even the wood 397PA cheekpiec is too high?

[w1tekwang]

Hi everyone here,

bought a 397S a month ago and I knew the cheekpiece was definitely too high for any iron sight/peepsight the minute I took out of the box. so I returned it.

Then I spent a good few weeks bidding and overpaying those "vintage" 392/397s on Ebay and got the below 2. The one with longer forearm is a 397PA with serial number 114400XXX (not sure what year) and a the nice walnut one is a 1997 392PA.

So here comes the question: the Montecarlo stock on 397 just seems as high as synthetic and I don't think i will be able to use the William peepsight which will arrive next week.  the older 392 shouders perfectly for the original iron sight. is this the same case for you guys? if so i may consider the Baker scope mount or even selling it.

[longhunter]

The PA's work fine with the Williams sights.
The one with the short fore end is a P model not a PA. Hold on to that gun.

[RBQChicken]

No, the 392 is also a PA. Look at the trigger.  Still a nice gun though, and keep-worthy.

[Jonah]

I have both models of the wood stocked 392. Both are easy to see the standard barrel sight and both are easy to use the Williams receiver sight Have the Williams sight on both guns.

[longhunter]

No, the 392 is also a PA. Look at the trigger.  Still a nice gun though, and keep-worthy.

Missed that. My bad.

[DanD]

I had a later hardwood 397PA like yours with a Baker mount, and the scope seemed too high. Some sort of add-on cheek piece riser may have helped. The gun was very accurate.
I like the earlier walnut Ps and PAs the best because of their nicer wood and their more compact feel. Personally I think most pumpers are best with their factory sights - the Williams peeps are OK, but I feel like I don't center the sight picture consistently without a hooded front sight.
I'm curious about an accuracy comparison of your 392 vs 397.
Have fun!