Still a few hits left in the old M1903 -

[MakeMineA10mm]

What is the date and manufacturer on the muzzle end of the barrel?

Here's the website with that info: http://m1903.com/03rcvrfail/

Read some on that website and got out my Canfield's "US Infantry Weapons of WWII" and looked up the collector info on my earlier '03 (serial number 1,057,0XX), and learned that it is NOT an A1, as I had thought. It is an '03 Mark I built near the end of WWI with what appears to be the original barrel (marked "S-A" over "9-18"). [According to Canfield, A1s were not even made until around 1930.] My rifle was re-built for WWII at Rock Island Arsenal, where the finish was changed to the grey-green parkerizing of WWII, and the A1-style full-pistol grip stock was installed (and had the RIA cartouche stamped on the left side, which is how I identified the re-build armory). I then got out my Smith & Smith's Small Arms of the World and looked up the '03, and found a photo of the '03A1. Their receivers ARE marked "A1" on original A1s, and the text says that the A1 stocks had finger grooves, which I've also read in many other places. (My rifle does not have finger grooves.) Interestingly, though, the photo of an A1 in Smith and Smith's clearly shows the A1 full-pistol-grip stock with NO finger grooves. Funny... As with most military weapons and their fittings/accoutrement, I guess it's not a hard-and-fast rule, is it?

Anyway, I've always loved '03s, and it seems I'm getting that bug re-biting me with developing these cast boolit loads!

[MakeMineA10mm]

MakeMineA10mm , Unless your rear sight is nailed down pretty tight some of those "fliers" might be because of wiggle in the sight . The first and second picture you show are pretty typical of what my 1903 will do at thirty-five yards . But then , my rear sight has some wiggle in it that might tighten things up some . My front sight is an "A" blade if I remember right , if yours is marked different I would expect it to give a different point of impact .

When I was working with these loads I found the elevation could be controlled by the amount of powder I put in the case . I believe the way it it worked ( Up to a point ) was with a given bullet weight the more powder used the lower the impact would be . It's been a long time since I worked up that load so I may have it reversed and I'm sure if I used a loading book load it would throw the whole idea out the window .

What was important to me was that it hit the piont of aim with the battle sights . After I got that down right , then I adjusted accuracy with more or less lube , changing the sizer die , segregating cases to that rifle alone , and overall cartridge length . When the groups including fliers started staying inside the ten ring of a fifty foot pistol target at twenty-seven yards I figured the rest was because of my sloppy sights and old eyes . My rifle is a one point four million with a new old stock barrel and a brand new stock fitted to the metal .

Here's a suggestion and it won't cost you a nickle . Pick the powder you think gave you the best accuracy then move the charge weight up or down and see what it does for your point of impact . You won't have to move it much to get an idea if the group goes up or down . If you can get that where it hits right on at the distance you want , I think you can adjust other things to make the accuracy better . Now if I could just tighten up my rear sight and fix these old eyes..................

Jack

Thank you very much for the suggestions! I got some half-way decent groups (they surprised me how good they were) just be reading some of the old threads about basics of shooting light cast boolit loads, and in the week since I've posted that, I've got several precise suggestions that I believe will help me even more, including yours. This is a great place!

I really like the 7.5gr W231 load, but the 9.0gr load did hit about three inches higher. I've loaded up 20 more rounds, 10 with 9.0grs and 10 with 11.0grs. If the trend continues, that 11.0gr load should hit point of aim of the battle sight setting. At least I hope so. If the groups stay reasonably small, I may try it at 50 and then 100 yards. But, I'm switching to something like 4227 or RL7 for a 100 to 200 yard load...

[Jack Stanley]

I think you are on the right track , when I get ready to do more with this rifle I change to a little slower powder and try it all again for a hundred yard load . Interestingly enough I use a charge of nine grains of universal clays with a Cramer hollow point bullet that's about a hundred sixty-something grains . At forty yards it will hit just above the front sight of this 03 , I'm not sure of the velocity but I'll bet it will riun a critters day .

This same load in my A3 takes a sight stting of one notch past six hundred to hit the same way .

The serial numbers for the 03 went to just over one point five million . I had one that was about four thousand from the last recorded I had a barrel put on it and a good stock . I made sure it shot these low velocity rounds well and gave it to my nephew for graduation .

Jack

[SierraWhiskeyMC]

Well, this rifle's serno is in the 686,xxx range, so that puts its' manufacture date at mid-1917.

