Airgun Alchemist, Collector and Scribe
I can't fault your logic Steve, and you make some good points.
Cheers,
John
The collector formerly known as micky
yes l would also go along with your theory, due to the pitting being the same allover. and that WR did offer a choice of other sights. it must have been stored somewhere in very damp/wet conditions to get that amount of pitting. but still a nice pistol to have.
Registered User
Had a picture sent to me of another HP with fixed rear sight and you can see clearly the large height differential required to align with my front sight in question. To say the front sight was a replacement you would have to come to the conclusion that this rear sight was also replaced. Looking closely at it, that just seems very unlikely given its similarity and matching pitting to the rest of the pistol. This may be the strongest evidence because unlike the front sight the pitted surfaces of the rear sight flow right into the pitted surfaces of the pistol body.
Standard sight from another pistol:
My pistol:
The collector formerly known as micky
Yes the sights must have been fitted at a early stage in it's life if, and maybe from new by WR for what ever reason, we will never know. as for me, pitting neally always tells a true story when it is even all over.
Airgun Alchemist, Collector and Scribe
Yes, I agree with Mick on this.Originally Posted by micky2
Registered User
This is when you wish an antique could talk. lol. If the grips were standard horn I would be more suspect of the sights But the fact that the grips are unique and almost had to be WR made, adds a little further weight to a WR sight theory? But then I own it now and it’s more fun to think my way and no one can prove me wrong as you say. lol Fascinating part of collect!
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
