M1917 Front Sight

[TanHat]

While looking over a M1917 rifle yesterday, I noticed the front sight post had been moved over a substantial bit to the right (from the shooter's view). There appeared to be an original staking (the lower, more circular one in the pics) which may have held the post in an original position, and a second staking which is holding the post in the current position. It was definitely not loose (like I've seen with "staked" M1 carbine rear sights all the time), but firmly in place. The dovetailed base of the sight was just slightly off the edge of the foresight block.

I did not have my muzzle gauge with me, but the muzzle did appear to be worn, though the rest of the rifling was strong.

It would seem to me that if a barrel is wearing out, that the pattern would usually just open up (it is over 100 years old, after all), but not necessarily shift in one direction unless something else (beyond typical muzzle wear) is going on. It just seems odd that someone would have gone through the trouble of moving and re-staking a front sight - especially that much - if it was only muzzle wear going on.

Does anyone have any thoughts on this? Is such a position for a M1917 front sight typical? Unfortunately, I don't have any information on how it actually shoots.

Thanks in advance.

(References to other information that I've read so far: )

https://www.milsurps.com/showthread.php?t=48410

http://www.milsurps.com/showthread.php?t=44382&styleid=15

http://odcmp.org/503/rifle.pdf

[0321jarhead]

Shoot a couple rounds at 50yrds. then 100 etc. Maybe that could be your answer.

[thetruecheese]

I'd wager it is factory or rearsenal correction/modification. First stake looks a little low?

Is the rifle an Eddystone?
I Have an Eddystone here-in the range of 1,280,000 S/N, appears to have been rebarreled post war with a J.A. 2 groove by Gov't arsenal.
It has a front sight ALMOST as far right as yours, it really bugs the eye, gun seems to shoot fine to POI the few times i've taken it out. It's almost hard to tell if the sight tower is somehow off-spec or if it's just an illusion from the drifted post.
For reference, my post base is sitting just square with the left side of the tower. whereas yours is a bit past that point.

Is the gun a refurb?

[Grendl]

Yeah, you're just going to have to shoot it. I've been told that old military rilfes sometimes have the front sights moved way over to compensate for newer ammo and shooting without a bayonet. My SMLE No. 1 Mk III was rearsenaled similarly.

[TanHat]

Thank you all for your responses.

Grendl and 0321jarhead: I was just looking it over as a prospective buyer, and the current owner hasn't shot it, so we are left without the most important info for now. Grendl - thank you for the data point about one other old rifle - that is good to know.

thetruecheese: I should have mentioned that is a Winchester receiver dated to November 1917 and the barrel is dated October 1917, so I believe they are probably original to each other. Yes, that fist stake does look low, though it did move some metal above it. The sight block/ears assembly looks properly aligned - it is keyed to the barrel and appears straight with regard to the receiver. Just the front sight post appears moved over.

Thanks again - it would be really good to take this one out to the range one day and run some rounds through to see what happens!

[Springfield45]

I have an Eddiestone 1917 and its front sight sits to the left. It has its original barrel and shoots point of aim. I suppose it is normal for these old rifles to be like this.

[thetruecheese]

I have an Eddiestone 1917 and its front sight sits to the left. It has its original barrel and shoots point of aim. I suppose it is normal for these old rifles to be like this.

Not quite normal, but quite possible for a wartime manufacture rifle such as the 1917