The barrel was replaced. It's marked "S A", bursting bomb, "1- 42".
My Dad had purchased 10 M1903A3 barrels from the then-DCM back around 1963 for the princely sum of ~$0.93/ea. plus shipping. He may have used one of those barrels and turned a section of it down on the lathe so that the rear sight would mount properly; pure speculation on my part. He had a metal lathe, and my Granddad had a barrel vise and action wrench; I know they'd re-barreled my Remington M1903A3 National Match & set the headspace for me when I went off to boot camp in the 70's.

Interestingly, the stock is stamped:
I.C.G.
R.I.A.
in a box.

The bolt handle has an "R" stamped on it's underside - so, it appears that this is a real Mixmaster. That's OK though - more reason to shoot it rather than be some collector's piece.

The rear sight has about 0.020" travel vertically. I find it curious that the original design didn't include some sort of spring loading in order to eliminate this travel.

The front sight is missing it's hood. I'm thinking I'll just make up a couple of them out of some brass flat stock; I'm going to need another one anyway for a M1903A3 that I'm going to be re-barrelling; my Dad started to sporterize it, but I convinced him to stop the sporter project before he got too far into it. Fortunately, I still have some of the WWII M1903A3 barrels he bought.

[MakeMineA10mm]

Well, it sounds like a Remington (03A3) bolt and a WWII barrel. Those would also give me more confidence that it can handle the loads. Granted, the receiver is still a key ingredient in handling the pressure, but the barrel and bolt sound stout as can be...

I really think, especially with cast loads with either pistol powder at 1200fps or less, or the classic 16.0grs 2400, you'll be fine. Just reinforces my earlier opinion that I'd not hesitate shooting it. Don't think I'd run extra-hot hunting loads, or questionable QC war-time production surplus ammo (or foreign surplus ammo for that matter), but for reasonable handloads, I think the rifle is fine. Even mild jacketed loads for pest control or medium-range deer hunting (something similar to, or even a little warmer than, a 30-30 equivalent, say a 165gr JSP @ 2400fps or so) would be fine to load and shoot without worry, I think.

[FAsmus]

SierraWhiskeyMC;

Ah!

Well, I'll move on the pictures in a bit ~ time providing.

I am told that this sight-setting tool is a replica of the original as made for the Camp Perry shooting team way back when the M1903 was the rifle on the firing line.

This sight tool is marked; Ray-Vin.com. I Googled it and found nothing much but I didn't follow all the links to their end either.

SW: I have a couple of M1903A3's which I'm familiar with, but when my Dad passed on almost two years ago, I wound up with a low-numbered Springfield M1903 that I've been studying up on a bit.

Since it's in the 6xx,xxx range, I have some concerns about it possibly having a brittle receiver - however, I have no use for a rifle that I cannot shoot! So, I've loaded up a number of rounds with 15gr of IMR SR 4759 and #311413 169gr boolits, which my Dad reported very good accuracy with at 200 yards back in 1970. These boolits have unsupported noses, which do not do well at velocities over around 1700fps or so.

Me; Sure, this is a "low number Springfield" and they are less desirable than the double-heat-treated production. On the other hand us cast bullet shooters have a much greater margin than the some of the jacketed fellows who run their loads up to maximum and then press it a little for good measure ~ If the rifle were mine I'd feel completely safe loading any conventional cast bullet combination published for the 30'06.

SW: Have you ever tried the Wilks gas check method? Google "Wilks gas check" if you don't know what I'm talking about.

Me; That is a new name for an semi-old idea. I have had and operated a "FreeCheck" tool, making lots of checks. The "come-on" for the tool was that you could make checks of beverage can material for "free" and seat them on PB bullets. I tried the material and found it way too thin and way too hard. I went to dead-soft offset printers aluminum ( I forget the thickness ). This worked very well and I did some good shooting with bullets protected with them.

In the end I found laziness/lack of time to interfere with any utility the tool provided and in those days checks only cost a couple cents each ( or less ). Even now with retail checks going for 3 1/2 cents each I'm sticking with the commercial items for the same reasons.

SW: I understand that the BZO for a stock M1903 is 547 yards, which is pretty crazy by modern standards. I would appreciate seeing some elevation data that you have used on your M1903.

Me: I'm unsure what "BZO" means ~

The elevation data for my load of choice ( given previously ) is in minutes. Our closest target is 350 yards out and I do not have a number for anything closer, having long since been satisfied with the consistency of the load/rifle and I've pretty much quit shooting it at closer ranges.

