Lock Bar Sight Originality

Nice rifle, dbarn. Thanks for the pics; I like drooling over Garands too.

The sight cover looks to be original WRA. It has the typical WRA narrow ribs and the punch mark. The ribs are struck a little deeper than most but probably still WRA. The lockbar looks more like a type III SA than a square Winchester, but there are several variations of WRA lock bars so could be OK. If you can see the pads on the back they should be curved on the inside. SA lock bar pads were straight. The ghost image of the "5" on the receiver is interesting. I think I have seen pics of that rifle before. I have one that also has a similar ghost image but is a different number and smaller in size.

Thanks for the comments guys. Here's a close up of the lock bar, hth. Regarding the ghost number, if you look close there is a four on the other side making the number 45. There has been some speculation that it may have undergone an interchangeability test with Springfield but I certainly have no proof of this. The number is in the finish, almost appearing to be acid etched.
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...tandard-30.jpg

Without seeing the underside of the lock bar, it would be hard to say for sure that it is a type III SA. but looking at that last shot of the side edge, and how it looks almost like a casting mark, that is typical SA. Between that and the squared ends, I'd say type III SA. BUT, I wouldn't change a thing. Even if it is, who knows if it is or isn't an original. Sure would be time wise. And some WRA rifles have been observed with unmarked late follower/slide assemblies (which most equate to post-war SA rifles) and there have been some WRA buttplates found on SA stocks. All I'm saying is that the wear and finish looks consistant. I wouldn't touch it. In my book - and that isn't saying much - I'd say original. Who knows what will be turned up tomorrow as to how these things were built and using what parts. I'd sure like to see some shots of the gas lock screw, particularly the inside holes. Do they look flat on the bottom of the holes or are they beveled? Nice rifle for sure!

Oh, and thank you for all the photos. They are awesome.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by islandhopper

Without seeing the underside of the lock bar, it would be hard to say for sure that it is a type III SA. but looking at that last shot of the side edge, and how it looks almost like a casting mark, that is typical SA. Between that and the squared ends, I'd say type III SA. BUT, I wouldn't change a thing. Even if it is, who knows if it is or isn't an original. Sure would be time wise. And some WRA rifles have been observed with unmarked late follower/slide assemblies (which most equate to post-war SA rifles) and there have been some WRA buttplates found on SA stocks. All I'm saying is that the wear and finish looks consistant. I wouldn't touch it. In my book - and that isn't saying much - I'd say original. Who knows what will be turned up tomorrow as to how these things were built and using what parts. I'd sure like to see some shots of the gas lock screw, particularly the inside holes. Do they look flat on the bottom of the holes or are they beveled? Nice rifle for sure!

---

Thanks for the info Islandhopper and kind words, will try and post a pic of the lock screw this evening.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dbarn

A link to additional photos. http://www.fototime.com/inv/75ADCEBF58A0586

---

Good looking rifle Dbarn. My only comment is the gas cyl lock is post WW2, not unusual, and it certainly doesn't condemn your rifle at all. Tough to find one like yours. :super:

Thanks, but may I ask why the gas cyl lock would be considered post WWII?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dbarn

Thanks, but may I ask why the gas cyl lock would be considered post WWII?

---

dbarn,

Unless the perspective of your photo doesn't show it, and it may be me, I can't make out a chamfer on the top front corner like this. If it's there, even better!

Yes, it's there. Always good to learn something new. Had previously thought the post war was distinguished by a hump? Thanks for the info. :)