Log In
Members
Home
Add Reply
Add Topic
Got a new to me M60 22 yesterday, and doing a little research on it from my older books, it seems that is is a first model with a short, ungrooved, stock, 23″ bbl. and a 31 bbl. date. Non chromed bolt and trigger. JWA can correct me on this, but it’s hard to research rifles that have little information available. I have 1 M60 and three M60-A’s. These are very nice rifles and they are very accurate. Big Larry
November 7, 2015
Offline
Congrats! I generally enjoy the research involved with an acquisition.
One of my first 22s was this Model 60A transition. 23″ barrel, ’32 barrel date, chrome bolt and trigger, with just the “S” stamped safety and short grooved stock. What I really liked was the unusual peep sight. I bought this about 1982 and have never seen another like it.
rogertherelic said
One of my first 22s was this Model 60A transition. 23″ barrel, ’32 barrel date, chrome bolt and trigger, with just the “S” stamped safety and short grooved stock. What I really liked was the unusual peep sight. I bought this about 1982 and have never seen another like it.
I have one exactly like yours, except it has the standard rear sight. It stays all in the black at 50 yards. I shot my early M60 today and it shot well at 50 yards. Now, I have two 98% M60-A Targets that need to be tested. Those are really scarce rifles. Thanks for the pics. Big Larry
rogertherelic said
What I really liked was the unusual peep sight.
I like it too, but on the grounds of rarity & weirdness, not functionality. (A Model 30?) Like the Buffington rear sight on the M1884 Springfield and its slightly improved variant, the M1905 Springfield sight, the aperture is too far from the eye to derive the main optical benefit of a peep sight–“looking through” rather than aiming with it. Similar sights have even been adapted for handguns, but never became popular.
clarence said
I like it too, but on the grounds of rarity & weirdness, not functionality. (A Model 30?) Like the Buffington rear sight on the M1884 Springfield and its slightly improved variant, the M1905 Springfield sight, the aperture is too far from the eye to derive the main optical benefit of a peep sight–“looking through” rather than aiming with it. Similar sights have even been adapted for handguns, but never became popular.
That’s why the sights on the NM and Sporter M1903’s are M48’s. Same with the 1922, M1 and M2. The sights on the M1903 are awful. The sights on the M1917 were better but no provision for windage. I guess this is why you see so many 48’s on early slowlock M52’s.
I have M69’s with the bbl. mounted sights as well as the receiver type. They do shoot about the same.
I am a fan of the Lyman 48. One of the best sights ever produced, but not cheap, so not many 22’s have them. Mostly M52’s. The Redfield Olympics pretty much spelled the doom for the M48 series.
Here’s a pic of one of the rarest M48’s. Big Larry
1 Guest(s)
