Lyman Alaskan...

[Hollywood]

How do you identify a legitimate Alaskan scope for an A4?

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]

How do you identify a legitimate Alaskan scope for an A4?

No Lyman Alaskans (M73's) were used on original A4 production at Remington between Feb 43 and August 44 when the last A4 was shipped. a few prototypes were assembled as there is a picture of an A4 with an alaskan mounted in a 1943 Tecnical manual. Also some 2000 sets of 7/8" Redfield style rings were delivered in anticipation of the Alaskan deliveries.

M73's eventually became available in 1945 and were used on the M1C. The scope was quickly modified to the M81 through the addition of a sliding objective sunshade and a rubber eyeshield. Shortly thereafter an M82 version was introduced. It was identical to the M81 except that it had a post reticle instead of medium crosswires. The M81 and M82 were used on the M1C and M1D.

Some of these scopes may have found there way on to A4's during the Korean War as the rings were available. By the mid 50's ordnance issued a directive to use up any M73's, M81's aand M82's in favor of the M73B1 and M84.

All three versions should have the model number, a serial number and GI part number roll stamped on the tube.

M73's seem to be rather scarce. As do M81's. Most of the pics i have captured over the years seem to be of M82's. There seem to be at least two different stock numbers used on the M82. Additionally, following the practice started with the last models of the M73B1, the M82 (and probably the M81) have drawing numbers for the scope and major components stamped in various locations.

I have heard that some commercial Alaskans may have been purchased during the Korean War and that supposedly these are identifiable by serial number. I don't have the details and can't say if any were in fact used on A4's in any case.

Hope this helps.

Regards,

Jim

[Calif-Steve]

I have a good friend who purchased a Lyman "B" series scope 3-4 years ago. He paid HUGE money for the scope as a dealer at a gunshow convinced him he HAD to have it for his M1D. If I recall it he paid something like $1200.00 for the scope. At that time mint M84 scopes were much less money. Guys have to be very careful about the bull dealers will lay on you at gunshows. "Let the buyer beware."

[Chuckindenver]

the genuine military Lymans iv seen, had drawing numbered turret caps..

[JGaynor]

[Col. Colt]

From the US Ordnance manual pages above, as well as the nomenclature, it would appear that the Lyman Alaskan, merely marked as the M73 but otherwise the off the shelf item - was the original telescopic sight slated for the M1903A4. Since the Weaver 330-C was renamed the M73B1, that would indicate it was indeed the "second choice", made necessary by wartime optical supply problems. The Alaskan is clearly superior to the 330, but was unavailable, apparently due to optical glass supply problems.

Also, if you review photos in older ordnance manuals, you will also see that the Redfield "Jr." Mount was NOT "rounded off and tapered" at the backside (it was square, and blued!) - at least not initially until after the Ordnance publication photos were finished. Do we have verification from confirmed, original examples of when the mount actually was changed, and when it became parked instead of blued? Somewhere (Remington Archives?) there should be Ordnance "Change Orders" that detail each of the changes and why.

For now I intend to finish my 03A4gery as an "originally designed/Prototype transitional Model" with a Lyman Alaskan and an unmodified original Redfield Jr. base (name and patent info up front), square and blued. If I do that, though, it would be more real with a pre-war "C" stock - which I do not have yet. Instead it will have to go together with an original, real A4 "scant" stock, SA box marked. Oh well............. CC

[Randy A]

Col. Colt, the bases with the redfield logo and patent date on the front right are the later bases, sometimes referred to as the type III. If your base is square cornered and not stepped or tapered on the back it is actually even later than that. You may also notice that the recess for the rear action dovetail is a smidge larger than the dovetail and does not have the recess fore and aft. I have one of every one, except for the late commercial rounded corner ones with the crosshair logo.
There has been a bit of debate on this subject and I have seen them listed differently, here is the order in which I believe they were produced and used:
1. "Redfield" marked on right rear corner, all square corners, stepped at the back edge of the base location of the rear ring and beveled on the rear.
2. Identical to #1, but no markings, these were produced by Lyman,,,, can't say why but I have seen them new unissued/ unopened in original packing that was marked Lyman Gun Sight Company. Note, of these that I've seen, they all had sharp corners and edges, very little sign of even being de-burred.
3. Same as above, step is moved back from rear ring roughly 1/8 inch and logo is move to front right corner and is marked Redfield along with patent information. ***Cannot prove that the military ever used these, I've never seen or heard of anyone that could prove it either.
4. Same "Redfield with patent information" on the front right corner, square corners, no step and no bevel. Completely flat on top full length and the cut for rear action dovetail is simply a square cut, slight larger than dovetail. There is no recessing at the front and rear of the cut. These were never used by the military.
5. Rounded corners, crosshair logo on front right corner. Has been in production for quite a while and still is, except now they're made in China. Definitely never used.

Harrisons book "The Collectible 03" has them listed in (what I believe to be correct) order, with pictures,,, except, there is one more style that is missing. It is #4 above and should be between the third and fourth ones listed.

As far as the original question,,, I'd like to know too, I have seen quite a few Alaskans with letter prefix's (mostly B) where the sellers were insisting they were military use????? I'd have to see it before forking over what they want for them.

[Col. Colt]

Randy, thanks for the additional info - I am new to the 03A4 parts, and Redfield vintage parts in particular.

Having said that, my current blued base is almost identical to your number 4. However, it actually has the more complex triple cut at the rear dovetail and is currently too tight to fit over the factory A3 dovetail hump without fitting.

What makes you say the square cut bases with NO taper are evidence of later production? The obvious earliest prototype 03A4 photos in the early Ordnance publications with the Lyman Alaskan/M73 in those same early publications has a square cut at the back of the Redfield Jr., no taper anywhere, and is blued, not parkerized. My question is more to if ALL Remington 03A4 production rifles actually have the tapered Redfield base, with the different markings above, and parkerized?? Do any known early rifles exist with different than "standard" scope rings, bases or colors? Are all rings in "production" parked, for instance? Many people dispute Harrison's work, and also Poyer - who barely covers the subject as all. As always, the search for truth continues...... CC

[JGaynor]

Randy, thanks for the additional info - I am new to the 03A4 parts, and Redfield vintage parts in particular.

Having said that, my current blued base is almost identical to your number 4. However, it actually has the more complex triple cut at the rear dovetail and is currently too tight to fit over the factory A3 dovetail hump without fitting.

What makes you say the square cut bases with NO taper are evidence of later production? The obvious earliest prototype 03A4 photos in the early Ordnance publications with the Lyman Alaskan/M73 in those same early publications has a square cut at the back of the Redfield Jr., no taper anywhere, and is blued, not parkerized. My question is more to if ALL Remington 03A4 production rifles actually have the tapered Redfield base, with the different markings above, and parkerized?? Do any known early rifles exist with different than "standard" scope rings, bases or colors? Are all rings in "production" parked, for instance? Many people dispute Harrison's work, and also Poyer - who barely covers the subject as all. As always, the search for truth continues...... CC

Careful guys. Of the bases shown in JC Harrisons book(s) I believe only his Type II ("REDFIELD" in block letters on the right rear quarter) was used on original rifles. The Harrison Type 1 Mount (Unmarked) is a korean War vintage replacement part which is occasionally seen on rebuilds.

The other mounts shown in Harrison are commercial mounts and I have seen no evidence of military use in A4 production.

The mount photographed in TM 9-270 (and reused in TM 9-1270) does not appear to have the beveled section at the rear of the base. All i can say is that except for the manuals I have never seen that type of mount on a legitimate A4. IMO the reason for the bevel is to provide finger clearance for adjusting the eyepiece when the Lyman Alaskan (M73). Possibly an early A4 with the commercial style mount was sent to Raritan Arsenal Publications Department to be photographed for the manual??

One final point while I am on a roll. I doubt very much that the unmarked mounts seen in Lyman packaging were actually manufactured by Lyman. It just doesn't make any sense that they would tool up to make a product that they never made commercially and did not hold the patents on - especially for a rinky dink spare parts order. I a much more likely scenario is Lyman received an order for scopes, bases and rings and simply farmed out the mounts to Redfield. Its a classic "make or buy" scenario from Business Administration 101.

I know some authorities have stated in print that Lyman made the mounts. However, the same folks have gone on to say they have no information as to the total quantity made. This suggests to me that they are not working from documents or contracts but are probably just looking at a package which is stamped "Lyman".

Regards,
Jim

[techkya]

Jim, Would it have been possible for the prime contractor, in this case Leupold, to sub contract to Lyman, the mfg of the 03A4 bases?...The contract could have stated, mfg these base's, but don't stamp your name on them, just on the packaging....Just wondering....regards