I agree with BAR.
Printable View
I agree with BAR.
in different light. Do you still think this sight has been removed? Owned it since 1969.
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...00457a_b-1.jpg
The stripe in the picture posted by mpd1978 in post #13 was caused by the front sight assembly fixture and is found to varying degrees on most original finish Inland carbines. Including those that have never had the front sight removed.
The front sight in DaveHH's post hasn't been off the barrel. The marks were probably caused by something banging into the side of it. The grenade launcher and recoil check create different marks.
BQ,
Do you know why the 1 on some is parked and some are stamped through the finish?
I think the likely reason is what I thought about earlier ones knowing there were going to be M1's before finish and later ones not being sure.
I am just guessing on that. I only have the one late Inland so not a lot to base it on in my own collection just observations.
Dave
Very good explanation. Wish I'd thought of the installation tool!Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianQ
I agree with Inland44's theory. It looks to me like a tight fitting front sight would burnish the sandblasted area when installed. The area of the barrel directly under the key slot in the sight wouldn't be burnished because there is no contact with the sight there, and it would probably look different in that area after parkerizing. I've seen this same appearance on a lot of machinery parts where a gear or sprocket with a key slot has been pressed on. - BobQuote:
Originally Posted by mpd1978
Just because there is some crud built up around where the sight meets the barrel doesn't mean it hasn't been off. I stand by my initial assessment that the sight has been removed. I've seen that damage on a lot of sights that were removed without the removal tool. There really isn't any other explanation for that damage.
Bill and I are talking about the slight flaring on the rear of the front sight in post 12. They are beaten off with a brass drift and that's the damage that occurs. 1969 isn't that far back. I remember it well. So, it was done before that.
Don't get me wrong, I don't care...I just think this mind set of "This one's original" is wrong. It may be and it may not. I just wouldn't buy one with that story.
I've only seen one hand stamped Inland where the one actually looked like it was stamped after the finish was applied. And it may not have been stamped after the finish was applied. On the other hand, I have seen a lot of pictures where the reflection from the flash or ambient lighting made it appear the one was stamped after the finish was applied . I tend to believe that because the tool used to stamp the one leaves a flat side when struck deep it creates a reflective surface.Quote:
Originally Posted by usgicollector
The reason Inland hand stamped the model number is because it was easier to control the percentage of good receivers after heat treating and finial machining of the receivers. Once the unmarked receiver passed final QC it could be marked according to which type was needed and sent on to be mated with a barrel, barrel band, front and rear sights, then finished. Only then was it necessary to segregate the types for final assembly
Let's see....66-42=24, yeah I'd like to just pop back to then.