greyling22
Member
Found this in a box of stuff from my grandfather. It's a front sight of some sort, and looks way to big for a garand.
Anybody know what this front sight goes to?
- Thread starter greyling22
- Start date
- Status
NIGHTLORD40K
Member
British Enfield No.4 MK1
OP
OP
greyling22
Member
wow, thanks! don't have one of those, but good to know what it is. probably going to go in the trash I suppose.
NIGHTLORD40K
Member
List it in the Trading Post first, someone may need it to "unsporterize" a gun.
AlexanderA
Member
This is actually 3 pieces -- the base, the dovetailed blade, and the horned protector. It looks like it would be in pretty good condition after being cleaned up. This is a part that would be in demand by people trying to re-militarize sporter guns.
OP
OP
greyling22
Member
eBay then?
NIGHTLORD40K
Member
If you are already set up there, definitely!
At the very least, take it to the next gunshow and give it to one of the parts sellers- good karma.
At the very least, take it to the next gunshow and give it to one of the parts sellers- good karma.
halfmoonclip
Member
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2011
- Messages
- 2,769
Or use it for an illustrated dictionary, under 'hell for stout'. What, exactly, did Tommies do with their rifles?
Moon
Moon
robin banks
member
- Joined
- May 15, 2022
- Messages
- 333
having the dovetail sight within the protective ears is real dumb. I have a jungle carbine that shot way to the left so I had to knock over the sight got it zeroed but it is real hard to center the front site in the peep site cause of the ears. you want to center the ears.
NIGHTLORD40K
Member
How are the ears supposed to protect the blade if its not between them?
But ya, I get it, the sight picture is weird and distracting if the blade isnt more-or-less centered. Of course, the the barrel is supposed to be more-or-less straight too.....lol.
But ya, I get it, the sight picture is weird and distracting if the blade isnt more-or-less centered. Of course, the the barrel is supposed to be more-or-less straight too.....lol.
halfmoonclip
Member
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2011
- Messages
- 2,769
Do I recall some protected front sights (H&K, perhaps) where the sight is centered in the circled guard, and the whole thing is moved for a zero?
Simply having windage on the rear is a better solution.
Moon
Simply having windage on the rear is a better solution.
Moon
AlexanderA
Member
The protective ears are a typical British practice (the Mark III, the No. 4, the P14/M1917). The idea is to prevent the front sight from being knocked out of alignment. (Note that in the OP's picture, the components are not positioned the way they would be if installed on the rifle. The large hole in the protector is supposed to line up with the sight blade, so that a pusher tool can be used for adjustment when sighting in.)
In U.S. practice, the M1 Garand, the Carbine, the M14, and the M16 all have protective ears for the front sight. Prior to those, the Trapdoor, the Krag, and the Springfield had removable sight protectors. In the case of the Springfield, although the protector was meant to be removable, it was often left on when firing. A hooded protector like that for the Springfield is more of a problem when sighting, than a wing-type protector. This doesn't stop commercial hunting rifles such as the Remington 700 from having hooded sight protectors.
Clearly, the military disagrees with the idea that a sight protector is "dumb."
jdh
Member
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2008
- Messages
- 1,375
robin banks
member
- Joined
- May 15, 2022
- Messages
- 333
I would say you need to look at the front sites of the M1 and M-14. if you loosen the screw to move the site the WHOLE site moves including the ears. with the stupid enfield site the ears stay where they are and the site moves off center of the ears.
robin banks
member
- Joined
- May 15, 2022
- Messages
- 333
remember when you loosen a M-1 or M-14 site the whole site moves it is one piece with the ears
codytrucker
Member
I believe the reason for the robust front sight protection is that these rifles were meant to be used as pikes in close combat with bayonets .
GooseGestapo
Member
- Joined
- Jan 6, 2003
- Messages
- 6,153
Indeed! And, butt stroking or used as a baseball (cricket?) bat to batter the opponent.
The two piece stock was genius. Easily removed and replaced in-theater opposed to completely replaced stock requiring a gunsmith/technician to “fit” the stock.
These were indeed the finest bolt action “battle rifles”. Tough, sufficiently accurate, sufficiently powerful, reasonably light, superb balance and handling.
Ironically, the current 7.62x51 175gr load in use essentially duplicates the British MkVII load...
AlexanderA
Member
True, regarding the buttstock. And don't forget that the buttstocks came in 4 different lengths, to (theoretically) fit the soldiers better.
It was a different story regarding the forends. Those had to be fitted by an armorer, because the fit in the "draws" area was critical. Doing this was an art in itself.
Today, replacement buttstocks are fairly easy to come by, because so many extras were made. Replacement forends are difficult to find, and expensive.
AlexanderA
Member
At least with the No. 4, the sight protector is attached to the barrel. On the earlier SMLE (Mark III), the sight protector was part of the nose cap, attached to the stock (with obviously more room for a discrepancy).
In either case, the transverse adjustment of the sight blade was not supposed to be so radical as to be noticeable in relation to the sight protector, by the shooter who was aiming the rifle. If the sight blade was way off to the side, something was being done wrong.
Bcwitt
Member
Ive seen mosin rifles like that.
- Status
