Printable View
I have a really nice 5.4 Inland that appears to be in original configuration. It has matching HI wood. The handguard is too fat and partially obscures the front sight. I hate to just start sanding away on an original carbine. I'm wondering if anyone else has had a similar problem? My concern is that if I sand it down for clearance will it stick out like a sore thumb? It is annoying to look down the sights and see only the top 2/3 of the front sight. Thanks in advance
Dave
is too high. At the point just above the slide bar. It causes the guard to tilt up on the right side which obscures about 2/3 of the front sight. I see just the top part. The handguard also isn't loose at all, which I would assume is detrimental to good accuracy. I suppose just sanding some material off that edge would let it lower down and expose most of the front sight. I've shot this one a lot but I think I'd do better by seeing the entire front sight.
Why, yes I have.Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveHH
In recent years my belly has gotten so fat when I look down all I see is 2/3 of my,,,Errr,,Ummm.....Shoe!!
Sorry Dave I couldn't resist...:)
One gets bigger, the other shrinks. Wow! must be going around.
Looking further, the right side of the guard (thankfully not the side with the HI) has a section about 2" long at the very end of the cut out for the slide. It is slightly higher than the rest of the wood. It also has what appears to be a tiny tool made triangle pointing down at the exact point of this wowie. Possible an inspectors mark for a rejected wood part? There is no knot or anything in the wood at that point so it appears that by sanding down that area the guard will come down and be as normal. I'd love to hear from Frank or Charlie about that triangle mark and get their thoughts.
Pictures are worth a thousand words
I've had Carbines that have done that in the past and I've had many . It is just nature of the beast . What ever you do don't sand it down if it is a matching handguard / stock set ! Just buy a repro handguard from Sarco and sand and stain that . I think they still have them in stock . I bought one and they're not too bad . The edge on the groove was a little too sharp for me but I could sand it down. The Sarco handguard I believe are from the same company that does the M1-A1 repro stock .
If you are going to sub another handguard and save the thick one, why not just get another OI hanguard. Only about $15.
Five years ago? :lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by JimF4M1s
For me personally it's hard for me to modify any original item whether it's a gun part or web gear . Once an item has been modified it is no longer valuable. It's like shining a rare coin once it been messed with no collector really wants it . Many of you remember when these Hand Guards were a dime a dozen . In fact my friend returned from the last show and bought me a gift. He found a deal he couldn't pass up A-1 Triangular Hand Guards for only 20.00 ! Now these are going anywhere from 40.00 to 60.00 a set . The last set I bought were 10.00 back when the A-2 H-Bar craze started. The craze now is the Tactical Railed Hand Guard . There will in the future be a movie or a series on Desert Storm or Grenada and every body is going to do A-2 builds. The round A-2 Hand Guards will probably be going for a 100.00 a set !
and after BLO was applied it hardly is noticeable and when assembled not at all. I now see about half of the front sight which will have to do. I don't want to be swapping parts for any reason. It is still the original Louisville Slugger wood for this example Inland. A bonus was that it freed up the handguard to move a bit which will improve accuracy.
Thanks for the help.
not BLO, RLO please.
Sounds like you have a warped hand guard. The original hand guard had a larger radius relief in the center so you could see the whole front sight. Unfortunately these tended to crack down the center because the wood was rather thin there. So, they revised the relief to be more shallow and narrow. So you have two problems; a warped hand guard and a high center cut. You can wrap sandpaper around a wood dowel of a certain diameter and expand the center relief. You'll have to stain and oil it after that.
It is much thicker in the middle than my Winchester. I can't see a warp, but it looks like the flat area of the right edge was surfaced at an angle tilting toward the right. That edge hits first and this makes the right side sit higher. Since it is the match HI apparently original to the carbine, I going to just stop where I am with only about 1/2 of the front sight hidden. It also loosened up the guard which is good. When I look down the Winchester, the whole front sight is visible and you can see that it is much thinner in the center U cut. One thing is obvious on all of my carbines and that is not much lines up. The wood is tilted on all of them, but they all shoot dead on POA at 100 yds.
Thanks for your thoughts.
That's because the wood has nothing to do with the sights...if mine were that far out, I'd re-profile it. If you do it right, no-one will be able to tell. In 20 years no one will care I think.Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveHH
Its typical of the later carbines to see only the top half of the sight blade. If you think about it, that's really all you need to see, which is why they modified the hand guard. My 1944 Inland is that way, and it has the 2-rivet hand guard. It still irritates me when I shoot it, which these days is not even yearly. I bought it back in '91 when I was just getting started in guns, and at that time I had plans for it as my PDW long-gun. I had a case of hollow-point ammo made which I still have except a few I shot for function/accuracy. These days, with value increased dramatically, I'm in conservation mode with it. Sometimes I wish I had an old 'Enforcer' pistol because the .30 Carbine round is really ideal for 'yard work'. :)
I had an enforcer...you missed out Inland, it was a hoot. I just wish it had been in FA...
I have shot a lot with an M2, it is a pretty interesting. But the shell cases really come flying out. Better start out with a large supply.
I feel a lot more dangerous when I look through the rear peep and see everything. Leaves no room for doubt. I used an M14 in the war and it had M1 sights. This carbine is a very low mile original and I just don't feel right tearing into matching HI 69 year old wood. I used some naval jelly to get bad rust off the buttplate and felt bad about that. This thing sat in a closet somewhere with just the buttplate getting wet. I've been shooting it just to see how well it does compared to the Winchester and NPM. While the wood isn't as gamechanging on the carbine as it is on a Garand, the same factors appear with the handguard. If it is too tight it may cause stringing as the barrel heats.
Hello Dave,
I'm just now trying to get back in the Surps groove.
Sorry about being late to chime in, but had a few thoughts after reading this today.
I've had some where either the side to side or forward and backward movement of the HG sitting on the stock caused uneven wear to either the bottom of the HG and/or the top side rails of the lower stock.
Also experienced loose retaining tabs and rivets causing movement that allows the HG to move about on the stock. This HAS to cause a "sanding effect" on these edges.
Same type deal with the front nose of the HG and loose barrel band fit.
Sounds like you've found a happy median you can live with... Congrats, But I think your like many of us, wanting things just as they should be with these "Special To Us Arms".
Warped?
Very possible........ Straight edge will answer this question. While at it, run a straight edge on top of each side rail of the lower stock.
Check the rear retainer and rivets... Quick way to rule them out as a possible culprit.
Try one of your other Hg's to see if they block your FOV, unless you don't have another shallow groove on hand.
Made out of specs.. ? Very possible.
I could measure a few H.I. HG's for you and give you a average height to each top (let's call them the top ridges for now)
Is your HG a 2 rivet type II?
Do you remember this mystery HG I pulled from a bulk box?
Surely not made to spec's :move eek:
Cheers,
Charlie-Painter777
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...DSC08666-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...DSC08667-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...DSC08663-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...DSC08670-1.jpg
Jeez; that hand guard is a monster! Kill it before it multiplies!
Charlie, there are fixes for all those problems you mentioned. It's okay to have a very slight fore and aft movement of the HG, 1/32" or less. There's a lot of fitting on the front end of a carbine. The band should be vertical when tight and snug against the shoulder of the stock, at the same time the head of the band spring is tight against the back of the notch in the band. At this point the hand guard should be held fairly tight. Also, the recoil plate and receiver tang should be adjusted so that when the action is bumped into place after hanging it on the recoil plate, the barrel should settle and stop slightly above the stock barrel channel so the barrel band will slide onto the nose of the stock without raising or lowering the barrel. When you have this set-up, you have a well-fitted carbine.