I'm going to look at all my rifles for all these marks I might have missed. I love this sight so much I sent a check so badger look in the po box soon and hope all will consider a contribution. no pressure!
Printable View
I'm going to look at all my rifles for all these marks I might have missed. I love this sight so much I sent a check so badger look in the po box soon and hope all will consider a contribution. no pressure!
Joe, I can't recall seeing a Garand with a Birmingham View Mark at the muzzle end of the barrel with a date code earlier than 1960. Maybe there are some, and if so I would love to see them.
Years ago I asked the Birmingham Proof House historian why some rifles were marked near the muzzle instead of under the op rod, and he told me they started doing that in the 60s because it was "easier" than marking them under the op rod.
Did Sam Cummings request that the first batch of Lend Lease Garands be marked under the op rod? I don't know if we will ever know for sure. But I can't recall seeing any of the mid 1950s released Garands with proof marks other than under the op rod, not at the muzzle end.
Like I said, if someone has a rifle with late 50s or early 60s proofs under the op rod, I would love to see them.
Tom, I agree that most likely late 50s, early 60s M1 garands will not be found with the proof mark under the op-rod.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Doniphon
Tom, I agree that it is highly unlikely that any late 50s or early 60s M1 Garands will be found proofed under the op-rod. I had always thought that the first deal with the British for the L.L. Garands took place in 1955. I based that on various articles I had read, such as, in the Apr. 1959 issue of Guns Magizine, there is an ad by Winfield Arms selling M1 Garands "proof tested & proofed marked in Great Britain" at $ 97.50. In another article in the Oct. 1959 issue of Guns Magizine, there is an article "Arsenal on the Potomac", about Sam Cummings and "Interarmco. It states in this article, " It took four years of negotiations with the Departments of Commerce, Defense and State before a small lot of M1 rifles were released recently for public sale. The rifles spent the 48 month wait snug in blankets of cosmoline at a New York warehouse." My thought is that these were the rifles that were sold by Winfield Arms and that they would have been proofed in 1955 (prior to the four years they spent in the N.Y. warehouse).
But as I said earlier, the article in the GCA Journal indicated 1954 and Scott Duff said it was in 1957 that that Interarmsco purchased the rifles. Scott Duff says that these rifles were imported in 1958 and first sold in Feb. 1959, through Ye Old Hunter, a company owned by Cummings. Scott Duff also states in his article that Winfield Arms was a "competitor of Interarms" and had "also purchased rifles from overseas during the same time period as they advertised them for $ 97.50". Scott did not mention that the rifles sold by Winfield Arms were British Proofed. I wonder if Winfield Arms really purchased these rifles "overseas" ? As Cummings and A.C. Jackson, Vice President of Winfield Arms, had been involved in business transactions as far back as 1948, my guess would be that the rifles being sold by Winfield were obtained from Cummings.
The above is just an assumptions on my part. Seems that everything I have read is either contridictory or vague in regard to the actual date of Sam Cummings first deal for the L.L. rifles. Alot of articles I have read simply state "mid to late 50S", I never really read anything that firmly locks down the date.
You say that you were told by a "Birmingham proof house historian" that they started marking the rifles near the muzzle instead of behind the op-rod, in the 60s, because it was easier. I am surprised that it took Birmingham over 5 years to figure that out.
Don't get me wrong, I am sure you have seen alot more British proofed rifles than I have, it's just I am inclined to agree with the theory put forth by Bob Seijas, that Cummings requested the proofs be marked in the date area so they were not visible on the exterior of the rifle. As Bob further said, "they are hard to mark there and hard to see, I don't think the British would choose that location on there own." But, then again, who knows.
I notice that your gun, like my slightly earlier one, also has the brit proofs on top of the receiver ring and on the bolt. My gun is also proofed between the GC rings, like many of them.
Your bolt also has that second punch mark, toward the receiver ring end.
Lend Lease? The "Duck" adage may apply, like mine. Close enough for me!
i pulled out the magnifier and flashlight, and tried to get a good look at it. it really looks like a straight line.
I can see the detail of the "4" for inspector, and the "B" for birmingham, as well as the little marks off the cross X but i cant see any other marks other than the straight line.
Wow. I thought I knew a few things about Garands before this thread. I am blown away--both by the condition of that rifle and by the complexity of British LL rifles. Before this all I knew of the LL rifles was that 1.) many were in original configuration 2.) their time at the CMP pre-dated mine by a good bit and 3.) they are way beyond my means. :D The only ones that I have ever seen for sale run around $2.5k--without rudely asking specifics of this very nice example, is that about the going rate?
Lend Lease rifles with the British proofs at the rear of the barrel, with red paint on the front handguard and nice SA GHS cartouches, have sold in the $4500-$4800 price range.
The rifles with the British proofs on the front of the barrel are not valued as much, example you can find incomplete Winchesters and H&R's or late post WW2 SA rifles with the British proof marks at the front of the barrel. Years ago these British proof marks stamped at the front of the barrel, were often removed to add value to a restoration - especially on Winchester barrels.
Nice LL! Back to the bolt photo, you will notice a partial 2 above the B on the very right edge, cool!
FWIW my LL is also proofed between the Gas Cylinder rings.
Thanks for the compliments and history, it is pretty interesting, and i am glad i picked this one up, and at a fraction of the price of the pristine ones RCS mentioned.
Note: removed pictures, they just were not good enough to further the ID, back to the camera later