The Firing Line Forums - View Single Post

Randy A · November 26, 2021, 01:10 PM

I know this is an old post but just saw it. The OP is correct, the 1903a4 program original intent was to use the M73 Lyman Alaskan. Bausch and Lomb was the glass producer for Lyman and the holdup, they were all contracted up and Lyman couldn’t meet the production numbers because of it. Early test models had the Lyman’s and that is why the tail of the redfield jr base had to be stepped and beveled. With the scope foreword mounted (turrets in front of the front ring) the ocular lock ring and ocular bell hit the base. So the bases were stepped and beveled so that the ocular and lock nut were able to be up to the rear ring if needed.

The Weaver 330C was a last minute substitute and resulted in Weaver contacting retailers to send back any scopes in stock to fill the contract. Also the substitute suffix of B1 was tagged onto the noumenclature, hence M73B1, which itself identifies it as a substitute. Also, with the M73B1 there is no reason for the tail of the scope base to be stepped and beveled.

Anyhow, ordnance directives specified to use the M73B1 if stock was available, if not, they were to use the (now available) M81,82 or even 84. All this being said, the 330/M73B1 was “not” the preferred scope and was not a very good scope either. They were notorious for getting moisture in them, fogging and then getting black mold specs inside. Quite a number were sent in for repairs. Purely my own speculation but I believe that M81s and M82s were very likely seen on an A4 before the end of WWII, a number of people say Korea, but I suspect a few prior to that.

November 26, 2021, 01:10 PM	#3
Randy A Member Join Date: January 14, 2012 Location: Montana Posts: 18	I know this is an old post but just saw it. The OP is correct, the 1903a4 program original intent was to use the M73 Lyman Alaskan. Bausch and Lomb was the glass producer for Lyman and the holdup, they were all contracted up and Lyman couldn’t meet the production numbers because of it. Early test models had the Lyman’s and that is why the tail of the redfield jr base had to be stepped and beveled. With the scope foreword mounted (turrets in front of the front ring) the ocular lock ring and ocular bell hit the base. So the bases were stepped and beveled so that the ocular and lock nut were able to be up to the rear ring if needed. The Weaver 330C was a last minute substitute and resulted in Weaver contacting retailers to send back any scopes in stock to fill the contract. Also the substitute suffix of B1 was tagged onto the noumenclature, hence M73B1, which itself identifies it as a substitute. Also, with the M73B1 there is no reason for the tail of the scope base to be stepped and beveled. Anyhow, ordnance directives specified to use the M73B1 if stock was available, if not, they were to use the (now available) M81,82 or even 84. All this being said, the 330/M73B1 was “not” the preferred scope and was not a very good scope either. They were notorious for getting moisture in them, fogging and then getting black mold specs inside. Quite a number were sent in for repairs. Purely my own speculation but I believe that M81s and M82s were very likely seen on an A4 before the end of WWII, a number of people say Korea, but I suspect a few prior to that.