Bought a complete set up National Match "Everything" Rare

[Rick B]

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

[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?

[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.

[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 If a number of issue sights were to be withdrawn and converted to NM configuration, I would expect that there would be a mix of manufacturers; consequently I would not be surprised to see wide wing NM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, 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.