Printable View
I know a fair amount about M1's, but I know next to nothing about these. Mr. Canfields book didn't have much, neither did Mr. Duff's so I'm coming here for opinions, Some of the pics are a little blurry, but they weren't before I blew them up, so I apologize in advance. the serial number on this is 26,174 the Gas Trap data sheet in Mr. Duff's red book on a January 1940 is 26,171. Only 3 off, kinda cool. Thank you for any help. Scott
Are the guide ribs modified?
I honestly can't tell. I don't know much on that subject.
You have to strip the action or at least open the bolt and take a picture down inside.Quote:
Originally Posted by SRiverrat11
Also the barrel is late, matched the date on my LL, SA-328219. The op rod number also, same. Is this rifle restored then? Is that what you're trying to establish?
I know they changed gas traps to gas port’s especially the ones that hadn’t left the factory, but what about ones that had? Were they sent back to Springfield or did a regimental or division level armory change the barrel, gas cylinder and front sight. Obviously, the chances a collector with the right parts and knowledge could have easily done this in the decades after but, any chance it was at a unit armory?Quote:
Originally Posted by browningautorifle
Attachment 134440 And if it does show the 7th round stoppage repair, why would that mean its a restoration?
I'm really not sure what I'm looking at.
They were built up with weld and a restoration back would mean it would be ground down again. You can see the weld in pic one. Here's an article to show you, scroll down. Marines The M1 Garand: The First 400 | An Official Journal Of The NRAQuote:
Originally Posted by SRiverrat11
Some guys would grind the weld back down but not always. The rifle could have been assembled from parts would account for the later op rod and barrel...
Others will be along to confirm or deny these points...
Someone showed me what it looks like without the repair and that makes the repair easy to recognize.
Someone on another site said that after the initial conversions of gas traps at the Armory, the gas traps that were already at the units, the units did the conversions of gas traps that they had, leaving the original parts and just changing the barrels, gas cylinders and front sights making the change with barrels and gas cylinders they had at the time. IDK how true it is, but it seems like a logical solution to rifles that were scattered all over the country. The units would have had replacement parts to repair weapons at their facilities. I'm not trying to be difficult, I'm just trying to understand why an 8-41 barrel and gas cylinder make it a definite restoration, and it very well could be a restoration.Quote:
Originally Posted by browningautorifle
Yes, the original barrels were shorter and slightly different configuration. Not sure why some of the others haven't come in yet...Quote:
Originally Posted by SRiverrat11
If a receiver has had the 7th round repair, most of the time there is a discoloration where the ribs were built-up, reducing the ribs back to the low rib configuration will
not hide the discoloration nor will Parkerizing (unless jet black). All the dated 1940 barrels were used in the early direct conversions, then later barrels as rifles were
cycled-in for rebuild. Canfield states new SA GHS stocks were used but I have seen alot of early stocks converted to used the trapdoor butt plate. It is really difficult
to prove your rifle is a direct conversion and an easy restoration. The saw cut gas cylinder was used later on and would be incorrect on a direct conversion
I have read that they did the saw cut for barrels that did not have a snug fit with the gas cylinder. do you know the period that was, and this being a restoration is ok, its still a very nice rifle that I could afford.Quote:
Originally Posted by RCS
Scott, you have a nice looking rifle but I would change the gas cylinder, but thats your choice and your rifle.
Here are some photos of a rifle that I worked on as to represent a direct conversion, I hadAttachment 134446Attachment 134447Attachment 134448Attachment 134449Attachment 134450Attachment 134451Attachment 134452 a good start already, just had to finish it.
C'mon, guys, this is well known history... when the gas port system was introduced, the decision was made to continue to produce the "spline type" until all the parts were used up. The rationale was that it would be more economical to upgrade them when they came in for normal rebuild after about 18 months in the field. Gas Port and Gas Trap were thus produced side-by-side until the last several thousand were made. The theory of "direct conversions" by SA doesn't hold water. The only ones SA converted were occasional guns returned for repairs and fixed after the gas trap parts were used up. This has all been explored in detail in older GCA Journal articles.
Many years ago I had a close one to yours. Rick B
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...2/87BH8G-1.jpg