Good or bad ? I suspect, correct. Opinions welcomed. I don't like those ones that look like they were made yesterday. Cheers. Mike. N.Z.
Printable View
Good or bad ? I suspect, correct. Opinions welcomed. I don't like those ones that look like they were made yesterday. Cheers. Mike. N.Z.
it's legit. what is marked inside the slingwell, flaming cannon ball/OI or HI?
it looks like a legit stock that has been cleaned up, but real cartouche
Thanks Guys. Here's a few more of the same stock. STU, as you will see, I cannot answer your slingwell question. Despite it's battle damage, I like it, I feel it's a correct I Cut, Hi wood, and would like to keep it as it is. Just found the stock and handguard, not what should be in it !. Cheers, Mike.
Mikey, it looks right to me, lucky you. I could use one of those for a 6-digit 262,xxx Inland. Oh well I'll keep looking.....Frank
Mikey, actually I can make out an O I in the top of the cut in the second picture.
Kinda evy you that you are in the part of the world where some of the carbines were actually used. I am sure you come across some that are wearing scars and battle damage from long ago...
That's a good one to go on an early Inland for sure Mike.
Problem is: Hi wood trimmed at rebuild, and a .U. from Underwood rebuild. Mine has small annoying chips around the I cut too. But considering the firewood that's come out of CMP lately, it looks new.
Thanks for the support guys. I find myself in a position where I don't know what to do! I am between a rock and a hard place. I post pics to help the honest guys from being ripped off, but at the same time I am helping the humpers. So to maybe finish this thread, here's some pics of the same stock. I have four of these Overton for Inland I Cuts, they are all pretty much the same (except for the markings) and the other three have the metal in them. What I have learned, is that if that Hi- Wood, "Hi/sharp point". looks too "rounded", look for evidence of heavy sanding in other areas around the stock. Cheers to all. Mike. N.Z
It's a nice stock. I like the look of "been there, done that" that it has. Only thing that would have made it better is if it was still high wood.
Can you please tell me why it is not ?. Your opinion does not appear to agree with many other collectors I communicate with ?. Thanks, Mike.
Mikey,Quote:
Originally Posted by Mikey51
Are you talking about the 'low-wood' term?
It looks to me as if it's a high-wood that's been arsenal modified to 'low-wood' configuration.
(Unless, I' am misunderstanding completely, which never happens to me!) ;)
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...odontop1-1.jpg
That top one looks as though it was damaged and then filed or sanded. That is not a clean looking high wood cut. Mikey51, yours was modified and cut down to low wood. An I cut stock was always originally a high wood.
It was only for a quick comparison of the difference of the two designs, Wulf. (It's only a file photo)
Yes, they often had to repair/sand high-wood stocks that became damaged. That's why later stock designs were changed to 'low-wood' and many original 'high-woods' were also modified to the 'low-wood' design. (They weren't very considerate for future collectors!) ;)
Geez, Harlan, that wasn't very nice of them, was it... you would think by the way they acted there was a war on or something... :madsmile:Quote:
Originally Posted by cafdfw
As stated by some of the others..."I" cut stocks were always originally high wood stocks. Sometime during the life of this stock, though, it was modified to the low wood configuration. You can see the difference in the picture posted above. It's still a nice stock.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mikey51
I apologise to one and all for the confusion that I think I have created ! The pic I think folks are forming an opinion on, was intended by me, to illustrate the two rivets, not the hi - wood, and I had the handguard in the wrong position ! I have taken a new pic tonight with the handguard in the right position. The other pics are of other Hi Woods I have. Sorry, my fault. Mike.:bow: