1898 Carbine rear sight

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • Rick the Librarian
    Super Moderator
    • Aug 2009
    • 6700

    #16
    Originally posted by madsenshooter
    Other sight trivia, I just ran across an old ad on ebay, a company claimed, in 1927 that they had 14,000 model 92 Krag rear sights in stock. Going for $1 ea.
    Although I haven't checked, lately, eBay and Gunbroker used to have several M1892 rear sights available.
    "We make men without chests and expect from them virtue and enterprise. We laugh at honor and are shocked to find traitors in our midst."
    --C.S. Lewis

    Comment

    • Dick Hosmer
      Very Senior Member - OFC
      • Aug 2009
      • 5993

      #17
      They are commonly available, having been removed from about 25,000 arms with minimal (on a small batch of M1898 rifles, when the desired sights were not yet completed) official reuse.

      Beware anyone who tries to tell you the sight is "rare" - the rifle yes, the sight, no.

      Comment

      • JacobCR
        Junior Member
        • Jul 2013
        • 12

        #18
        Originally posted by Dick Hosmer
        I'm missing where the leaf was ground? All M1898/1902 sliders should fit all M1898/1902 leaves, though they will not engage correctly because the left leaf edges come in three styles, with matching binding surfaces on the respective sliders. The knob has the relief millings which allow tightening with a rimless cartridge and were intended for use on the RB1903. Some found their way onto Krags when sights were rebuilt.
        Here's a slightly clearer view of the grinding marks (across the 17-15 and 12-10). Any ideas on what went on?



        A photo of the stock nose and band:



        I think I'll just clean up the rust and leave the sight as-is. If I come across an 1899 stock I'll swap it out (and keep the 03 stock with it), but for now, I'll keep it mostly as I got it. (Just a little less rust.)

        Comment

        • Dick Hosmer
          Very Senior Member - OFC
          • Aug 2009
          • 5993

          #19
          OK, now I see what you meant, and I think what you have there is some sort of damage or abuse, not something to do with any manufacturing process. I had thought you meant some sort of uniform slimming somewhere, which I could not see.

          Comment

          Working...