Sighting Problems on a late Inland

[Bruce McAskill]

Bob none of your photos show the left side of the receiver.

[USGI]

On the top of the left rail, Bruce. Looks almost like a mark the jaws of a lathe chuck can leave on a work piece. Possibly from a fixture or vise used in the milling process?? I was also thinking it could have gotten there from tools used during a barrel change, or some other GI carbine tool such as for changing the rear sight. - Bob

[jimb16]

Jim, I thought the chisel marks (if needed) on Inlands with flip sights were always on the RH side . I've got two of them and they're both "staked" on the right side. One has them both front and rear, and the other one just at the rear. I'm attaching a picture of the one with both. Also, will attach more pictures of the left side area on the late inland. Thanks! - Bob

Attachment 100483Attachment 100484Attachment 100485

Chisel staking could be on either side. It depended on which side was loose. A few of them were staked on both sides! My Inland X-suffix is staked on the left.

[Bruce McAskill]

I doubt that the sight was factory installed. There were six stake marks on this sight two of which are almost in two others The vast majority of factory punch marks are done on the right side and just two punch marks. But someone sure wanted to be sure this sight just did not have a chance to move.

[USGI]

Bruce, I agree about the rear sight staking on this carbine. Was it you that posted awhile back about the differences between Type 2 and Type 3 rear sights in regard to the area on them meant to be used for staking? It seems like it was in reference to information in a CCNL, but may have been something I read over on the CC Forum. Can you think of a reason why this carbine has nearly a full height front sight on it? Your earlier post sounded like you thought I needed to add height to it, but that would be going in the wrong direction. I have several other pictures of the front sight (different angles and lighting) I can post, if it would help. Thanks! - Bob

[deldriver]

The rear sight could have been restaked at a later date, that would explain the divot patterns. Also, original sights were not always staked the way some newsletter, book or online site says they were. Securing the sight to the dovetail, adjustable or flip, was the most important thing.

[INLAND44]

What the pics are showing is a brand new front sight. It will have to be trimmed to hit POA at 100m with the 100m setting.

There it is. I can't believe the discussion continues as if the question were not answered. Look in your carbine ordnance manuals to see exactly how to trim the sight blade at a slight angle. You need to do this so the carbine will be correct and shoot 'according to the book' at 100 yds with the rear sight on '1 - 1.5'. It can be as much as 12" high at 100 and still be approved. Look up the 100 yd target - the impact zone is 16" wide and 12" high with the aiming point on the lower center line. So, to target the carbine like it was intended to be, 'ideal' would be on the center line and 6" high. Once you actually know what you're doing, things get so much easier....

[USGI]

There it is. I can't believe the discussion continues as if the question were not answered.

The actual question was not how to sight in a carbine, but how this carbine escaped getting sighted in. The sight doesn't appear to be a recent addition. I'll check the blade height, but it does appear to be close to "new" dimensions. It's not exactly what I would call a new sight, though! - Bob

[browningautorifle]

how this carbine escaped getting sighted in.

I think the suggestion of it having a flip sight originally and then the adjustable one being fitted makes most sense. That would account for it. Why it wasn't re-patterned, well if it was fitted after the military, then that would do it. There's no way to tell if it was civilian fitted. At this age, it's just guessing...

[USGI]

Thanks, Jim. A few are suggesting the front sight is "new" - as in, it's been replaced. It doesn't look like it to me, but it's not important enough to argue about. - Bob