Lock Bar sight...which Type???

[m1903rifle]

OK.............Which type Lock Bar sight is this and,301773017830179 is it SA or WRA?

[CPC]

The parts as configured are for a Type II (rounded lock bar), with Springfield knobs. I assume both knobs are knurled like the one shown?
Regards,
CC

[m1903rifle]

Yes.............both knobs are knurled. Thanks for the help. Any idea what it is worth?

[Dan Shapiro]

For the purist, starting around $120. Be forewarned, check out Ebay and you'll find that Type III's "new production" are going for $49.

[m1903rifle]

Thanks.

[JimF]

Ya' know, guys, it has always bothered me that what collectors call a "knurled" knob, should actually be called "serrated" . . . . .

And what they call "checkered", should really be called "knurled".

Anyone agree? --Jim

[Latigo 1]

Ya' know, guys, it has always bothered me that what collectors call a "knurled" knob, should actually be called "serrated" . . . . .

And what they call "checkered", should really be called "knurled".

Anyone agree? --Jim

No, I don't agree. Both are "knurled". There are different types of knurling. There is "cross knurling" which raises little diamonds on the part and is not used on Garand sight knobs. There is "straight knurling" which makes grooves across the part and is what we call "knurled sight knobs". Then there is the type of knurling that we call "checkered". It is straight knurling with additional liniear grooves to make a checkered pattern. Diamond, straight, and checkered. Sounds pretty straightforward to me.

[CPC]

Ok, like in baseball I call it like I see em, and if I don't see em, I make em up... however, in this case I'm not making this stuff up. I am only using the terms that are commonly used in ref material written by accepted authors Duff and Canfield, et-al. I try to not use and personally dislike the terms Type 1, 2, or 3 for describing parts because different authors use different terms, etc., for describing a part. For example if I see a note where someone describes a part, i.e. type 2 follower arm- I go what the heck is that.... numbered single bevel, single bevel, etc.,? and many times I do not have the resource/ref material because I have little faith in the publication being accurate. However, in the case of sights there appears to be some level of concurrence about the basic types and not the details of each (such as the differences in knobs). As you can see I have way too much time to spare this AM. And by the way, I looked up knurl in my Merriam Webster and it says: KNURL. 1 : a small protuberance, excrescence, or knob. 2 : one of a series of small ridges or beads on a metal surface to aid in gripping; and on the web free dictionary: Knurl - One of a series of small ridges or grooves on the surface or edge of a metal object, such as a thumbscrew, to aid in gripping. tr.v. knurled, knurl·ing, knurls.
So I think the authors got it right... and I looked up the patents submitted for the sight by Mr Garand and he refers to them as knurled thumbwheels and knobs.. thank god I read it on the internet, it must be true! No offense taken.. I just thought I would add a little humor to help my day as my SinLaw just left after visiting and she is spiraling down hill with cancer.

[Col. Colt]

I am always amused by all the people who object that "somebody" finally proposed a classification system so Collectors could sort out which parts are which - the US Ordnance Department neglected to do that! What's the beef? That the author of this proposed Classification system was not 100% right the first time out of the box? That more gets discovered all the time? WE NEED SOME KIND OF SYSTEM to buy and sell vintage, collectable parts and verbally and in writing discuss them. What's wrong with "type" classifications? The military has always had such things, just not for our hobby. Buy the latest Poyer book and catch up with everyone else, instead of bitching about him. All of the other "Gurus" and "Experts" were keeping all the knowledge to themselves - they certainly didn't bother to explain it to us and lay it all out in an organized form and most will apparently take what they know to their graves rather than preserve it for posterity and SHARE it with the rest of us. If you were the last caretaker of a piece of historical information, would you like it to be forever lost when you die? Selfish.

Someone had to do it...... CC

[RCS]

Jesse Harrison had the Type 7 stamped Winchester trigger guard and a line drawing so the collector could I.D. this part !

This is really a quite rare part and few have even seen one

[Latigo 1]

I am always amused by all the people who object that "somebody" finally proposed a classification system so Collectors could sort out which parts are which - the US Ordnance Department neglected to do that! What's the beef? That the author of this proposed Classification system was not 100% right the first time out of the box? That more gets discovered all the time? WE NEED SOME KIND OF SYSTEM to buy and sell vintage, collectable parts and verbally and in writing discuss them. What's wrong with "type" classifications? The military has always had such things, just not for our hobby. Buy the latest Poyer book and catch up with everyone else, instead of bitching about him. All of the other "Gurus" and "Experts" were keeping all the knowledge to themselves - they certainly didn't bother to explain it to us and lay it all out in an organized form and most will apparently take what they know to their graves rather than preserve it for posterity and SHARE it with the rest of us. If you were the last caretaker of a piece of historical information, would you like it to be forever lost when you die? Selfish.

Someone had to do it...... CC
The trouble is, the numbering, type systems used by the different authors are not all the same, resulting in more confusion than clarity. I don't know any of the "gurus or experts" who keep all the knowledge to themselves. I see them posting information every day on the different forums. Sometimes it is an attempt to straighten out the problems created by these variations in "types". Poyers latest books are not bad, but still not perfect, so not the end all solution. The best way to know exactly what parts are being described is by description rather than by type.