Does anybody see more than one image here?Quote:
Originally Posted by ChipS
Printable View
Does anybody see more than one image here?Quote:
Originally Posted by ChipS
The post will all the pics is a couple below this one
Ahhh ... different THREAD. wtmr should've included a link in OP for those not following the board so much of lateQuote:
Originally Posted by usgicollector
The tall sight blade is not an indication of a non-original carbine. While rare, it is not out of the question that such a sight blade was never filed to raise the point of impact. I noticed that it was a tall sight right away but thought little of it - tall, short and all in-between are found on sighted-in carbines. However, I'll admit that if the carbine were being sold, it might be an indicator that one should look closer, but not a deal breaker.
Were the carbines that were arsenal upgraded after the war sighted-in at rebuild, or just the ones that received upgrades in the field during the war? I've got (3) carbines with adjustable rear sights, but have only fired (2) of them. One was "on" for elevation and one wasn't - the one that wasn't ('ord-arlington' import) had a new front sight put on it and wasn't filed. The other gun came from the CMP and I'm guessing the elevation will be OK on it. I've got an S'G' with a #7 front sight, and it's filed down so much that some have said, "it isn't correct." I feel that it's been the same since it left Grand Rapids - shoots fne for elevation. I've seen other #7's and they are filed identical to mine. The flat that's filed actually looks longer than the unfiled portion. - Bob
Rebuilt carbines should have been sighted-in on that target (or the 25 yard one) that I'm always posting, but apparently some got a new front sight after the adjustable sight was installed and were never sighted. Probably many more new sights were installed after the carbines went 'civilian'. If your front sight is heavily filed and the carbine shoots in the acceptable range, it is right. Anything else would be 'wrong'.