Bill, your pin should be type 2, not type 1 anyway..IMHO..its too late for the earlier pin.Andy
Printable View
Bill, your pin should be type 2, not type 1 anyway..IMHO..its too late for the earlier pin.Andy
After looking it over I think you are correct about the pin.
I understand the feelings about restoration Andy. I'm very upfront about that information and I'm not selling, it is just for me.
Both of ours are early, first contract Underwoods built in early/mid 1943. Rock-Ola gave some 54,030 stock to Underwood from October 26, 1942 to September 21, 1943 and of that number 30,000 were given April 6, 1943. The Rock-Ola stocks are marked in the sling well with RMC, "T" and or "F" as is mine. I'm very reasonably sure the stock is a true Rock-Ola transfer to Underwood stock.
I think it could have gone either way taking the LIFO and FILO into account. Anyway, I thank you for the information.
I don't own a UEF but I want one, especially one like that! :thup:Quote:
Originally Posted by Garandrew
Ruth lists in War baby that the change over to the type 2 stock.(highwood with oval cut oiler) took place in early summer 1943. If so then the correct stock for both of these carbines would be the type 1 I cut stock. Both serial numbers are in the end of April beginning of May 1943 time frame.
Bruce, how then do we explain the early cartouche, high wood, and circled P? Perhaps Ruths information isnt 100% correct? I have no doubt this is an original stock...?
Andy
Andy, I think you hit it right in the first place, LIFO. Unless your carbine was held back for some reason and just got the later type II stock. It just matches up too nice to be anything but original to the carbine.
Probably Bill, but Reisch says Type II started 1.38, and Ruths "early summer" of 1943, could be June? Barrel date is 5-43, perhaps late May for 1422508?
My stock and handguard was produced by Marlin...
Andy
Dont forget...when Ruths War Baby was written, the boxed UEF/GHD without the wheel wasnt even listed yet for early Underwoods...Andy
Don't believe too much of what you read in Riesch's book. It is loaded with errors. Ruth's book is much better and much more accurate.
I use them both, but from what I understand...typical of my luck, 1.4 million was transitional for Underwoods, some of type 1, and some of type 2 noted..
somewhere along the line, the two different patterns mixed it up...Andy