The offhand "Bucket" at 350 needs 47 minutes on the tool and the more distant targets, running about an additional 35 to 45 yards further out each require about 3 to 5 minutes more elevation for center hits - on out to the 834 distance which is different, being + 164 yards further than the "Big Round" at 670. That needed a 25 minute elevation change to get on the steel ~ 113 minutes total elevation on the tool.

I'll take a picture of the sight card and see if it is readable for your consideration.

Good evening,
Forrest

[FAsmus]

Sierra Whiskey;

First a shot of the tool and my sight elevation card;



Then a couple shots of the tool in place;





I'll go to another post for two more ~

[FAsmus]

Sierra Whiskey;

Then a shot if the receiver & sight of the M1903;



And last the sight & tool from the rear.



I see that I lost some detail as per the graduations on the tool but just to say it the knob cranks in 5 minutes per turn and the elevation is readable on the scale right where it is easiest to read.

There is some practice needed to run the tool as per keeping the slack all going the same direction alla time and to guard against wear of the two "legs" that move the sight ~ the whole thing is brass and will not stand much before wear would ruin it.

Good evening,
Forrest

[SierraWhiskeyMC]

SierraWhiskeyMC;

Ah!

Well, I'll move on the pictures in a bit ~ time providing.

Thanks very kindly for the photos; they shed a bit of light on the subject.

Speaking of lighting, about the best you'll get is outside on a cloudy day, as the lighting is diffused, yet bright. This makes for a photo that has very even lighting, and is not "contrasty" and "harsh" like those taken with an artificial "direct" flash. Bounce flash is a poor 2nd cousin to such natural lighting. It is very tough to get really good photos indoors without professional equipment.

I am told that this sight-setting tool is a replica of the original as made for the Camp Perry shooting team way back when the M1903 was the rifle on the firing line.

I see that. Very interesting, as it's basically a micrometer.

This sight tool is marked; Ray-Vin.com. I Googled it and found nothing much but I didn't follow all the links to their end either.

Thanks kindly for the link. The website is still there, however the owners have decided to retire from their business. I'm considering writing to them and see if they will consent to making the plans public domain, so they won't be lost for all time.

SW wrote: I have a couple of M1903A3's which I'm familiar with, but when my Dad passed on almost two years ago, I wound up with a low-numbered Springfield M1903 that I've been studying up on a bit.

Since it's in the 6xx,xxx range, I have some concerns about it possibly having a brittle receiver - however, I have no use for a rifle that I cannot shoot! So, I've loaded up a number of rounds with 15gr of IMR SR 4759 and #311413 169gr boolits, which my Dad reported very good accuracy with at 200 yards back in 1970. These boolits have unsupported noses, which do not do well at velocities over around 1700fps or so.

FASmus wrote; Sure, this is a "low number Springfield" and they are less desirable than the double-heat-treated production. On the other hand us cast bullet shooters have a much greater margin than the some of the jacketed fellows who run their loads up to maximum and then press it a little for good measure ~ If the rifle were mine I'd feel completely safe loading any conventional cast bullet combination published for the 30'06.

I did some more searching of my Dad's records, and discovered that he acquired this rifle from the Capitol City Rifle Club out on Germany Road, east of Lansing, MI, where he was a life member - and where I learned how to shoot outdoors.

Back in the 1950s and 1960s, the club accumulated quite a large stock of M2 AP that was loaded at Denver in '43 and St. Louis in .43; I still have some of this ammo in sealed containers. I now have absolutely no doubt that quite a few of those rounds (which were quite "hot") were fired through this rifle.

SW wrote: Have you ever tried the Wilks gas check method? Google "Wilks gas check" if you don't know what I'm talking about.

FASmus wrote; That is a new name for an semi-old idea. I have had and operated a "FreeCheck" tool, making lots of checks. The "come-on" for the tool was that you could make checks of beverage can material for "free" and seat them on PB bullets. I tried the material and found it way too thin and way too hard. I went to dead-soft offset printers aluminum ( I forget the thickness ). This worked very well and I did some good shooting with bullets protected with them.[/QUOTE]

I'm sorry, but you got the wrong impression. The "Wilks gas check" is a standard copper gas check with the center punched out, cast into the boolit furthest from the GC. The idea is to create sort of a hybrid lead boolit that can be fired at a higher velocity than lead boolits, as the centerless GC that's cast into the lead boolit keeps the round better centered in the barrel; a soft lead boolit would not be able to keep centered under high-pressure conditions.

A direct link to the article is here:
http://www.riflemagazine.com/magazin...134partial.pdf
There are some advertisements in the beginning, but the article is intact at the time of this writing.

In the end I found laziness/lack of time to interfere with any utility the tool provided and in those days checks only cost a couple cents each ( or less ). Even now with retail checks going for 3 1/2 cents each I'm sticking with the commercial items for the same reasons.

SW: I understand that the BZO for a stock M1903 is 547 yards, which is pretty crazy by modern standards. I would appreciate seeing some elevation data that you have used on your M1903.

Me: I'm unsure what "BZO" means ~

Sorry; it's a part of the vernacular of being a Marine. BZO = Battlesight Zero, or the range at which your mechanical sight zero is set to..

The elevation data for my load of choice ( given previously ) is in minutes. Our closest target is 350 yards out and I do not have a number for anything closer, having long since been satisfied with the consistency of the load/rifle and I've pretty much quit shooting it at closer ranges.

The offhand "Bucket" at 350 needs 47 minutes on the tool and the more distant targets, running about an additional 35 to 45 yards further out each require about 3 to 5 minutes more elevation for center hits - on out to the 834 distance which is different, being + 164 yards further than the "Big Round" at 670. That needed a 25 minute elevation change to get on the steel ~ 113 minutes total elevation on the tool.

I'll take a picture of the sight card and see if it is readable for your consideration.

Good evening,
Forrest

Thanks, Forrest.

Any chance you could translate the "tool minutes" to what you're reading on the sight ramp?

I found this online history book as to the development of the M1903 and variants:
http://books.google.com/books?id=vb3...20tool&f=false

In the book, they recommend using a bronze block and hammer on the barrel tangs to minimize the sight slop (see page 561). I'm kind of nervous about taking up 0.020 slack using a brass block and hammer.

[FAsmus]

SierraWhiskeyMC;

Roger the lighting deal. I have taken better pictures! and know the difference. These could certainly be better but worked anyway.

Yes - the tool is the basic micrometer design.

Good idea about the "public domain". The tool is simple enough for most any competent machinist to make but would be time-consuming so far as an efficient money-maker .. it would be kind of expensive. I forget how much this one cost but it was a bargain in any case.

Sure enough folks used quite a bit of high-pressure loads in single-heat M1903s and got away with it. Such "limitations" get blown out of proportion over time and especially in our culture today which is hung up on Safety above all else.

Ah! Very well, I have read about this Wiilk's idea but never tried it myself. I never tried it because it seemed like if a fellow needed that extra performance why not just go ahead and load up some jacketed in the first place?

The BZO makes sense of course. It sounds very much like the old cliche' : "Hold on his belt-buckle - that'll work as far out as you can see him." Lots of the old battle sights were calibrated that way - I know my M1891 Argentine is.

I don't have an old sight-card that shows the same load as this thread but I do retain cards showing a 4198 load with both the tool and the yardage elevations as per the battle sight;

Battle sight Perry tool

name & yards elevation elevation

100 450 --

sm dia 395 700 13
bear 440 825 16
T sq 470 860 19
S sq 503 870 21
Buff 552 900 28
B dia 587 975 30
Bull 606 1050 33
Chic 648 1085 39
B rnd 670 1100 42
B sq 830 1275 63

Roger the link to M1903 history - I'm always interested in things like that.

~ I'd never use a hammer on MY 1903 either! Bronze, or whatever.

If you ever get your hands on a tool like this one post me a PM and I'll try to detail my method of keeping slack going all one direction.

Good morning,
Forrest

PS: Now that didn't work out! The elevation data is all lined up on my draft and is all compressed here on the thread ~ I don't know why. Just open up each number and it should still make sense.

[SierraWhiskeyMC]

Good idea about the "public domain". The tool is simple enough for most any competent machinist to make but would be time-consuming so far as an efficient money-maker .. it would be kind of expensive. I forget how much this one cost but it was a bargain in any case.

If one had computer-controlled machines, they could be cranked out pretty quickly - it's the set-up time that's the killer.

Sure enough folks used quite a bit of high-pressure loads in single-heat M1903s and got away with it. Such "limitations" get blown out of proportion over time and especially in our culture today which is hung up on Safety above all else.

Yep. Too many attorneys getting rich.

Ah! Very well, I have read about this Wilk's idea but never tried it myself. I never tried it because it seemed like if a fellow needed that extra performance why not just go ahead and load up some jacketed in the first place?

