[fourbore]

Again, why would the Italian Army switch from a "level" sight alignment, to a "buried in the V" alignment ?
.... and ....
I know Sir, but I yet been able to find it in print re, the Carcano.

I think the most obvious answer is usually the most simple. This was a screw up. Rather than pay $$$ to correct the mistake, they trained to make do. The 'mistake' was a deliberate but bad design. Not an accidental mistake. Eventually the sights were changed. When I get a Carcano TS with fixed sights, I know if the screw up was ever corrected.

With the sight buried, the carbines still hit high. To high for paper or target shooting with any precision. It may work OK with a 6 o'clock hold on a human torso with a buried sight. If you do not bury the sight, you are hitting 4 foot high at 100 yards with the two carbines I tested. That would be very difficult to train and work with. That is a foot change to correct for every 25 yards out to the first 100! Imagine a moving target shooting at you and trying to estimate a correction!

The solution, modify or replace the front sight HIGHER.

 

[fourbore]

This is the original trajectory chart from "Regio manuale d' uso delle armi dell' Esercito Italiano durante la seconda guerra mondiale" di Luca Del Soldato.

so by the chart and website using the 300 meter sight ...
at 100 meters (109 Y) it will be +.27 m (10.63") high; 150 meters (164 Y) it will be + .31 m (12.20") high; 200 meters (218 Y) +.28 m (11.02") high; 250 meters (273 Y) +.19 m (7.5") high and of course at 300 meters (328 Y) it will be 0.

Either the TS Carbines are different or ammo has changed big time or guns vary in a very big and surprising manner. A chart in a book is fine. That is, until you actually get some guns and do some shooting. My two carbines tested (1917 & 91/24) shoot more like a meter++ high not 1/3 meter at 100 meters. People writing books, might want to include some real world results.

I probably read 3 or 4 posts since the PW Arms party began with folks shocked at how high their TS carbines shot. Few replies and the posts fall off the screen. There is a youtube review that claims the guns vary greatly. Vary by feet, not inches! He sets up a 1 meter square of paper at 50 feet for his initial test fire and anything may happen.

It may well be a gun mfg in 1898 with 1898 ammo,may shoot much differently from a gun mfg in 1942 with 1942 ammo. I thing paper sources should be dated. Because, something is off here. We are not even on the same planet.

All I am saying is academic and theory is fine. Do not ignore reality. Maybe the book writers should buy a few more guns and shoot them?

 

[fourbore]

Only PPU and my own loads in the two guns. I do not doubt your results. Very few others are sharing results so it is hard to get a sense of how or why things might vary with time of manufacture vs model of firearm vs random quality of build. My club only goes out to 200 yards. I shoot my garands at 200 along with modern rifles. No Carcano. I dont want to. I did surprise myself last time out with my Lee Enfield at 200, with multiple hits on the club gong at 200.

I have to wonder, all these 100's of PW Arms sales and where are the shooters? I still see PPU ammo on the shelves. Not at the Cabelas,. but; small shops still have it. What are people doing cleaning them up and stacking them in the closet? A bayonet bolted to a Cavalry gun, could be a whole new ball game. Another variable.

I am NOT complaining. I got one TS right where I want it. It does seem like there are discrepancies with common wisdom on how TS are sighted or how 91/24 were manufactured. If I have the ear of a book writer, this maybe food for thought.

Another idea, the quoted source 10" high at 100 meter with the 300 meter rear leaf setting. Try that some time. A WWII rifle and a WWI carbine perhaps.