M1 carbine sight staking question

[ARFrog]

I recently picked up a M1 carbine that has what appears to be a non-USGI rear flip sight (and before you ask, yes I knew it was there and the rest of the rifle is all correct USGI.) The sight is not marked/stamped on either side.

The sight is solid until you rack the bolt and then it moves laterally from center to far left. If you move it back and pull the trigger, it is then solid again.

I plan on replacing the sight with a correct USGI sight. In looking at the existing one, it appears that here are only two front and rear staking dimples on the right side only. There are no observable marks on the left side.

Is this what the staking looks like on a receiver that has never had an adjustable sight? I have tried to find photos of staking examples for flip and adjustable sights without success and I have never had to be concerned with pulling a sight before.

image.jpg

Thanks in advance for any pointers.

[musketjon]

The flip sights were not originally staked in place. They were held in place by a mechanical, or friction fit. The adjustable sight bases were staked on the top of the sight dovetail slot.
Jon

[sbo80]

That looks like the early "L" flip sight, and would technically be USGI correct on an early war rifle. Even if it appears this rifle as issued was arsenal or field upgraded to the adjustable sights (as evidenced by stake marks) and someone, perhaps recently, "corrected" it back to the older style sight. And is perhaps why it is loose if they put an ill-fitting possibly fake part, there are a lot of repro M1 carbine parts floating around.

[ARFrog]

Thank you for your replies.

I would have to agree that it looks like it has some very heavy punches on the right side and likely had an adjustable sight at some time. There are about 5 or 6 other parts consistent with re-arsenaling so I guess this does not surprize me.

In looking at things a little more closely with a magnifying glass it turns out there are very light "chisel" marks on the left side as well.

This brings be back to the statement that flip sights were not staked. That may be true for the shown heavy punches but this question of whether flip sights were ever staked is really starting to bug me! I am beginning to believe it might be an urban legend that all were not.

In looking on the net I find no definitive verification that they were not and I am seeing other things such as:

a) http://m1family.com/staked-flip-sight-t582.html - See post #2 – “Many would say that it means the stake marks were used for the adjustable sights. The stake marks are more common on the adjustable sights but were used with the flip sight…”

There appears to be some flip sights that have what some would call “chisel marks” and some punch marks.

b) http://www.usmilitariaforum.com/foru...t-stake-marks/

c) Here is a Calguns thread from 2013 with comments from TRAP55 - https://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/...d.php?t=872595

d) I ran across one reference that I now can’t find that said sometimes flip sights were staked if they were arsenaled during the later period of the war.

e) http://forums.thecmp.org/archive/index.php/t-87488.html

f) Do a Google search on “staked m1 carbine sights” and look at the pictures that obviously show at least chiseling on some rifles

g.) I found other references and pictures of IBM rifles that were at the very least chiseled - maybe an IBM thing??

So, if someone can point me to a reference source - like an ordnance department manual or something else that speaks to this issue, I would be interested.

[AR22]

Yes I have a IBM that I am 100% sure that the flip sight was there since day one. I know for a fact that IBM used a chisel stake, rather than a punch staking. I am getting older but it seems some flips did have a small punch staking. But do not take that to the bank. You would be wise to ask this question over on the CMP forum. But yes IBM flips were definitely staked with chisel marks.

Good chance some of the searching you did on chisel mark staking on the IBM. Could very well have been one of my Carbines.

Your IBM punch marks are definitely not anything like my chisel staking that I know IBM used.

[ARFrog]

Yes I have a IBM that I am 100% sure that the flip sight was there since day one. I know for a fact that IBM used a chisel stake, rather than a punch staking. I am getting older but it seems some flips did have a small punch staking. But do not take that to the bank. You would be wise to ask this question over on the CMP forum. But yes IBM flips were definitely staked with chisel marks.

Good chance some of the searching you did on chisel mark staking on the IBM. Could very well have been one of my Carbines.

Your IBM punch marks are definitely not anything like my chisel staking that I know IBM used.

Thanks for the verification. Does your IBM just have chisel marks or something like this Inland with both light punch and chisel marks?

image.jpg

[bruce381]

flips were chiseled adjustable were round staked

[NorcalGSG]

AR22 is right. The flip sights usually had a lighter chisel type stake, often just on one side. Then those were removed and the adjustable sights re-fitted and those got the bigger round punch stakes with a center punch type tool. It's a dead giveaway on a carbine someone "restored" (not truly possible on a carbine in general) when you see a flip sight with the large punch stakes, it's obviously been dicked with. Along those lines, if you have a rearsenaled unit with an adjustable sight and the stakes match that sight and it's tight, chances are that it is the same sight that was put there during the rearsenal process and is part of its history.

