Weird sight on FN JC Higgins

And to further muddy the water, here's a shot of a M50 barrel in .270 Win. Note the rear sight dovetail.

86ad2a630d592f9fcdd28949b3a84abb.jpg


As for the hole spacing on the receiver bridge, it's .860" and Talley was the only supplier I could find that has these. I have heard that Warne may have uncataloged bases in this spacing but I didn't dig into it. Prior to 1955, M50's had the standard .50" rear spacing but for some bizarre reason changed to the wider spacing after 1955.
 
Well, every 583.XX is a different set-up, means different scope, no scope, barreled action. This means 9 different set ups including 2 different scopes (2.5 and 4X Rifleman). One of these should have been the sight set up you show - I suspect one of the "scopeless" version, needing better sights.
H-S archives does not allow to determine or list the type of sights. But from the known samples a big whole majority have the backward sights.
Maybe one can trace the various options configuration vs Sears model # using an old catalog, but I did not try it.
 
Mauser98 said:
And to further muddy the water, here's a shot of a M50 barrel in .270 Win. Note the rear sight dovetail.

86ad2a630d592f9fcdd28949b3a84abb.jpg


As for the hole spacing on the receiver bridge, it's .860" and Talley was the only supplier I could find that has these. I have heard that Warne may have uncataloged bases in this spacing but I didn't dig into it. Prior to 1955, M50's had the standard .50" rear spacing but for some bizarre reason changed to the wider spacing after 1955.
Click to expand...

This is the same setup on my M50 in .270.
 
I'm away working this week, so cannot measure the holes. The gunstore I bought it from said it didn't take the std Weavers.

Thanks for all the info. I originally thought it was a factory mistake.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom