Scope Mounts on a Springfield 1903A3
Macky T
mounted using Weaver Rings with 2 piece Weaver mounts that are attached via
4 screws (2 in each mount) that have been drilled and taped into the A3.
I'd like to change to a Leupold scope ... probably a VX-III 3.5-10x40. What
do I need to do to make the changeover? I guess I'd probably be looking
into getting a new (better) set of mounts and rings right? Also am I lucky
enough that the location/distance of the screws holes is a "standard" so
that other brand mounts would attach without having to drill additional
holes?
Thanks for any help .....
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Learn about rec.guns at http://www.recguns.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
HARDWARE
"Macky T" <mtex...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:dc00uv$e7d$1...@grapevine.wam.umd.edu...
Bill VH
Macky T wrote:
# I have a sportorized Springfield 1903A3 with a Weaver 4X Scope. It is
# mounted using Weaver Rings with 2 piece Weaver mounts that are attached via
# 4 screws (2 in each mount) that have been drilled and taped into the A3.
# I'd like to change to a Leupold scope ... probably a VX-III 3.5-10x40. What
# do I need to do to make the changeover?
As a guess I'd say all you'll need is higher rings. The Weaver K-6 I
had
mounted on a Mod.721 30-06 would have contacted the barrel with a 40mm
bell.
Bill VH
Lance LaFrinier
# mounted using Weaver Rings with 2 piece Weaver mounts that are attached
# via
# 4 screws (2 in each mount) that have been drilled and taped into the A3.
# I'd like to change to a Leupold scope ... probably a VX-III 3.5-10x40.
# What
# do I need to do to make the changeover? I guess I'd probably be looking
# into getting a new (better) set of mounts and rings right? Also am I
# lucky
# enough that the location/distance of the screws holes is a "standard" so
# that other brand mounts would attach without having to drill additional
# holes?
#
Weaver mounts and rings are good...I'd be willing to bet that the new mounts
and rings that you choose to replace the Weaver's with won't be as strong.
penultimate
diameter), I would attempt to re-use both existing bases and existing
rings. Failing this and assuming that they are to the "Weaver
Standard", I would attempt to at least re-use existing bases. Why
would I do so?
a) It is less expensive.
b) If the existing bases and rings are doing their job, I have great
difficulty imagining what "better" mounts and rings might mean other
than in terms of appearance. Prettier and possibly sturdier, and
certainly more complicated and expensive mounts exist than the Weaver.
But if the screws are secured with loctite, I have never seen any
reason to replace Weaver mounts.
c) As your existing rifle is "custom" and who knows how bases,
rings, and possibly even receiver, might have been "adjusted" or
compensate for in the alignment of the scope tube with the barrel. A
large set of potentially expensive challenges can be avoided. 30
seconds of eyeball time might easily convince me that this concern is
unwarranted.
d) If the appearance of the existing rings and bases needs
improvement, wonders can be worked with a little polishing and some
rebluing. This is easy if the parts are from the early, "pre-aluminum"
era.
e) Scopes that were "expertly" mounted in the "old days" tended to
better take into account field shooting ease, accuracy, and rapidity
than scopes casually mounted today - or, at least today we have a lot
more choices that can be made badly, thus screwing up a job originally
done by a real expert. Obviously, I have no idea whether yours is a
masterwork or something less.
2. No matter what you do, you are unlikely to alter fore-aft mount
positions much and you can easily pick a scope that will not provide
proper eye relief when mounted without taking these mount positions
into account. An amazing number of people buy scopes and then discover
they will not "fit" their rifles or that making them fit requires
awkward and ugly extension rings or simply live with a bad fit. So, on
your existing Weaver (and assuming it is at a natural point for good
eye relief), measure from the center of the two rings to the end of the
eye-piece. Call this measurement "Z inches."
a. Don't buy a scope where the distance from the center of the
adjustment turrets to the eye-piece is notably different than Z inches.
This rule will eliminate about 50% of the "it won't fit" stupid scope
buying mistakes you can make.
b. The old Weaver's had pretty long eye-relief if I recall correctly.
For any scope you are contemplating and relative to the distance
between the rings at present, check how much the new scope could be
adjusted in the rings forward and back. The old Weavers had long tubes
and could be move a lot. If the answer is "not much" for a new scope,
don't buy anything you can not return or look for a scope that offers
more adjustment potential.
3. Scopes mounted in the era I am assuming for yours tended to be
mounted as low to the receiver as was reasonable. The reason is that
this position corresponded to that that most accomplished field shots
thought yielded fastest mounting/target acquisition in combination with
a tight weld of the cheek to the stock for shooting accuracy. My
opinion is that this old school approach is correct. And, if the
mounting was done originally by somebody that knew what they were
doing, the stock and its mounting elevation were matched to achieve
this result - a true custom job also carefully considering the size and
face shape of the shooter. If you find the rifle/scope combination
comfortably fits you well now, that is all the more reason to re-use
existing rings or at least matching height rings. There are several
derivative points:
a) You can easily buy a new scope that has too fat a forward bell to
be mounted in existing rings or too fat an eye-piece/power adjustment
knob to clear the bolt under the same conditions. Rather than going
to taller rings, my choice is to select a different scope. Any optical
or other apparent advantages of "fat" do not outweigh the advantages of
shooting "fit."
b) Measure the diameter of your Weaver's forward bell. Then measure
the minimum clearance between the forward bell and the receiver/barrel.
Subtract a minimum of 0.050" from the clearance measurment (for the
clearance of a new scope), multiply any remainder by 2, and add the
result to the diameter of the Weaver forward bell. If the forward bell
of the new scope is less than this sum, the scope will fit in the
existing rings.
c) Measure the maximum diameter of your Weaver's eye-piece. Then open
the bolt and retract it to the point that you can determine the point
of least bolt clearance relative to that diameter. At the point of
least clearance, pressure the bolt toward the scope when you make the
measurement. Subtract a minimum of 0.100" from the clearance
measurement, multiply by 2, and add to the Weaver eye-piece maximum
diameter. If the maximum diameter of the new scope is less than this
sum, the bolt will clear the new scope when it is fit with the existing
rings.
d) For an awfully lot of rifles, you would be amazed at how few scopes
are left that "fit well" by these simple tests/measurements. The old
Weavers were extremely well designed in this regard and very few
"modern" choices are comparably elastic. Among them will be at least
one properly selected Leupold (that meets your optical standards), the
continuation of the Weaver "K series", Sightron's, and not much else
that I could identify without carefully doing the measurments myself.
Note that Leupold makes lots of models, not all of which will be good
fits for your rifle.
4. Assuming you have properly selected a new scope to insure that it
will fit with the existing rings, (and assuming that the existing rings
split into an upper and lower half), (and using a well-fitting
screwdriver so you don't strip ring screws), remove the existing scope
leaving ring lowers attached to the base. As you do so, note carefully
whether or not any shimming is present within the rings and carefully
retain those shims noting their origin (front or rear rings and
relative position). Shims used might be paper, tape, or thin metal.
Shim usage was very common in the era before precision, pre-drilled
factory base mounting locations and a critical requirement to
adequately align the scope tube with the barrel. Your new scope is
very likely to require comparable shims and a lot of trial and error
can be avoided in their re-use.
5. If you want to spiff up existing rings, (or replace them), measure
their height in place before removal. It is possible that the original
gunsmith individually adjusted ring height to facilitate scope
alignment. If this is the case, it can be far easier to spiff up the
existing rings (having insured that they are marked as to location and
orientation first) than it is to replace them. If ring heights are
identical, (and they are "Weaver standard"), replacement may be the
best path.
6. While it is likely than an 03 receiver was "sporterized" and a
scope mounted without custom machining, this is not necessarily the
case. So there may have been idiosyncratic machining of the receiver
or bases in the process of original scope mounting. Hence, a world of
hurt can be avoided by at least re-using the existing bases. If you
look carefully, you can probably tell if the bases are unaltered from
the box models. But note shimming is likely here as well.
A Leupold VX-III is an outstanding scope. I like Leupolds. I think
they are worth every penny and I think their warrantee service, though
rarely needed, is exceptional.
That said, your rifle is a vintage rifle, the Weaver is an honest
vintage scope that "matches" the look and feel of the rifle, and unless
you are going hunting under extreme conditions or are concerned about
maybe 10 minutes of advantage-Leupold at dawn or dusk, there is not a
lot a K-4 in good condition can not do what a Leupold VX-III can.
You can buy a "new" K-4 for probaby 1/4 of the Leupold price and that
K-4 is probably optically superior to the original K-4 when it was new.
And roughly $50 will get your K-4 "rebuilt" with any problems fixed,
thoroughly cleaned, new seals, and nitrogen charged. I think the
fellow that rebuilds the Weavers is in El Paso. You can google "Weaver
scope repair" and find him. I am told he does outstanding work and
replaces whatever is required to restore to "as new" performance.
If I was going on a guided hunt in the wilderness, I would probably buy
the Leupold. If I was shooting whitetails at home where-ever, I might
have the Weaver serviced instead. Just a thought.