[ARFrog]

So given that my rifle has likely had an adjustable sight added then removed and then had a cheap repo installed that has problems, would you replace the repo with a correct flip sight or adjustable? Which would fit better with the now existing staked punches?

[NorcalGSG]

I would either leave the flip if you like it, or go with an adjustable. Either way, just enjoy it for you. The adjustable sights work better IMHO . The main thing is you want it to be a snug fit so the sight isn't flopping around under recoil. So. A rear sight tool might be needed to get a replacement adjustable sight back in. Remember the dovetail is cut tapered, so go in and out the wider side only. You can verify the taper with a set of measuring calipers, but I believe the left side is the larger side. They would drive 'em in to the right and then stake. Personally I would try the sight centered in the receiver, and center the adjustment, and then test from there for windage before re-staking, if it's even necessary. Might not be if it's snug already.

[ARFrog]

Thanks NorCalGSG. I think I will: 1.) shoot it to see what position the rear sight needs to be in to be on target; 2.) if it still is not holding position, try and locktite it down; or 3.) if no go on #1 and #2, then replace it with an adjustable I.B.M. sight.

I plan to use it as a "shooter", so we shall see....

[ARFrog]

I finally found at least one reference that helps me with the staking question. It appears that part of the issue is a "non like for like terminology" issue and part of it is the urban myth "no flip sights were ever staked."

Here is a copy of page 34 of the Reisch book on M1 Carbines:

CR- stake marks.jpg

Bottom line is that the circumstances for these rifles were variable instead of universal. Chiseling - light staking - heavy staking punches - etc, all provide a history of alterations made to the rifle but most often not a detailed date and time recordation of occurrence by the Prime Contractors, Arsenals or others.

Hope this helps you like it did me.

[dfletcher]

So given that my rifle has likely had an adjustable sight added then removed and then had a cheap repo installed that has problems, would you replace the repo with a correct flip sight or adjustable? Which would fit better with the now existing staked punches?

If the rifle has other features such as the bayonet lug barrel band and flip safety rather than push button I think I'd do the adjustable.

[ARFrog]

If the rifle has other features such as the bayonet lug barrel band and flip safety rather than push button I think I'd do the adjustable.

The rifle was rearsenaled with replacement stock, updated sear, updated mag catch, updated trigger spring and mag catch springs. It would appear that it was rearsenaled for adjustable rear sight due to large punch marks on right side but what is most likely a repro unmarked flip sight was installed. (this is the one that moves with bolt action.)

I have to assume that the barrel band was also rearsenaled but there are no markings on the stock that match a Type 3. However, it appears that the barrel band/swivel in place are most likely repos in that they certainly don't match I.B.M. hardware.

Lastly, the safety is an unmarked modified detent push button type. It may be a repro as well.

I would guess that the barrel band and safety were replaced by others most likely when the sight switch was done. (Other than that, of the branded parts, this rifle has over 50% I.B.M. and maybe more because I have yet to look at the bolt interior and probably won't open the gas piston. the balance of the branded parts are 3 rearsenaled Inland plus the repro ones.)

With the current modifications, it would look "original 1944" with a flip sight.

My unknown question, having never done this, is will a USGI flip sight install without movement issues with the existing punch marks or should I just go to the adjustable for the ease of windage and elevation. Would the adjustable sight use the same punch marks or would additional ones have to be added???

[AR22]

I would have to dig it out, but chisel marks are only on one side. I think the left. No punch marks would have existed with the IBM flip.

Mine actually has a TN marked sight. IBM received flips from NPM and a couple other makers also during the production of Carbines.

IN B was IBMs main marking. A lot of parts were traded during production of Carbines. If one Company was short. a certain part, and surplus on another. Parts were traded all the time to keep production rolling along. That was the top priority.

Most smaller Contractors did parts swapping, Inlands and Winchesters never did as much parts swapping on a in basis as they were large enough to usually maintain their own stocks of parts. But they did send some outward. If you are ever looking to buy a flip sight. Probably over 90% being passed off as original are fakes now. Be very careful and do your research.