Bought a complete set up National Match "Everything" Rare

[Ted Brown]

Interesting to see a NM front sight marked on the left side. All I have ever seen were marked on the right. It's not all that odd however. Stranger things have come up. I have a NM rear sight base marked NM on the right side and NM/2 marked on the left side. Only one I've seen marked that way. Usually they just added the /2 on the right side. It's a beautiful NM rifle. It appears that it may be glass bedded. However the bedding looks to be done possibly after the owner received it from the DCM. Could have been a type I as originally shipped?

[Cosine26]

Hi Ted,
I have about a half a dozen NM front sights, some still mounted on NM gas cylinders and none are marked NM on the left. All are crisply marked on the right front.
I believe that the Rear sight bases with the "NM/2" marking on the left and the "NM" marking on the right are reworked originals. I have a couple of the original (uncut for the hood) basses and they are marked "NM" on the right. There is not enough room to add the "/2" on the right side in either case. I have a couple, of what I believed are "reworked"/ undercut bases. They have the "NM" on the right and the "NM/2" on the left. One is on my armorer built Winchester Match M1. By electing to stamp the "NM/2" on the left side of the base, it is not necessary to fabricate a "/2"stamp. My 1962 NM M1 has a base that is marked "NM/2" on the right side. I believe that it was originally manufactured for the hooded aperture. I believe that the original NM marked bases were reworked and used as spares; though they could have been used on rebuilt NM's. As far as the government is concerned "parts are parts" and the reworked original would have the same part number as those originally built as NM2/'s..
FWIW.

[2111]

Hi Rick B
There is one other thing that puzzles me a bit. Your barrel is marked "NM" on the left side, as I would expect; however, so is your front sight. All of the NM front sights that I have seen were marked " NM over 062" on the right side. At first I thought that your sight might be on backward, but in some of your pictures I can see the hex head of the front sight screw and it is to the rear. All of the "NM over 062" marks that I have seen were very crisp and the NM marking is centered over the 062 marking. . On your sight this is not so. Just wondering.

The NM markings on the front sight got my attention also but I didn't even notice it was marked on the left side. It was the kind of sloppy manner in which it was marked that I noticed. The ones I have seen were also "very crisp" and centered as in the attached picture.
Do you know anything about the Heart marking ? There has been speculation but nothing concrete as far as I know. Thanks, Joe

[Rick B]

The gun is 100% correct and as he bought it from Camp Perry. Rick B

[Rick B]

It also has very wide ears on the front sight compared to most I have seen.

[Rick B]

[Orlando]

Rick, I suppose its a grade A rifle?
On your list of number of NM rifles ,the year 1954 and 4184 rifles is a misprint. I cant rememeber but I beleive it was closer to 800 rifles?

[Cosine26]

Other than the size and shape of the front sight blade, there are no significant differences between the issue front sight and the NM front sight, It would require a minimum of set up to rework an issue FS into a NM FS.I believe that both Winchester and IHC front sights had wider “wings” than did SA or HRA sights. All issue front sights would have the same part number. If a number of issue sights were to be withdrawn and converted to NM configuration, I would expect that there would be a mix of manufacturers; consequently I would not be surprised to see wide wing NM FS’s-particularly in the later NM M1’s.
JMO

[Ted Brown]

I was only concerned about the bedding because the picture that shows the heal appears to have some orangish colored material that looks like bedding material. If the stock was bedded at SA the glass would be white or slightly yellow and done very neatly where it wouldn't show outside of the receiver. My thought is that it could have been done later if it was originally a Type I NM. Ask your friend if he may have had that done. It's no biggy as it's still a very nice rifle. At the time it was purchased, anything would have been possible.

[Rick B]

in the 60's the armor at Perry for a shoot laid it on there. The original is there under it and I have thought of taking it off to show it. Not everything is as it should be all the time. Robots didn't build these and things were hand stamped or forgotten at time. Rick

[2111]

Rick, I suppose its a grade A rifle?
On your list of number of NM rifles ,the year 1954 and 4184 rifles is a misprint. I cant rememeber but I beleive it was closer to 800 rifles?

--- From my reply on page 2 ----

Also you might want to correct the table showing the number of NM rifles newly built and the number rebuilt. You will notice that the 1954 and 1957 figures are identical. Dave McClain turned up documentation proving that the 1954 figures were in error and should read "1954 - new 1700, rebuilt 800, Total 2500". See article by Bob Seijas in the Spring 2006 GCA Journal.

[2111]

Rick, if it were my rifle I would leave it as is. When the rifle was original built it was built for shooting not collecting. Not unusual for a NM rifle that was used as intended to have some work done on it at the various matches. Armorers vans were at the matches for that purpose. That extra bedding is just a part of the rifles history and I don't see it as a detraction at all. I would guess that someone like Bob Seijas, Dave McClain or Scott Duff, who have seen hundreds of NM rifles from a collectors eye, would have a good answer in regards to the front sight questions. Others, like myself, who have not seen a great number of NM rifles just have never came across a front sight marked as yours. Not to say it is not 100% correct, just that we have not seen one before. Great looking rifle at a greater price. If you ever want to make a quick $ 500.00 on it just let me know. LOL

[bd1]

That looks like IHC ears on that front sight. Highpower Service Rifle shooters of the era favored IHC front sights. Could be a Service armorer re-marked it at Camp Perry.

[2111]

One thing that is cleared up is that the rifle originally was a 1960 build upgraded in 1963 with the new NM/2A base. A picture of the barrel posted on MilSurp shows the 1960 code (diamond w/ flattened points) on the barrel.

[CPC]

I have not seen a sight marked like that, but I guess an armorer could have done it. The profile looks sort of like the wide sights (7/8"?) found on some of the 4.2/3m rifles and 5.9SA's as documented by Duff in his green book and post war book. Don't have them handy. Rick, both rifles are very nice. I can see the old NM inletted compound under the later glass in your picture. It is what it is and I don't think anything should be changed on it.

Regards,
CC