage. More rugged, waterproof (no turrets to leak) and far better optics than the Weaver. Have only seen one in the flesh at the Smithsonian quite a while ago and all my info and seeing the envelope came from the curator. Building an 03A4 clone from an unmolested SC barreled action. Have new wood, bent bolt, secondary issue (Korea) green Kollmorgen 4X and the 26mm rings. Also have Leupold 7/8" rings and could try the shim thing if I ever get that ambitious. Just hope it shoots as well as my pre WW I "real" 03s.

actually,
the A4 base was rushed through production, and didnt set right on the A3 rear sight bridge, and the original scope , the weaver M73B1 didnt have enough adjustment to bring the rifle to zero even at 100 yards,
so, rather then grind the rear dovetail, they used shims to set the base at the right hight so that the scope would zero.
the lyman AKs usually zero without shims, though some bases are out of spec more then others.
if you were to hand draw file the upper part of the dovetail on the base so that it sits flush with the rear lower edges,,,no shims are needed with any scope.
since a genuine A4 base is fetching upwards of 500.00 thats likely not an option... however, on a repro A4, with a commercial Redfield base, it works well.

Why anyone would pay $400 for a genuine A4 base is a mystery as Redfield still makes the base, marked as were the originals except blued. I just ordered one from Brownells for under 30 bucks. It will get bead blasted and parked and could not be told from a "real" one.''

Lowering the rear dovetail on an A4 receiver probably would not make the scope mount sit lower as it would bottom out on the receiver ring. It would also ruin the receiver for reattaching the rear sight if the rifle failed trails.

The facts as I know them came from "the horse's mouth" and make perfect sense.

The other neat 03A4/3 mount is the Microdial from Buehler that has built in W&E adjustments. It is made for sporterized conversions so the front end needs to be beveled to clear the upper HG ring if you wish to use it with the military stock. They also suggest skimming a bit off the top of the rear dovetail and ensuring it is dead level. Works great on a "sporterized" A3 I have with a BalVar 8 on it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smlemon

Why anyone would pay $400 for a genuine A4 base is a mystery as Redfield still makes the base, marked as were the originals except blued. I just ordered one from Brownells for under 30 bucks. It will get bead blasted and parked and could not be told from a "real" one.''

Lowering the rear dovetail on an A4 receiver probably would not make the scope mount sit lower as it would bottom out on the receiver ring. It would also ruin the receiver for reattaching the rear sight if the rifle failed trails.

The facts as I know them came from "the horse's mouth" and make perfect sense.

The other neat 03A4/3 mount is the Microdial from Buehler that has built in W&E adjustments. It is made for sporterized conversions so the front end needs to be beveled to clear the upper HG ring if you wish to use it with the military stock. They also suggest skimming a bit off the top of the rear dovetail and ensuring it is dead level. Works great on a "sporterized" A3 I have with a BalVar 8 on it.

---

The commercial Redfield jr Mounts are quite different in appearance, finish and markings from the military base used on the M1903A4.

Also the Lyman Alaskan model without external adjustments was not introduced until 1953 and was intended for use on sporting rifles with w&E adjustable mounts. in any case, although the Alaskan was approved for use on the A4 none were issued during original production.

Regards,

Jim

the repro mounts sold today for 30.00 is made in China, made of crap steel, wrong thread pitch screws, and doesnt fit the rifle...
you get what you pay for...
they are so bad, i stopped installing them 5 years ago.
not sure were you got that info from. but its incorrect.
the only military issued scope bases ever installed on the 1903A4 snipers rifle are Redfield and Lyman one piece bases,
that are parkerized finish, and use a 8/40 2 screw mounting system,
why would anyone pay over 400.00?
well, a 1903A4 snipers rifle has little sales appeal without the correct base....
since most A4s were sold with no scope, and some with the base removed...they are in hot demand..