Well, I have several thousand J-word bullets sitting around here idle, but became intrigued by the idea of using the Wilks check in conjunction with this old Ideal/Lyman #311413 mould that's been in the family since longer than I can remember. The boolits that drop from this mould look like one that should work very well; but unfortunately it only works well at low velocities because of the long unsupported nose. Adding a Wilks check should help stabilize it a great deal, yet most of the barrel-to-metal contact will still be that gorgeous galena.

The BZO makes sense of course. It sounds very much like the old cliche' : "Hold on his belt-buckle - that'll work as far out as you can see him." Lots of the old battle sights were calibrated that way - I know my M1891 Argentine is.

I've been doing some reading up on the old .45-70 Trapdoor Springfields; they certainly were optimistic on those battle sights!

I don't have an old sight-card that shows the same load as this thread but I do retain cards showing a 4198 load with both the tool and the yardage elevations as per the battle sight;

             Battle sight Perry tool
name & yards    elevation  elevation
         100          450         --
sm dia   395          700         13
bear     440          825         16
T sq     470          860         19
S sq     503          870         21
Buff     552          900         28
B dia    587          975         30
Bull     606         1050         33
Chic     648         1085         39
B rnd    670         1100         42
B sq     830         1275         63

Roger the link to M1903 history - I'm always interested in things like that.

~ I'd never use a hammer on MY 1903 either! Bronze, or whatever.

I'm thinking of just using some thin bronze stock as a shim between the barrel and the bottom of the pivoting sight. I can bend up a couple of "fingers" so that it'll stay put when the rifle fires.

If you ever get your hands on a tool like this one post me a PM and I'll try to detail my method of keeping slack going all one direction.

Thanks! I may very well take you up on your offer.

PS: Now that didn't work out! The elevation data is all lined up on my draft and is all compressed here on the thread ~ I don't know why. Just open up each number and it should still make sense.

I took the liberty of re-formatting your table.

Basically, you start out using a fixed-width (non-porportional) font like Courier New using Notepad, and get it looking proper. Then use [ code] and [ /code] tags around your text (no space after the [) so that the board won't eliminate the extra spaces, and will display your text in a fixed font. The CODE tags are usually used for posting computer programming source code in text format; if you omit the code tags, the program would lose all of it's formatting and would be much more difficult to understand.

[MakeMineA10mm]

I have a buddy with a CNC machine who might just love making a run of these. If you get the plans let me know, and I'll see what he says!

[FAsmus]

MakeMine10mm;

In a previous life I was a 'master' machinist. This tool is not complex really but involves the typical several assemblies to work. ~ Like the click-stops at every minute of the spindle requiring detents, springs, a small ball-bearing and the drilled hole to align/hold them - a fellow would really need to make a jig to do the work in any kind of a production run. The lead screw and threaded bushing are steel ~ seems to be about 10/32 ~ The graduations on the thimble are perfect too - looks like the work of a well-run pantograph.

~ Anyway; a CNC machine would be OK but the real profitability problem would be associated with the hand assembly of the tool.

Good morning,
Forrest

[FAsmus]

SierraWhiskey;

I have some jacketed in inventory myself. The boxes are still marked $7.50/hundred. ~ I guess I haven't needed them lately!

But, sure, I understand how the Wilks idea could catch a fellow's interest too; good luck.

Roger the Trap-Door sights. Somebody had the idea way back when and it stuck.

You say; I'm thinking of just using some thin bronze stock as a shim between the barrel and the bottom of the pivoting sight. I can bend up a couple of "fingers" so that it'll stay put when the rifle fires.

Me; Here I don't have the details of that sight clearly enough in mind to understand your idea.

Thanks for reformatting the table. Now everyone can read it properly.

Good morning,
Forrest

[MakeMineA10mm]

MakeMine10mm;

In a previous life I was a 'master' machinist. This tool is not complex really but involves the typical several assemblies to work. ~ Like the click-stops at every minute of the spindle requiring detents, springs, a small ball-bearing and the drilled hole to align/hold them - a fellow would really need to make a jig to do the work in any kind of a production run. The lead screw and threaded bushing are steel ~ seems to be about 10/32 ~ The graduations on the thimble are perfect too - looks like the work of a well-run pantograph.

~ Anyway; a CNC machine would be OK but the real profitability problem would be associated with the hand assembly of the tool.

Good morning,
Forrest

Thanks Forrest! My buddy has been a machinist all his life and is an MM in charge of the tool and die shop at a large subcontractor in our area, so he gets to apply his mind to new projects all the time.

