bigdogpete
Member
There is a down side to all of this. It can be contagious. One might not be enough. It wasn't for me.
This is correct. It is the walnut stock. Besides the lighting, it has had three coats of oil applied to it, which doesn't really lighten it, but does add a gloss that is reflecting the light, and makes it seem lighter in the picture than it really is.it's a CMP special so it is a new stock from them, the only one they list is walnut so it must just be the light.
The oil lightened it a little, but the picture makes it seem lighter than it really is. Is yours unfinished? What I got was a very dry dark walnut stock. Nicely stained, but very dry. So I put a few (three) coats of oil on it to give it a more finished appearance. I'm happy with it, even if the picture doesn't do it justice. Here's the same picture, with the brightness toned down a bit, that seems a little closer to its actual appearance:ust curious. It looked very different from the CMP black walnut of my CMP Service Grade Springfield:
Is yours unfinished?
Rifle looks good, now get rid of that scout scope and go back with the wood.
That looks like a replacement birch stock. Is it cartouched anywhere?
...inspire me to wait not much longer for a drive to Anniston, for a second M-1.
It was my pic the comment was about, and I just assumed that carbine85 likes his Garands to be traditional in appearance. But other than the receiver, my Garand has no pretensions to being original (and even the receiver is from '54, I think, so it is hardly a war relic). It has new wood and a new barrel chambered in .308. As I said in reply, I got it to use it, and to use it, I need the scope. While the scout mount is probably the easiest way to get a scope on a Garand, I happen to prefer the scout mount and have several other rifles configured in such fashion. Not all like the scout mount, and that's fine with me. It's a free country, and everyone is entitled to their opinion. By the way, the Garand had something to do with that.Get rid of the scout scope? Why?
It was my pic the comment was about, and I just assumed that carbine85 likes his Garands to be traditional in appearance. But other than the receiver, my Garand has no pretensions to being original (and even the receiver is from '54, I think, so it is hardly a war relic). It has new wood and a new barrel chambered in .308. As I said in reply, I got it to use it, and to use it, I need the scope. While the scout mount is probably the easiest way to get a scope on a Garand, I happen to prefer the scout mount and have several other rifles configured in such fashion. Not all like the scout mount, and that's fine with me. It's a free country, and everyone is entitled to their opinion. By the way, the Garand had something to do with that.
From the days of the $295 Greek Rack Grades woefully long gone. The price not the rifles.
If you are shooting right handed, and you are left eye dominant, you don't need a cheek riser. I do just that. I shoot right handed, but sight with my left eye. And because of the tilt I need to line my left eye up to see through the scope, I actually get a good cheek weld that way. Some people consider this odd, but I've been shooting this way for decades.I just need a cheek riser.
Anybody have suggestions for a cheek riser or similar to get a better cheek weld with the scout scope mounted?
If you are shooting right handed, and you are left eye dominant, you don't need a cheek riser. I do just that. I shoot right handed, but sight with my left eye. And because of the tilt I need to line my left eye up to see through the scope, I actually get a good cheek weld that way. Some people consider this odd, but I've been shooting this way for decades.
But assuming you are shooting right handed, and the right eye is dominant, then my approach doesn't work, and I cannot really help you. Good luck with the search for a cheek riser.