Un-quality resortation-Before foto

I have found to have a quality resortation one has to start with a proverbial gem. I got lucky on this one--it had fantastic underwood stock on it. It took a while but found nice stock, stock I have on it needs improved on slightly but it is what it is. I prefer original guns but have learned not to pass up restorable gems. Some folks look at at destroying history when you restore but when you can really make one to its ww2 glory is neat to do. I have left a marker that will always stick out to a experienced collector. Lets see if someone here nails it! I believe all parts to be of original finish and ww2 origin.

.....is it the faint type 2 or 3 barrel band marks on the nose of the stock?

no, no bonus points yet-it has a faint type two but could be sanded easily but I left as was

...could it be the round vs x staking on the flipper pin?

no again

Hello Marcus, I just came in from working on a real nice RMC I cut stock. It's almost done and will post some pics in the A.M.
Is it the small punch on the front right dovetail and sight?

JAWAG.....Frank

What's the little notch in front of the slide? Is the handguard or stock notched? Nice looking carbine!!!!!!!!!!!!1

.... is it the marks near the muzzle of the barrel from reinstalling the front sight? .... or maybe the stake marks on the left side of the dovetail for the rear sight - I haven't seen that before?

no--something else-most of your thoughts are correct minor imperfections vs a true original but all is possible except maybe and just most likely what has not been observed yet-we all know the rear sight is not orig to gun--sometimes one has to look at the trees to see the woods

How can we tell the rear sight is not original to the gun? What about that bayonet lug?

I can only see one image but it looks like an early Winchester bull-nose handguard to me.

Rear sight itself?

both were changed, the issue I am raising is something most all carbines share, its a issue I almost missed and is one some will argue against-it still has a issue that is most likely incorrect and can be a dead giveaway, my pics honestly probably don't show it as well as they could but its something someone passing a "original" off on you will not disclose-its not a touch up, or redo of anything-is potentially more blatant and some would say maybe not--come on guys, we are shooting ducks in a barrel-it has nothing to do with stake marks, sanding, touch up, incorrect markings, or non original parts. I think I gave a earlier hint to it in original posting.

Well, without seeing the After foto, it's going to be awfully difficult for even experienced collectors to identify that dead giveaway you left, isn't it?

Maybe I didn't understand the original premise that all the metal parts had their original finish. Are you talking about all the metal parts haviing the same color and texture of park finish, which likely is not original?

1/2 a point on handguard, is a unmarked bullnose but its still not the issue. I did not explain as well as I could have done. The barrel band and front sight came from a new barrel assembly, the stock came from ebay (it was ok!!!!) The bolt, slide, and internal trigger house parts came with it, The trigger house it came with showed wear below where stock is so I swapped that with another, It is not a issue with the stock, HG, barrel, rear sight or receiver or the trigger sssembly or anything that makes it go bang.

Is it the finish on the stock? It looks kind of shiny like a varnish or shellac.

good eye on the varnish or whatever it is, it has something on it---not the bonus question though, bonus question is the front sight post, some will argu maybe OK but its never been filed, all original qhmc guns I have seen have had the front sight post filed or ground on-note how sharp a point it has and how it just shows some wear marks-front sights off of NOS barrel assemblys are not filed-they will typically be filed and have black finish on top of post

Hiding in plain sight is right!!!

From the single picture you posted (unquality RIA.jpg), I never would have guessed. My eyes aren't that good anymore to see the sharpness of the front sight post in that photo, even with bifocals!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChipS

I can only see one image but it looks like an early Winchester bull-nose handguard to me.

---

Does anybody see more than one image here?

The post will all the pics is a couple below this one

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by usgicollector

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 late

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'.