IMD question.

[slow_runner]

This BSA Improved has a few faults, not too many.

The front sight looks authentic but I am not sure if it is correct to the model period. The rear sight doesn't look correct to me at all and I would be interested to know its identity. Is it BSA or as has been suggested by another, perhaps Diana??
I reckon that the chances of finding the correct rear is near nil so a Cadet Major or replica will have to do?
The other bit is the welded in cocking latch that needs tidying up. I have thought of removing it and the associated work involved but am thinking that might invite too much risk for not much gain, in my opinion.
Although I am open to suggestions
Cheers

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v3...ps1kcjal9b.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v3...psukg2oscx.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v3...psulgvim3m.jpg

P.S Does anyone have information on my Aeraspray V twin compressor pump in the non airgun related section? There must have been a few produced?

[duomatic410]

It could be Diana, but Heanal would be my bet. John

[slow_runner]

It could be Diana, but Heanal would be my bet. John

Thanks Duo.
Now searching for images of Haenel and off to Dannys' Vintage Diana forum for a looksee.

[slow_runner]

The front sight looks like this

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v3...ps17ga1waq.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v3...psd5dp6w1v.jpg

While the cocking latch looks like this

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v3...psqk4rkvun.jpg

[Geoff555]

Hello, I have a 1925 ish 'L' model and the rear sight looks the same, now that begs the question, of course, is mine original?
Protek supplies offer a replacement rear sight and parts, perhaps an enquiry would be of some help.
ATB.
Cheers.
Geoff.

[slow_runner]

Hello, I have a 1925 ish 'L' model and the rear sight looks the same, now that begs the question, of course, is mine original?
Protek supplies offer a replacement rear sight and parts, perhaps an enquiry would be of some help. ATB. Cheers. Geoff.

Hi Geoff.
In my search I have seen the rear sights with the double return(?) and the more common single return that I am more familiar with.
So that begs the question, is it genuine or not? I don't know a lot about them except that I am quite sure this sight is not true to the era of this BSA.

[Benelli B76]

John Knibbs will probably know the answer, he also sells second hand sights for £30.

http://www.airgunspares.com/store/ca...coln-Jeffries/

Baz

[edbear2]

Some sight info here;

http://www.airgunbbs.com/showthread....hotos-and-dims

And here with photos;

http://www.network54.com/Forum/67044...age+BSA+sights

I am not 100% familiar with how close a copy the Diana stuff was of the BSA, but at a first glance if I had seen your gun I would have said it had a BSA standard ex rimfire type (even if not BSA made) rearsight. These are often found on old Imp d's as are various types of foresight. In the past who knows what has happened, and it may have been a previous owner lost the rearsight and when he found the earlier sights were NLA he had to fit a higher foresight to go with his new ''rimfire'' rear unit.

Whatever the reason they look to have been on the gun a fair while, and given the rocking horse chance of finding an original set, If mine I would leave as they look better than any pattern unit.

The latch looks pretty correct in shape, it's hard to tell from the angle, but some moron has decided to weld it on to stop it moving when 5 mins closing the dovetail would have worked in most cases...I accept it is probably a pre-Loctite era ''repair'' but it is just the often sadly seen butchery on these older guns.

It cold be carefully fixed by slow removel of the weld, but the loss of patina would be quite severe, again a case of leave as is if it were mine I think....sometimes they are better being honest with all faults if good shooters!.....Below is possibly such a gun story of interest (and a D too!);

http://www.network54.com/Forum/67054...quot%3B+models


I still check here from time to time, but am strugging with shooting due to some weird chest / shoulder pain thing

ATB, Ed

[slow_runner]

Thanks Baz, I will check that out

Hi Ed.
Nice reference and helpful too, thanks.
It is slow going for me, much like stopping off at every pie shop or decent takeaway place. Almost without fail I find myself stopping to read near every link to the old IMD stuff and more
The sight on this is a tad high at its lowest setting so I will look to lowering the blade, or deepening the V.
How to remedy the cocking latch is still up for debate and some thought. The potential loss of patina isn't too concerning as some (fill adjective here) has seen fit to remove the existing patina back to said latch and a small area on the trigger block.
I will post some images of that area soon. Also for better identification I'll take some better ones of the sights and post those too.
You take care Ed.

Geoff, could you post an image of your sight or PM me ?.
Bazz, on second thoughts those units from J Knibbs would mean having to source a matching front sight. Worthy of a think though.

[Geoff555]

Hi slow-runner, ok will get some pictures taken, sorry it will not be for a couple of days.
ATB.
Cheers.
Geoff.

[slow_runner]

Only a couple of days Geoff? OK

Here are clearer images of the sight
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v3...ps8mlef3fw.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v3...psczceaei0.jpg

The other side of the latch. Loss of patina aside, there looks to be a massacred dovetail in there

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v3...ps4wqyszaf.jpg



One trigger guard machine screw is missing. Before making new replacements, to better match up, does anyone know of an old original going spare?

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v3...pskm4xs19h.jpg

[Geoff555]

Hello, a bit to be going on with.
Front sight footprint.
width .340
length .530
bead .070 X .245

Rear sight.
footprint.
.748 X .447
blade.
.754 X .061.
These are believed to be original. 1925 'L' model. .177


1937.

Has modern replacement sights.
front sight much smaller, glued on, does not fit dovetail in barrel, same height and bead size.

rear blade base the same size as above but blade is .045 thick and sits much higher .240

Have pictures now but will have to find out how to get them up.
The links to your pictures do not work for me.
Cheers.
Geoff.

[Lakey]

The front sight looks like this

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v3...ps17ga1waq.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v3...psd5dp6w1v.jpg

While the cocking latch looks like this

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v3...psqk4rkvun.jpg

Looks to me like you have a pre-WW1 gun with later post WW1 sights. The rearsight is from a light pattern (L prefix BSA Standard .177) and the foresight seems to have had the base narrowed down. Both the original sights would have been lower, and closed to the surface of the barrel. The do look like they have been on the gun a long time, and as Eddie say's , far more preferable to modern pattern sights, whish will stick out like a sore thumb.

Lakey

[slow_runner]

Have pictures now but will have to find out how to get them up. The links to your pictures do not work for me. Cheers. Geoff.

Hi Geoff. Nice effort and also much appreciated I have sent a PM.

Looks to me like you have a pre-WW1 gun with later post WW1 sights. The rearsight is from a light pattern (L prefix BSA Standard .177) and the foresight seems to have had the base narrowed down. Both the original sights would have been lower, and closed to the surface of the barrel. The do look like they have been on the gun a long time, and as Eddie say's , far more preferable to modern pattern sights, whish will stick out like a sore thumb. Lakey

Beauty, thanks Lakey. Interestingly, the rear sight wasn't there originally but was amongst the missing parts that had been set aside and then found loose in a box. The rear sight was a neat/firm fit so hadn't fallen out but been removed; perhaps prior to the attempted makeover of the barrel surface and then likely the complete air rifle. A near narrow escape.
It was a nice bit of luck that he stopped where he did. His attentions could have been more extensive

[Geoff555]

picture here