A4gery progress report

[Calfed]

I've got an A4 that some yahoo sported back in the day. I'm planning on putting it back in shape for the vin-sniper match and recently glommed a scant stock for the job.





Someone was even kind enough to put what look like some fake cartouches on the stock. It is solid, came with a butt plate and rear swivel and was priced right

I've got a Lyman Alaskan with the rings and a Weaver K2.5.


Any opinions on which would be better? The Lyman has a post and the Weaver has fine crosshairs.

Information

Warning: This is a relatively older thread This discussion is older than 360 days. Some information contained in it may no longer be current.

[JGaynor]

Calfed if either scope is acceptable under the rules I would recommend the one that works best for you on a bullseye target. You may need to experiment a bit.

The Alaskan, if mounted with the turrets head of the forward ring, may allow easy operation of the standard safety. Again you'll just need to ensure the eyerelief works for you.

Regards,

JimAttachment 20119 Note the caption in the picture is wrong. The scope labled as an "M73B1" should be labeled "M73"

[Chuckindenver]

Lyman is 10 fold better then the Weaver, better optics, ect...

[JGaynor]

Lyman is 10 fold better then the Weaver, better optics, ect...

Chuck I'd be inclined to agree if you were comparing the Alaskan to the 330 but the OP is talking an Alaskan vs. a Weaver 2.5.

Regards,

Jim

[Calfed]

I picked up another part for the project.. A blued, stamped Remington trigger guard, large bow, with the "tab".



I'm not sure how persnickety the CMP will be about things like the trigger guard. The one that is on the A4 now is a commercial hinged model

[Calfed]

The parts for my 03A4gery are continuing to accumulate. Yesterday my Weaver K3 scope from Iron Sight Scope repair arrived. Mike added a post and cross hair style reticle and the optics are as clear as the proverbial bell.

[Chuckindenver]

the {pad} had nothing to do with the A4...another line of BS started by Joe Poyer.
if that were the case, you wouldnt see Smith Corona trigger gurads with the pad.,
they had cracking issues in that area, and it was to strengthen the guard, had nothing to do with helping accuracy....
but, anything is possible, right?

[Calfed]

the {pad} had nothing to do with the A4...another line of BS started by Joe Poyer.
if that were the case, you wouldnt see Smith Corona trigger gurads with the pad.,
they had cracking issues in that area, and it was to strengthen the guard, had nothing to do with helping accuracy....
but, anything is possible, right?

I know that a lot of 03A3's had the trigger guard with the "pads". The real question in my mind is : Did all 03 A4's have trigger guards with "pads"? If so, then one with the pad is correct and one without is not.

For that matter..did all large bow trigger guards have the pads? Did any of the small bow trigger guards have pads? Did all A4's have large bow trigger guards?

[saddler]

Attachment 20119 Note the caption in the picture is wrong. The scope labled as an "M73B1" should be labeled "M73"

Hi Jim

Thought that the Lyman Alaskan were designated as either M81 or M82 (depending on which reticle they had)

Jon Moore

[Chuckindenver]

iv only seen late style trigger guards {large bow} with the pads.
and iv seen both with and without the pad, maybe someone has the memmo or military repair upgrade letter for this...
both Remington and Smith Corona used the padded trigger guard.