I see exactly what you mean about the assembly time. The CNC could crank out the parts, but sitting there and putting them together could be the bottleneck. Of course, if we kept the production numbers low, I wouldn't mind sitting and putting them together.

Since you are an MM, something that may help greatly is if you have any ideas on how to take all the slack out of the device in the manufacturing process. Could make them even better?

[FAsmus]

MakeMine10mm;

Thanks for the post.

The tool itself is pretty much free of slack. The way a fellow has to operate the tool on the firing line is where things can get messed up without a consistent operating technique.

For example - imagine yourself needing to lower your impact down-range. Obviously the sight has to be adjusted to a lower elevation and to do this consistently you have to memorize the too-high elevation number, loosen the issue sight elevation bar somewhat below the location needed to change impact the desired amount, lower the tool's setting as well to match, tighten the elevation bar sightly such that it is tight enough to maintain the setting you want but still move when you adjust the Perry tool and then, after all this, crank in the tool's elevation to the desired setting ~ hoping in the meantime you have remembered the too-high number correctly!

~ In short, all slack has to be UP as far as the issue sight's setting is concerned.

And don't forget to loosen the Perry tool's lead screw tension before removing it from the issue sight or its "feet", being brass, will wear out way too soon.

If this exchange ever results in more Camp Perry tools becoming available it would be a very good thing! The interest is there, perhaps small enough to be filled by one or two men carefully machining parts and assembling them.

Good morning,
Forrest

[MakeMineA10mm]

I see what you mean, Forrest.

After looking at the photos you've posted, combined with the description you just gave, I think I have a grasp of the problem. I also think there's a good solution that will get rid of that problem.

What if, instead of the foot holding onto the bottom of the sight's elevation bar and the micrometer "head" of the tool pulling upward on that foot (leaving slack if you have to go downward with the elevator), if we made a clamp that replaces the foot and the clamp firmly grabs the sight's elevation bar both top and bottom. Once the clamp is attached, you would just leave the sight's elevator tension screw loose. Then, the micrometer adjustment on the "Improved Perry Tool" would work on the clamp, and there would be no slack moving either up or down...

What do you think??

[FAsmus]

MakeMine10mm;

I do see what you're getting at ~ the concept reminds me somewhat of the target-class tang sights commonly seen on the Sharps (and other) long range target single-shots. ~ A "clinch" device of some kind is designed to hold the elevation portion of the sight solidly in place except when a change is needed, up, or down.

Here, with the already rather heavy Perry tool such additional bulk involving clamping devises and the need to conveniently attach/detach fairly frequently could very well complicate things instead of simplifying them.

Having used the tool some I would venture the idea that a way to improve the Springfield issue sight for precision long range shooting would be to figure out some method other than eye-ball guess work for making windage corrections. ~ After all, the condition changes come more rapidly and require nearly constant sight changes as compared to the less frequent elevation differences and are pretty hard to figure out and keep up with!

Now, I have not used this tool in actual competition ~ only over the long range course we have here for my own enjoyment where time is open and pressure is negligible. Perhaps, if there is someone out there who HAS experience using the Perry tool on the firing line of a match his insight could be of considerable value to us all.

Good evening,
Forrest

PS ~ It comes to mind that perhaps I really should know what each mark of the issue sight windage scale stands for. That is how many minutes each graduation means down-range. If I were to estimate I'd say each one of those marks has to be around 5 to 6 minutes change of impact. ~ Darn! I know I should know.

[MakeMineA10mm]

Yeah, I see what you mean Forrest. I'll have to do some thinking on it, and you're absolutely right, the windage is a bigger hassle than the elevation...

I couldn't remember the windage adjustment size either, but knew I had read it somewhere in the past. Google search turned up two different places that said each windage mark is 4 MOA. One of the sights said that each windage mark is a "Point" and 1 Point = 4 MOA. I'd never heard the "Point" term before.

[FAsmus]

MakeMine10mm;

Thanks for looking up the windage information - it really will help me out the next time it warms up enough to go shooting!

The term "point" is commonly heard on our firing line. The shooters that use it define it as about 0.010 travel of the rear sight (elevation or wind) when adjusting for changes. This, if you do the arithmetic, amounts to one MOA IF the sight radius is 34 inches, which is pretty close to what lots of those purpose-built rifles have between sights. ~ Shorter radius and a "point" provides equivalently more change in POI downrange.

Thus, my little Type 38 JAP carbine with a radius of 24 inches can reach out to 834 yards with only the 60 "minutes" available on the Williams receiver sight staff..

Good morning,
Forrest