List it in the Trading Post first, someone may need it to "unsporterize" a gun.wow, thanks! don't have one of those, but good to know what it is. probably going to go in the trash I suppose.
The protective ears are a typical British practice (the Mark III, the No. 4, the P14/M1917). The idea is to prevent the front sight from being knocked out of alignment. (Note that in the OP's picture, the components are not positioned the way they would be if installed on the rifle. The large hole in the protector is supposed to line up with the sight blade, so that a pusher tool can be used for adjustment when sighting in.)having the dovetail sight within the protective ears is real dumb.
How are the ears supposed to protect the blade if its not between them?
I would say you need to look at the front sites of the M1 and M-14. if you loosen the screw to move the site the WHOLE site moves including the ears. with the stupid enfield site the ears stay where they are and the site moves off center of the ears.The protective ears are a typical British practice (the Mark III, the No. 4, the P14/M1917). The idea is to prevent the front sight from being knocked out of alignment. (Note that in the OP's picture, the components are not positioned the way they would be if installed on the rifle. The large hole in the protector is supposed to line up with the sight blade, so that a pusher tool can be used for adjustment when sighting in.)
In U.S. practice, the M1 Garand, the Carbine, the M14, and the M16 all have protective ears for the front sight. Prior to those, the Trapdoor, the Krag, and the Springfield had removable sight protectors. In the case of the Springfield, although the protector was meant to be removable, it was often left on when firing. A hooded protector like that for the Springfield is more of a problem when sighting, than a wing-type protector. This doesn't stop commercial hunting rifles such as the Remington 700 from having hooded sight protectors.
Clearly, the military disagrees with the idea that a sight protector is "dumb."
remember when you loosen a M-1 or M-14 site the whole site moves it is one piece with the earsHow are the ears supposed to protect the blade if its not between them?
But ya, I get it, the sight picture is weird and distracting if the blade isnt more-or-less centered. Of course, the the barrel is supposed to be more-or-less straight too.....lol.
I believe the reason for the robust front sight protection is that these rifles were meant to be used as pikes in close combat with bayonets .
True, regarding the buttstock. And don't forget that the buttstocks came in 4 different lengths, to (theoretically) fit the soldiers better.The two piece stock was genius. Easily removed and replaced in-theater opposed to completely replaced stock requiring a gunsmith/technician to “fit” the stock.
At least with the No. 4, the sight protector is attached to the barrel. On the earlier SMLE (Mark III), the sight protector was part of the nose cap, attached to the stock (with obviously more room for a discrepancy).with the stupid enfield site the ears stay where they are and the site moves off center of the ears.
Ive seen mosin rifles like that.Do I recall some protected front sights (H&K, perhaps) where the sight is centered in the circled guard, and the whole thing is moved for a zero?
Simply having windage on the rear is a better solution.
Moon