WW11Ds????

[rice 123]

were any Ds other then prototypes produced in 1944/45 or were they all built on old receivers in the 1950s

Information

Warning: This is a relatively older thread This discussion is older than 360 days. Some information contained in it may no longer be current.

[GUTS]

There is no evidence that M1D's were produced for distribution during WWII. Other than the few rifles used for development it is believed that all M1D's were converted from existing service rifles beginning in the early 50's, at least that's the information that I have.

[rice 123]

I was rereading a book by Howard Crouch US small arms of WW2 and he states that the the rifle was standardized in September 1944 and that theoretically both the Cs and the Ds were products of Springfield armory and should be of this make.

[Rick Cummelin]

I was rereading a book by Howard Crouch US small arms of WW2 and he states that the the rifle was standardized in September 1944 and that theoretically both the Cs and the Ds were products of Springfield armory and should be of this make.

Although SA developed the M1D, and actually did some conversions/builds themselves, the majority of M1Ds were NOT built/assembled at SA. SA did make all the authentic D barrels.

One of the interesting differences between the C and the D is that a D can be built on ANY receiver, while Cs were ONLY built on SA receivers near the end of the war. The C has the scope mounted on a drilled & tapped receiver, while the D uses a barrel block to mount the scope, which is part of the barrel.

Since the majority of Ds were built/assembled at a variety of ordnance facilities, Ds were assembled on any receiver which was in good condition, and can be found built on Winchester, H & R and IHC receivers.

Unfortunately, any bubba can build a D in his basement. And yes, you can call me bubba too.

I agree with GUTS that there's never been any evidence of Ds actually being used during WWII.

[Bodyman]

Yes, the D was standardized in 1944 but Ordnance had already modelled (on gastraps), field tested and then ordered the C becuase it was the design that they could have NOW. Griffin and Howe's design was proven and available but for some reason it just didn't work well on the Garand ....

The D was JCG's design and was perferred by those at SA, and as Rick states the C was assembled elsewhere (at Griffin and Howe) - raw receivers were sent to G&H, drilled and tapped and brackets installed, and then sent back to SA for heat treatment. This supposedly caused the two parts to change with relation to each other and there was a very high reject rate for poor accuracy of the finished product.

My contention is that it is simply one more example of SA being spoiled little brats and intentionally interferring with others so as to reinforce their own arrogant view of themselves as THE premier gunmaker in the world. Given that the D was JCG's design and SA was an arrogant spoiled brat that didn't play well with others (which is echoed time and again by those who had to try to work with them including but not limited to; WRA, HRA, IHC, and Overton), combined with the fact that the supposedly rejected receivers end up being just fine later on ... as well as the brackets which were also just fine because they show up on later snipers (?!?!). Well, I think there is quite an argument to be made SA was indeed playing 'funny' with the C sniper platform (which they didn't like because it wasn't theirs but conveniently got to assemble, test and reject ...) to try to get their D platform the green light.

I don't even know where to place the tidbit that SA were still trying to harden the two parts together all the way into the 3.6 range ... awful late considering they knew there was a problem long before. Then there is all the shenanigans with numbereing brackets to receivers when they really weren't supposed to be separated from each other in the first place ... Was it Ordnance being stubborn and not letting SA do what they wanted or SA stubbornly wanting the design to fail and undermining its success? Or were they just looking to the future so they could justify their existence and be needed. And just how did G&H feel about all this on their tried and true design that had no similar problems before or after ... it sure never seemed to be a problem later when the USMC called upon them to make a larger ring set and taller side bracket so they could use the 4 power Stith-Kollmorgen with 1" (or 26mm) tube diameter ... a mount that hadn't been numbered to any particular receiver yet ...

There is lots here and like I said, it is a fascinating area - it is hardly limited to a study of 1944/45 and snipers, but instead spans almost the entire production of the Garand and beyond. Great stuff.

[rotorwing70]

Rick,
I must take exception to your statement that the majority of M1Ds were not converted at Springfield. The conventional wisdom is that the majority of existing M1D were originally converted at Springfield in the early fifties using recycled pre 3.8 million serial number receivers with rebuilds and small quantities of conversions at the arsenal level in the sixties and relatively small quantities at lower echelons from day one. I want go into the whole rational for these conclusions but it is born out statistically based on the number of pre 3.8 million serial number vintage receivers vs. post 1952 receivers found on pedigreed M1Ds. On the old forum this was a topic of long dissertations and much gnashing of teeth. Bodyman will remember.

[Rick Cummelin]

Rick,
I must take exception to your statement that the majority of M1Ds were not converted at Springfield. The conventional wisdom is that the majority of existing M1D were originally converted at Springfield in the early fifties using recycled pre 3.8 million serial number receivers with rebuilds and small quantities of conversions at the arsenal level in the sixties and relatively small quantities at lower echelons from day one. I want go into the whole rational for these conclusions but it is born out statistically based on the number of pre 3.8 million serial number vintage receivers vs. post 1952 receivers found on pedigreed M1Ds. On the old forum this was a topic of long dissertations and much gnashing of teeth. Bodyman will remember.

Hey rotorwing, you may be right!

While some folks may have reached that conclusion based on something (call it wisdom if you like?), do you recall all those boxed (and ready for shipment to SEA) M1Ds that were sold by the CMP 10-12 years ago or so? If you do recall them, you may also recall that most, if not all had been rebuilt at Tuelle, RA and other arsenals prior to being boxed. That isn't to say that some may have been originally converted at SA, and then rebuilt again (and again and again), but who knows for sure?

Too much time has elapsed and too little documentation exists.

In the overall scheme of things it matters little, as by now most Ds floating around were actually built by bubbas in their basements. Only CMP paperwork separates the "real" from the "phony", but is that even true? There's no rocket science involved in assembling a D. All you need is the barrel, mount, scope, etc. which used to be available at gun shows all over the country in massive quantities. Bubba's Ds are likely just as good as one assembled at Tuelle, RA, or in Isreal, or in Greece. WHy should a bubba-built D be considered a phony? It's just another rebuilt rifle IMHO.

I once saw a D built on a welded receiver, which was a strange beast to say the least. The receiver was junk, but the rest of the parts were OK.