Log In
April 15, 2005
Offline
steve004 said
Thanks Bert – what are your thought on the post I made right above the one you responded to?
Steve,
Please be more specific about which one of your posts you are asking about (what is the post # ?). I have replied to several of your posts thus far.
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
November 19, 2006
Offline
Bert H. said
Steve,
Please be more specific about which one of your posts you are asking about (what is the post # ?). I have replied to several of your posts thus far.
Wow. The posts are numbered 
Post #37.
Thanks
April 15, 2005
Offline
steve004 said
Wow. The posts are numbered
Post #37.
Thanks
Yes they are, and it is a great aid in these lengthy topic posts!
Based on what I am not seeing in the pictures in post #37,I do not believe that it is an integral front sight base. The contour of the barrel directly beside the sight block, and the lack of milling marks adjacent to the sight base is what leads me to that conclusion.
Bert
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
March 6, 2011
Offline
steve004 said
Wow. The posts are numbered
Post #37.
Thanks
The sight base in post #37 looks like the barrel metal flows right up into the base, making it one piece. But it can be deceiving. I inspected my 1919 92 and it looks the same way under magnification. But from another angle, under different light, it looks like a separate piece attached. The skill of the person forming, or attaching, the sight base may vary, giving different appearances on different guns. I thought my friend’s gun, which I started this conversation with, was a separate piece because of how the barrel/base was finished. Turned out it was one piece.
1 Guest(s)
