Redfield 1903A? Scope Mount. Legit or Repro?

[RIGREG]

I bought a big lot of Redfield bases and rings looking for M40 clone parts. This stood out. Is it WW2 or some later off brand repro? I found a reference page that suggests it could be a Type 1, unmarked Redfield. The staking of the screws doesn't look right, but I haven’t found much info online.

I appreciate any help.
Greg

 

[Random Guy]

I found a reference page that suggests it could be a Type 1, unmarked Redfield. The staking of the screws doesn't look right, but I haven’t found much info online.

Despite the odd staking, I suspect it's a WWII era sight base given the slopped/bevel on the back was reportedly unique to the 190A4.
The post-war mounts didn't have that bevel as shown via the "B" reference. The windage knob should also have a small factory
stake at the bolt (see seen here), but I don't see that on your mount. Nonetheless, I suspect its likely an M1903A4 part.

If you don't plan on using it, let me know, as I have a spare set of 7/8 split rings and an extra M84 scope, just in case I do a 1950s/60s era M1903A4.

 

[cplnorton]

Almost all 03A4's encountered today have went thru some form of rebuild. So knowing exactly any variations that were in WWII is really hard to say, as rifles have been reworked or a lot have been sporterized and restored.

I personally have never seen an A4 mount that did not have the Redfield rollstamp at the rear. So I have not seen an unmarked one on an A4. I know in the A4 collector's circle they would likely not accept this as original A4. Could there have been some made in that timeframe that were not marked? There could have been. I definitely would not rule it out. But at least from what I have seen they have all been marked.

On a personal note on that book. It's ok. But some of that is not correct and the author just sort of creates the info around it. Just a FYI.

 

[cplnorton]

The more I look at this mount, the more I really am not sure if it is real. A lot of the lines and angles just don't look right to me.

Also it's missing one very big trait of a real mount. They actually staked the left screw. I put a blue arrow to the staking. Every real A4 I have seen has had this spot staked on the mount.

But comparing the mount on my rifle to the one above, the one above does not give me the warm fuzzies. Looking at the lines and milling marks, and how rough the one looks above. I just don't have the best feeling on it.

 

[cplnorton]

Here are a few of the things that don't look right to me. It might be the pics but it looks like it has a Step in the side. All I have ever seen are completely flat. I've never seen one with a step.

Also in that pocket, the machining is so rough in there. It seems in several spots the machining doesn't look right. Then the staking is weird, and then also missing one of the stake marks.

The biggest thing is, in some of the pics it really strikes me that this part is a cast part, and not a milled piece from barstock.

 

[RIGREG]

@Random Guy and @cplnorton

Thanks for the analysis and insights. Looking closely at the surface of mine, it looks ground, not machined. I did an unscientific ring test and it has a tone like other similar sized Redfield bases. (Think tuning fork.). I don’t know if cast would ring or not.

For now, I’ll put it aside until I can figure out if it is an unmarked, war hasty Redfield, or some repro. The lack of staking on the windage screw and wide blade screw driver staking on the mounting screws point toward aftermarket. The lot it came from was a gunsmith’s mix of 70’s era scope mounts and rings. Lots of now forgotten vendors could have made this in the 60’s, I guess.

Greg