The same guy must have stamped the band on my S'G' - maybe he hit 'em twice "just to make sure!"Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Hollinger
Attachment 26072
Printable View
The same guy must have stamped the band on my S'G' - maybe he hit 'em twice "just to make sure!"Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Hollinger
Attachment 26072
can mimic the sight being removed. The flash hiders were considered way cool 20 years ago, so you just may have scarring from some guy who wanted to look cool. My 5.6 Win has this type of damage and there's no way the sight has ever been off .
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...27f662_b-1.jpg
I am not sure what it is, but I have more than one of what I believe to be original Inlands that have this darker stripe at the end of the barrel.Quote:
Originally Posted by usgicollector
This is a pic of a 5.4. Also have a 670k Inland with the same darker stripe.??
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...DSC04641-1.jpg
That is wear from a bayonet being mounted and dismounted, plus movement/vibration during use in training, etc. That is where the loop on the guard rests on the barrel.
I doubt that the above pic is from a bayonet.
If it is a 5.4 it shouldn't have a bayo lug.
You're right - I looked again and he did say 'original', which should preclude a Type III band. Seems to leave only the possibility that the sight was changed out at some point after the original barrel was phosphated with the sight installed.
The 5.4 has a type 2 band. I dont think the front sight has been off, I think there is another reason why these Inlands have that darker stripe in the same spot. I just dont know what that reason is.Quote:
Originally Posted by INLAND44
I thought of another possibility; if the barrel was sand-blasted, and then the sight was pressed on, it might rub a slightly smoother strip on the tip of the barrel that would take a little different tint when Parkerized. We know the the sight and band were installed after blasting but before phosphating, and that different surface textures take phosphating differently. This is why the sight and band can be different tints/shades on an original barrel.
Why is it you guys don't believe the front sight could possibly have been removed and replaced? Post # 12 sight shows signs of being removed the hard way. I've seen lots of 'em done just that way. People have to get over the idea of un touched guns. We've come so far in time that these are getting scarce.
Post 12 doesnt look like the front sight was removed to me. Those arent typical marks that I have seen with front sights that were banged off, IMO.
As for the sandblasted barrel theory, It may be plausible because surface prep does effect how a certain finish appears,however I dont think there is any part of the front sight that would drag across this area when it was pressed on. The key would have been put on before the sight.