Should I assume this front sight on Jungle Carbine is not original

[gerry]

Reading Stratton's book and he says all No 5's had a dovetail sight? Anyone experience something different. This one is dated 9/45.
Havent shot it yet, but is it normal for a sight to be off center like that?
Thanks in advance

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.

[bradtx]

Gerry, Looks like a Savage front sight block. May be wrong as this laptop isn't as clear as a CRT.

Brad

[bearhunter]

manufacturer of the sight isn't important. I have a brand new in the grease No5 with a Savage front sight insert. As for it not being centered, bore sight it and see if that's where it needs to be. Might be a good idea to check the bedding if it is. If it shoots well there though, maybe just leave it alone and have fun.
There were hundreds of thousands of US/Canadian parts shipped to England during WWII and rather than make up new ones, they just used what was on hand in the bins.

[Alfred]

The dovetail portion of the front sight blade of a No.5 belonging to a friend has a broad cut in the center. Its unlike any sight blade I've seen elsewhere.
Is that the way they were supposed to be?

A front sight might be offset to compensate for a shooters reaction to the stout recoil of the Carbine.
If the heavier MkVIIIZ or similarly heavy hitting commercial loads up to 215 bullet types were used most by a previous owner the off set may be more than necessary for the MkVII or commercial loads in that power range.

[Peter Laidler]

Horses mouth here. The foresight blade is definately wrong. It should be a split block foresight blade in a solid block housing and vice verca.

REALLY, you should have what we call a Mk3 foresight blade with both the foresight blade part and the blade block part having undercut rear surfaces. This small point is important on a No5 rifle because if you didn't have the undercut blade/block, the older non undercut types would reflect a line of 'shine' back into your eyes.

To be honest, the position of the foresight blade could be - and usually was - anywhere on a No5. Accuracy not being their most famous attribute!
However, our criteria on the No4 and 5 was that the edge of the foresight base must overhang or be level with the ledge of the flash eliminator (as yours does correctly) in the zeroed position. If the edge of the foresight base was inboard of the block, then it indicated that something more serious was amiss with the barrel, body or bolt.

SAVAGE, re your comments. I didn't think that Savage produced the undercut Mk 2 and 3 blades as these were a just post-war innovation to break up reflection from the rear of the foresight blades.

I hope that this long winded answer answers some of the queries.

[gerry]

Horses mouth here. The foresight blade is definately wrong. It should be a split block foresight blade in a solid block housing and vice verca.

REALLY, you should have what we call a Mk3 foresight blade with both the foresight blade part and the blade block part having undercut rear surfaces. This small point is important on a No5 rifle because if you didn't have the undercut blade/block, the older non undercut types would reflect a line of 'shine' back into your eyes.

To be honest, the position of the foresight blade could be - and usually was - anywhere on a No5. Accuracy not being their most famous attribute!
However, our criteria on the No4 and 5 was that the edge of the foresight base must overhang or be level with the ledge of the flash eliminator (as yours does correctly) in the zeroed position. If the edge of the foresight base was inboard of the block, then it indicated that something more serious was amiss with the barrel, body or bolt.

SAVAGE, re your comments. I didn't think that Savage produced the undercut Mk 2 and 3 blades as these were a just post-war innovation to break up reflection from the rear of the foresight blades.

I hope that this long winded answer answers some of the queries.

Thanks for the answer. I too believe its wrong, but along with bearhunter it may be original to the gun. I would think that the date of this Mk 5 (9/45) the manufacturing was still going strong and parts may still have been scarce at that time and they probably would have done just like they did in the US M1 Carbine manufacturing and use whatever they had on hand. Please correct me if Im way off

[Peter Laidler]

That's not quite the way our Ordnance factories work in the UK. It wouldn't have passed the line or out inspector with such an obviously incorrect part and knowing how the factories were run, under the eagle eyed Ministry of Supply inspectors, an incorrect part wouldn't have made it to the assembly line - It simply couldn't happen. If the spec says something, then that's it unless there was a relaxation order in place. But what you have there, being a Mk1 solid blade in a solid block band is flawed engineering They might have used 'whatever parts' that were available but they'd be the CORRECT parts To make it correct, just drift out the solid blade and insert a +.015" split block blade

[bearhunter]

Peter, it's not that I didn't believe you, but I just had to dig the rifle out of the safe and check that front sight. You're right. Nuff said.

I'm sorry for the misleading information gerry. I really thought the sight on my rifle was the same as yours.