Printable View
Hello All,
I'm a greenhorn here so, hope this is done correct. I'm trying to find info on what I think is the M1E7 Experimental Sniper rifle optics. It used the Commercial 2.5X Lyman Alaskan, All-Weather scope(M73) with a Griffin & Howe mount and what looks like the standard one piece rings. The ones used before the cast style two piece used on the M1C. No shade or eye cup either. I've only found one pic online that shows the four stages of the M1 Sniper Rifles. Thank you,
Jim
That scope should be marked Telescope M-73 on the turret housing, usually with the 73 defaced out.
Attachment 94313
[IMG]http://DSCN5426[/IMG
I made an attempt but, I'm not sure how to add pics. One scope enthusiast told me that in 1944 was when the Army started with the Commercial All-Weather, standard crosshair, Lyman Alaskan scope. Referred to as Telescope M-73. After my description of it to him, said it may be a "transitional" scope, before the actual M73 stamping. Showed him a pic of the ocular bell being stamped 7634670, he said it may have been robbed from an actual sniper scope. However, even though all the M73, M81 and M82's have that number too, they are stamped on the smaller diameter part of the bell, not the large end as this one is. That's why I'm wondering if this set-up with the Model 1932 Griffin & Howe mount is one of the first used by the Army back in 44'.
Never say never but it sounds like a lot of "could have" and "might have" excuses for incorrect stuff. The early Lymans will have a Lyman serial number after the word ALASKAN... the earliest militaries seem to be the Canadian contract for 350 in May 1944 numbered from about 4340S to 4690S. The US M-73s seem to start around 4900 and run to 5200. If yours has a Lyman number that might provide a clue.
Attachment 94349
Note also the high-dome caps with full side grooves. These early caps are characteristic and scarce, they didn't last long.
Attachment 94350
Thanks for your input but, I don't feel I'm making.."excuses for incorrect stuff". I've had and seen more than my share of Alaskan scopes and have never, ever seen this sniper scope related stamping. Have you? Wouldn't you question its existence? Having read over and over the part about the serial numbers online and in a Senich sniper book. The number on this scope is 8981, without a "B" or "A" in front. If you go online and type in, "M1E7 Experimental Snipe Scope", click on "Images", and you may see what looks like a book page with 4 sniper Garands on it. Look at the top one. That's what mine looks like. Look at the style of rings on it. They don't look like the two piece later used. Thanks again.
I can add pics for you if you need, see pm for an email. Email me your pics and I'll put them up.Quote:
Originally Posted by JMJS
Would love to see photos of the scope and mount, the only non-standard mount I have seen is JCG's redesign of the G&H slide.
Attachment 94371
Here's his pics Bob.Quote:
Originally Posted by bob seijas
Sorry to say it looks to me like a post-war Alaskan in a commercial mount. Those adjustment caps are clearly post 1947. After the war Lyman resumed production with serials about where they left off for the WWII military contracts, roughly 5250. They used up some leftover military parts in the first year... we have seen that numbered rear lens housing on post-war 6916, 7282, and 8651. No way it's M1E7, sorry.
I'd appreciate your source for all this info given for future reference. Some pics of those three scopes mentioned would be nice for comparison use too.
Dave McClain and I have been researching the M1C for about 40 years. We have over 5,000 observations in the database and can identify an authentic M1C receiver to at least 97% reliability. We have written four extensive research articles for the GCA Journal. The scope database is 15 single-spaced pages of observations. Johnny Bell and I wrote a detailed analysis of them for the Journal about ten years ago. When you look at the table of observations, things pop right out at you.
That's Dave on the left with Tony Pucci examining Tony's mint original M1C from the first 100 made, the finest M1C known, a museum piece.
Attachment 94389Attachment 94390
Well, how can I access all of this information? I would like to read it. The four extensive research articles. The 15 pages of scope observations. The detailed analysis for the Journal. And the pics of those three scopes you mentioned. Having that kind of info can be a time saver and allow me to help others too.
Easiest way is to join the Garand Collectors Association and buy the Best of the Journal books, it's all in there. Our 8-page piece in the Winter 2013 Journal on the USMC M1Cs has a lot of good data on scopes. The serial and scope data bases are proprietary, we use them to answer questions, mostly from fellow GCA members.
Easiest way is to berate a posting within minutes of seeing it. Refuse to prove what you say. Tell the poster to search somewhere else for the info. Then return to your bottled hobby? Sorry?
The kind or research you're asking Bob to give away for free takes a very long time to acquire.
Further, some information is best not widely disseminated lest *better* fakes be created and muddy the market.
In summation, them's some mighty rough words from a month old member with 6 posts.
We're fortunate folks like Bob share any of their hard earned information with us for free.
You haven't been berated yet...matter of fact we were helping.Quote:
Originally Posted by JMJS
That's why the tongue was bitten before re-posting. I guess not hard enough. Asking for help after doing as much info searching as one can, then having someone like Bob with decades of it, talk down to it, saying he has knowledge of three scopes just like it, is it too much to ask to see just one of them?
These are observed scopes in a statistical database, I only list the significant characteristics. The bf denotes full groove military caps numbered on top. The cd signifies the late commercial caps like those on your scope. The F denotes the rear lens housing is numbered, D means the turret housings are numbered. The spacing in the table doesn't show well on this post.
Alaskan 6916 1 left side bf || F A-W; GI internals; F # and Power rear
Alaskan 7282 #1 cd || 1DF 1 housing marked ALASKAN; F number and power at rear
Alaskan 7293 #1 cd || A-W, small rounded corners, no nbrs; ebay 1/06
Alaskan 7293 #1 cd || A-W; ebay 5/03
Alaskan 7673 #1 bf || A-W; clipped corners; ebay 1/07
Alaskan 8651 #1 cd || F A-W; rounded corners, pointer dials; ebay 12/05
I am an audio recording engineer by trade. On online forums I visit people regularly ask technical recording questions. I'll often do some research for them. After investing a reasonable amount of time I'll try to give them an answer. By the time I answer I may have impinged on work and family time and have had to draw a line. I'll usually state the limits of my answer, noting that I am unable to go any further than a certain point due to constraints. I also usually have to scale the technicality of my answer on the basis of an estimate of technical capacity of the questioner.
Sometimes a questioner will come back with a demand for documentary proof of my answer or criticize the depth of the answer. That's pretty discouraging because he has no idea how much of my personal or professional time I have invested in answering his question and/or how I've had to scale down the technicality of my answer so that he can understand it at all. So, for instance, at the end of a four-hour research endeavor or after I've pulled out some gear and made a measurement or tried out a recording technique or even scoured my brains for an idea and then looked for an illustration, it's pretty discouraging to have someone throw my gratis answer back in my face. Frankly it would be easier to not answer but I do try to help as much as I can.
So, perhaps we could go easier on our resident experts who offer free info to those in need as they can. They've got lives and families outside the forum that rightly need their attention more than we do.
Bob
Ha ha, Dave McClain uses the database to authenticate M1Cs for people who ask... either they fall into one of the clearly defined serial blocks we have identified or they don't. Once in a while a guy will ask on a gun he has already bought, and Dave has to tell him its authenticity is 97% unlikely. We have tabulated some outright fakes, but usually it's just one of the 2.9% of numbers that fall outside a known group. Sometimes they get angry at him and tell him in no uncertain terms he is wrong :)