Printable View
While looking over a few rear sights, I came across this H in the Shield Type II. It appears to be marked with the Shielded H.I.
Are they commonly found marked like this?
Might this be the HI marking Riesch refers to for late Inlands?
Just curious........
THX,
Charlie-painter777
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...DSC06946-1.jpg
Charlie, I am going to take a W.A.G. (wild a$$ guess) with absolutely no references in front of me and based solely on looks...
That LOOKS like a Hemphill Co shielded H that has been overstamped with an H.I. Is it a transfer? Was it humped? I have no idea. What I did notice was that the lines of the Shielded H are much different from the lines of the H.I. Also, the depth of the stamp appears to be different. If it was by design, I would think that the stamp tool would have the same lines and be cut to the same depth.
Darn it, where's one of those know-everything (because they are actually right) Ole' Farts when you need one?????? Paul, Brian, Bruce??? where are you?
it's a transfer and no it's not humped and no i'm not and old fart LOL
Its real and not a transfer.
not a transfer, can you elaborate please?
A transfer is something that goes from one prime contractor to another prime contractor or from one subcontractor to another subcontractor. The sight in question went from a subcontractor to a prime contractor, hence not a transfer.
Would the .I. have been stamped by Hemphill? Or Inland?
Gut tells me Hemphill.
Possible they had a request for rear sights from Inland.
Around here somewhere I have a hammer marked LT-Q with a R above or below that marking.
Would that be an example of a transfer from QHMC to RMC?
Thx,
Charlie-painter777
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...ShieldHI-1.jpg
The hammer with LT-Q and an R isn't a transfer either.
I see,
Thanks once again for your help Brian. It's always appreciated.
Good Weekend to you,
Charlie