Indeed, the new Redfield bases are all Chinese. You can find older stuff at gunshows, but everyone is watching for them. Tough to find these days.

smlemon,
Not sure where you got your information, but pretty much all of it is incorrect. As already stated the Alaskan you're refering to was most definitely "never" used. Although some coyotes trying to sell thier wares on ebay try to claim so. Also the zeroing process is done at 100 yds. If you're chasing an A4 or building an A4gery, you really should read these, specially the second one, pages 13 thru 25. Good stuff to know, will probably even save you some money.

http://www.90thidpg.us/Reference/Man...3_AT_A3_A4.pdf

http://www.90thidpg.us/Reference/Manuals/TM%209-270.pdf

On another note, adding to chucks comments on the current garbage Redfield base, a very large quantity of them wouldn't even fit the rifle correctly. When you tried to screw them down they sat on the action at an angle,,, sideways. I (and several others) contacted Redfield about it a few years ago but never saw any sort of response, like chuck, it's been about 4 years since I got one and I gladly got rid of the last one. Maybe now they have it fixed, dunno?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Randy A

smlemon,
Not sure where you got your information, but pretty much all of it is incorrect. As already stated the Alaskan you're refering to was most definitely "never" used. Although some coyotes trying to sell thier wares on ebay try to claim so. Also the zeroing process is done at 100 yds. If you're chasing an A4 or building an A4gery, you really should read these, specially the second one, pages 13 thru 25. Good stuff to know, will probably even save you some money.

http://www.90thidpg.us/Reference/Man...3_AT_A3_A4.pdf

http://www.90thidpg.us/Reference/Manuals/TM%209-270.pdf

On another note, adding to chucks comments on the current garbage Redfield base, a very large quantity of them wouldn't even fit the rifle correctly. When you tried to screw them down they sat on the action at an angle,,, sideways. I (and several others) contacted Redfield about it a few years ago but never saw any sort of response, like chuck, it's been about 4 years since I got one and I gladly got rid of the last one. Maybe now they have it fixed, dunno?

---

Some photos of the correct base would be great!

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...1903A4_8-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...1903A4_7-1.jpg

Thanks

The scope base on your rifle is correct. Now your decission is to decide which way you want to go: WWII or Korea.

WWII would presently be the cheaper route to go. The rings are 3/4" with a Weaver 330 scope. The scopes can range from $200-800 depending on its markings (and I've seen about 12 different manufacturer's stampings). The rings can range from $75-125.

Korea era 04s were rebuilt with 7/8" 2-pc rings used with the M-84 scopes. During these rebuilds, some of the receiver markings of "03" were crossed out and "04" crappily hand-stamped next to the 03.

I have a number of these items if you want to bring your rifle up to originality. I also have posted on this forum leather lens covers made for many of the old US sniper scopes.

what is an 04???

I think HD means, on the left side of the receiver that is stamped 03-A3, one of the arsenals stamped "/4" on top of the 3 in A3.

Neal

i was being a smart ars..
lots of miss information...careful..

The "Chinese" base could be easily milled to duplicate the contour of the original. The Redfield marking is a simple job for a decent engraver. Bead blast and park it and you have it. The one I bought for my SC A3 fits the front ring perfectly. Prussian blue shows perfect contact. It also has 8-40 screws. Perhaps the variations in American wartime "rush em' out" A3 receiver rings was a lot greater than the current Redfield bases ?

The "Chinese" base for 03's fits 1903 (real) Springfields perfectly. The standards for 03s were so much higher than any 03A3, that IMO they provide a far better "read" on the quality of the "Chinese" bases.

As for the fixed Alaskans on 03A4s there is one sitting in the Smithsonian. I have 2 N/A new Alaskans.
Both were made in 52' according to the brochures in the box.
WW II no, Korea or Vietnam possible as A4s were used in both.

If you are counting on Stroebel's book for anything ...... don't. It has more errors than an Obama speech.

BTW the "Chinese" 1891 Mosin 91/30PU was as good if not better than any 330 equipped A4.
Certainly far better optics. ....... ask Whitefeather.

sorry you have some miss information.
the A4 was NEVER issued with anything but a Weaver 330C..M73B1.. no matter how you try and cook it, no commercial Lyman AK made at any time period would have been used on the A4 sniper rifle.
though you may read that they used commercial made scopes.... it just didnt happen.. the M82 and M84 were used as replacement scopes, however, the M82 was NOT a commercial Lyman AK.
the China made bases are junk, no other way of saying it, the screws are soft, steel on the base is soft, setting a base on a rifle thats not drilled and tapped, is not a good way to find fitment,
since your building a replica anyway, what base and scope you use doesnt matter, only that it functions, and stays put, if a china made base is ok for you, then thats what you should use.
its been my personal experiance after trying to make a few fit, that they arent worth the trouble, when i can spend a little more money and get a U.S. made base that fits well, and is made of quality metal.
another base that iv used is the Leupold base, it does have a 3 screw mounting system, with 6-48 threads, but works very well for vintage sniper match use. and is quality as well,
the products being made in China today, are not the same quality as other Asian made products of the last 40 or so years.

