Garand Front Sight height work.

[Calif-Steve]

Does that hooded rear sight show any grinding of the teeth? The USAR Teams rifles had the bottom 2 rows of teeth ground off to fit the Garand. The M14 was OK to go, but the Garand had issues with many hooded rear sights. There are no "tall" Garand front sights, instead you must lower the hooded sight.

Information

Warning: This is a relatively older thread This discussion is older than 360 days. Some information contained in it may no longer be current.

[JustPassingThrough]

Does that hooded rear sight show any grinding of the teeth? The USAR Teams rifles had the bottom 2 rows of teeth ground off to fit the Garand. The M14 was OK to go, but the Garand had issues with many hooded rear sights. There are no "tall" Garand front sights, instead you must lower the hooded sight.

Hi Steve,

The base of the rear hooded sight is not ground down. To remove the sight I have to remove the whole sight base. I cant just run it out by going up all the way.

Perhaps I've misunderstood the change I'm contemplating. If I lower the front blade and leave the rear sight height unchanged then effectively I'm moving my impact point out to a further point because I now have to raise the front up the amount I shaved off.. Right?

So if I remove material from the front blade and lower the rear sight height (assuming the ~8mils of material per moa) I can then have say 6-8 clicks up for 100 yards instead of the 12 I'm at now. This also means that when I attempt to shoot 1000 yards my sight height isn't up as much as it would have been before I lowered the front post.

Currently, with the sight the way down the rear sight comes up 51 clicks to the 1000 mark. From there I have about another 15 clicks before the sights reaches its max height.

With the sight up 51 clicks the rear aperture beings to oblong and depress in the hood as seen through the rear sight. I believe this is do to the change in angle of the hood which is now pointing down somewhere mid barrel. And I'm not looking up through the sight looking for the front blade.

Here is a photo.



Ideally I'd like both of those lines to be the same but I'm only willing to remove so much front sight...

Anyways, that's the game plan. So far.

[Maury Krupp]

You're on the right track

To reduce the number of clicks of elevation needed on the rear sight for a given distance you need to reduce the height of the front sight.

It's common (or it used to be) for competitive shooters to pick a rear sight setting that gives a good spot weld/head position at 100 or 200yd then file the front sight until the rifle zeroes. That way you've still got a good position when you crank up for 600.

The .008 per MOA is correct and it works within a click or two

I've found to get a good head position at 1000 the front sight needs to be too short for short range (300yd or less). If I stick with my usual XTC front sight I've got so much elevation on at 1000 that I'm like a bobble-head doll

Filing the front of the rear sight aperture track is a normal part of fitting the aperture. You don't want the track to hit the flat part or the front of the rear sight base area of the receiver. If it does the aperture won't go down all the way and the bottom clicks will be mushy and may not repeat consistently.

If you also file the non-toothed part you can slide apertures in and out at will. Handy if you want to use both .520 and .595 or have various Bob Jones-type lenses.

Maury