Rock-Ola question

[sakorick]

Things are looking better, however, could the drain holes have been reamed out later during rebuild? My guess is probably not.

[tenOC]

Can you post a pic of your mag catch and band for comparison?

BTW, it has been corrected.

[sakorick]

Mag catch and band




---------- Post added at 10:49 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:39 PM ----------

Can you post a pic of your mag catch and band for comparison?

BTW, it has been corrected.

So please explain that it "has been corrected". Thanks

[tenOC]

The catch and band look good. The catch has that Austrian look, though. About your rear sight, sorry but, it's been added on recently. The rest looks good.

[painter777]

I agree about the Rear Sight and have to question if it is real.
I'm not at liberty to use pictures from the private file I'm using for comparison.
The shape (top corners) of your sight base don't match.... Yours being much more rounded. The milling on the outer sides of the sights base is different.... Grind Angle...etc
Your sights' base sits above the bottom of the receiver slot.
Your sight both front and back sit above the Dovetails.
Can you see day light under these areas?
The Shape of the letters on the Leaf and right side of base do not match known original, they are close but don't match.
The pin is more or less showing similar staking and I believe it's your camera flash that makes your sight pin look in the white, when I believe it is probably blued in color.
It also shows no wear or patina you'd expect to find on a 75 year old part.




Here is a picture of RMC parts I've gathered up over the years for a restoration that I never seem to get to,


Does your Front sight have the pin staked on the sides like this picture:



Is the rear key staked like this:



Have seen Real M-R bands with the flat top and the rounded top. Yours having the round top.

From the few pics I've seen It's the Flip sight that stands out as not being real. Nothing else Jumps Out at me, but we've seen just a few pictures. Color, Wear patterns and other factors need to be taken in to account to be able to judge if it's original assembly.
Even a take off list would help IE: Type II safety, Hammer Straight marked KR, Trigger Type II Rock Ola, Trigger housing Type II marked Rock Ola.........

Does Recoil plate wear match up to receiver tang wear ?
Rear of Slide wear match up to front of receiver surface?
Is Piston nut staked at 11, 4 and 7 ?
We have no way to know.......

VR,

[tenOC]

Rear sight isn't USGI, but I wasn't the first to note it. I got a message from someone to take a look. The stock also has type II or III shading in that side view. It has that perfectly vertical oil stain line from the larger bands. A slight depression can be seen on the top surface as well from where one used to be.

[sakorick]

I came to the same conclusion yesterday. I believe the rifle to be a restoration without doubt. I believe the barreled action has been re parkerized as well. A rifle with an MW of 2 would have been fired perhaps thousands of rounds and this rifle just doesn't show the wear I would expect in the moving metal parts. I can easily see a gap under the rear sight base. The front sight stakings are correct. The stock shows it's had a wider band on it.....that said, the stock shows honest use but the metal parts do not. Comments welcome.

[sakorick]

[SIZE="2"]Thanks for the help here. You all confirmed my concerns over this rifle and it is currently on the way back to where it came from. The man who sold it to me is a good guy but knows zero about carbines and he will issue me a full refund with no hurt feelings. Essentially, he was screwed by the guy who told him his dad brought it back from the war. I still have my late Rock and really would have to find something really special in the way of an early gun. The only manufacturer I'm missing is a Standard Products and have a lead on a nice one. Merry Christmas to all and regards, Rick.]