On a few points I beg to differ. I assume you were not in Vietnam in "the war we chose to lose" ? In that conflict A4s were fairly often seen and I never saw one with a 330. K4s, K6s, various Redfields, Navy guys with Kollmorgens for mine shooting and antiship sapper defense.
(from wiki) "After the Korean War, active service (as opposed to drill) use of the M1903 was rare. Still, some M1903A4s remained in sniper use as late as the Vietnam War; and technical manuals for them were printed as late as 1970.[5] The U.S. Navy also continued to carry some stocks of M1903A3s on board ships, for use as anti-mine rifles."

As for the "Chinese" mount, I'll await the metalugical analysis that shows it's pot metal. I guess I'll have to take the one off my 9 pound 400 Whelen Springfield as after 300+ full power loads it will no doubt fall off any day now.
As for test fitting, after leveling up everything, when you clamp a mount down on an action with two big hard wood blocks and two 9" C clamps, there a'int no way it's not on a lot tighter than two 8-40 screws will place it.
As for Alaskans used in combat, there are dozens of photos of troops in combat with Springfields with Alaskans on them and they were even cleaned off the shelves to get something into action as the M82/4 contracts dragged on and the 330 was a POS. Even the Brits experimented with Alaskans in G&H mounts on SMLEs as shown in Skennerton's book.

As for Chinese products, I have a friend who builds replica 428 Cobrajet engines. The ONLY country in the world that could build him "dead on spec" exhaust manifolds was China. I'd bet 10 dollars to a dime than an optical scan of 10 the terrible Chinese bases vs 10 various vintage A303s would show the bases are far more dimensionally consistent than the front receiver rings.

Found a highly rated smith in AZ who has done many, many SCs using the welding rod method with complete success. Now it's only a choice of which scope will go on it.

It's your rifle, but if it was mine, I would restore it with a correct SC stock and stock metal. I would then find a Remington 03-A3 that had been sporterized and make a FAUX A4 out of it.

[QUOTE=smlemon;304468]ound 400 Whelen Springfield as after 300+ full power loads it will no doubt fall off any day now.
As for test fitting, after leveling up everything, when you clamp a mount down on an action with two big hard wood blocks and two 9" C clamps, there a'int no way it's not on a lot tighter than two 8-40 screws will place it.

Nine inch "C" clamps to mount a scope??? You are going bend that base into what ever shape you need.


As for Alaskans used in combat, there are dozens of photos of troops in combat with Springfields with Alaskans on them and they were even cleaned off the shelves to get something into action as the M82/4 contracts dragged on and the 330 was a POS.

Kindly post one WW2 combat photograph of a Lyman Alaskan (M73) or M81 or M82 in use on an M1903A4.


The M81 and M82 did not exist until 1945. Th m84 was adopted in 1945 but did not see large scale production for some years later.

The Weaver 330C (later militarized as the M73B1) and the Lyman Alaskan (later militarized as the M73) were both approved for use on the M1903A4 in December 1942. Lyman was unable to obtain the special matched lens sets from Bausch and Lomb so no M73's (Lyman Alaskans) were delivered prior to the end of M1903A4 production in mid 1944.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smlemon

I'll await the metalugical analysis that shows it's pot metal.

---

The U.S. made bases were milled from a solid steel billet and heat treated. The Chinese version is a casting and from the looks of it Id say a low grade cast iron. In other words= pot metal

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smlemon

Even the Brits experimented with Alaskans in G&H mounts on SMLEs as shown in Skennerton's book.

---

You need to read the book again. It was the Canadians who used the Alaskan in SAL mounts on the No.4T

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smlemon

The ONLY country in the world that could build him "dead on spec" exhaust manifolds was China.

---

Bull cookies.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smlemon

BTW the "Chinese" 1891 Mosin 91/30PU was as good if not better than any 330 equipped A4.
Certainly far better optics. ....... ask Whitefeather.

---

Do you mean the "Russian" made PU scope.

easy guys....remember...someone will aways know more then you...
i say...whatever make them happy...
if they want to use crap parts, and have found someone that will dance just how they want...sweet...life is good...
gotta learn to pick your battles in life...and i for one have learned to let some go, and let someone else fight them...much easier on the soul for sure...

there are likely 4 people in the world that have the history and knowledge about 1903A4 snipers rifles, and serial numbers, correctness ect, from doing years of collecting and research, and all 4 post on this and a couple other forums.. maybe those 4 are dead wrong.... after all, anyone can drill and tap a 1903A3 and make it an A4..
heck, after years of doing so...even i learned theres more way to skin a cat... the loss of a 100.00 job, is hard sometimes..but worth the value in intertainment...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chuckindenver

sorry you have some miss information.
the A4 was NEVER issued with anything but a Weaver 330C..M73B1.. no matter how you try and cook it, no commercial Lyman AK made at any time period would have been used on the A4 sniper rifle.

---

What about the M8? Ray

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rayg

What about the M8? Ray

---

Early in the M1903A4 production cycle ordnance furnished a relatively small number of commercial Weaver 330C scopes with cross wire reticles and some "330 Scope - M.8" scopes with tapered post reticles. The scopes contained no military markings and the quantities furnished are believed to have run from a few hundred to a couple of thousand.

The "330 Scope - M.8" did not really meet the specifications (cross wire reticle) but they were available and allowed Remington to get a few more A4's out the door at a critical period.

There are still quite a few "330 Scope - M.8's" around. They are unusual in that there are at least five different styles of marking and several different styles of adjustment knob in use. Also none are seen with military nomenclature or serial numbers All this points to the scope being a commercial item.

However its generally accepted that a a "330 Scope - M.8" can be correct particularly on an early M1903A4.

Regards,
Jim

not to stir the pot more. but the second A4 built on display at Remington..has a M73B1 marked scope attached.. you used to be able to do a virtual picture view of the weapons..

I really think this has run its course.

A last tidbit from official government records:

"Lyman had produced its ALASKAN hunting sight since 1937, and offered two reticules: a crosshair version and a tapered post version. The earliest commercial models do not have adjustment covers, and the later versions with covers have adjustment housing marked ALL-WEATHER. Commercial serials stood in the 4900 range when the first military work began in 1943. According to TM9-270 of 28 Sept 43. The Weaver telescopic sight No. 330C (M73B1) is being mounted to the M1903A4 rifle. A Lyman 'Alaskan' type telescope sight will be used as an alternate. These early Lyman's were designated M73. In 1944 Ordnance added a sun/rain shield to the front of the scope and a rubber eyecup to the rear. In November, the crosshair style was assigned the military nomenclature M81, and the tapered post type was designated M82.This final configuration was officially adopted in January of 1945, despite having been used from mid-1944."

As for the SMLE/Griffin&Howe/Lyman connection is important in showing that in 1944/5 450 Alaskans were ordered to be fitted to SMLEs. At least 99 were completed. Obviously there was no shortage of completed working All Weather Alaskans available. The folks in Canada bought and used them but we didn't.......

When the rifle is done, I'll post some pics. It will be wearing a 6X Kollmorgen (military finish) that did not exist in the USN (except aboard the USS Fentress AK-180) seen when I visited a friend on board.)

Those of us who served in "Johnson's war" and got around a lot are well aware that many things happened and were done that don't appear in any texts or official records.
After all White Feather's 30-06 M70 was hardly government issue, nor is the 8X Unertl it carries the USMC model. Almost all the "Air America" guys I ran across in SEA carried AKs as they views the M-16 as a POS. Then there was the M 70 270 WCF standard target model with a 10X Super Target Spot and several wooden cases of 270 WCF Silvertips that sat in their arms room. One of the cases was opened and several boxes missing ..... one can only wonder.

TM 9-1270 was published in Jan 44. All mention of the Lyman Alaskan in regard to the M1903A4 had been deleted as, by that time, it was clear Lyman would be unable to deliver on its M73 contract before A4 production ended.

I thought the Griffin & Howe/Lyman 's were used on the No4 rifle not the SMLE.

You are correct about the No. 4s, those of us not hip deep in British rifles err in calling them all SMLEs. I have been in touch with G&H about those mounts (bases). While they are no longer made, it appears from Skennerton that a std G&H flat side base would work fine as neither eye relief or bolt lift should be an issue.

As for the Lyman/1093A3/4 connection, Campbells book specifically mentions Lymans on 03/4s in Korea. No doubt some of the same ones seen in Vietnam.

Both the Navy and USMC held on to scoped A3/4 rifles for shipboard duty long after they were phased out of shore duty. Good for mine destruction and dealing with the far too common in/under water sappers in Vietnam.