Late 1944 S.A. Garand (almost original?)

Hi there,

I purchased my M1 Garand roughly 7 years ago, then moved cities, bought a house, and life got busy. My M1 Garand sat in the safe all these years - never disassembled it, never shot it. Well, I finally got around to field stripping it for cleaning and I’ve taken pictures of all the markings I could find (I’m sure there’s more, but would require complete disassembly). I’m “new” to these and would appreciate some help.

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...06E8A730-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...287F084E-1.jpg

As far as I can tell, all the parts seem to be correct! The only thing that seems odd is the barrel is not within 3 months of the receiver as Ive read should be the case. The barrel is actually 8 months older than the receiver, but it’s very clean and rifling is strong. Additionally, I believe the op rod is original, but has been “cut”. I will provide a list of the parts below with pictures. If I don’t include a certain part, it means I didn’t find any markings on it.

Receiver
U.S. RIFLE
CAL. .30M1
SPRINGFIELD
ARMORY
3312975
(December 1944)

A 1 8
D 28291-35
(July 1944 - October 1945)

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...BF5EDpng-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...C5E9Dpng-1.jpg

Barrel
3-S-A-4-44
(April 1944)

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...0BBE7png-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...9969Cpng-1.jpg

Bolt
D28287-19SA O-15
(July 1944 - October 1945)

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...98F52png-1.jpg

Follower Assembly
12 (Type 2D)
(October 1943 - March 1945)

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...DED4Apng-1.jpg

Hammer
C46008-7 SA (Type 2E)
(August 1944 - January 1945)

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...43F47png-1.jpg

Operating Rod
35382 9 SA (Prefix D is cut-off)
(December 1943 - January 1945)

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...3AECCpng-1.jpg

Safety
SA-11 (Type 3C)
(October 1943 - December 1957)

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...B1357png-1.jpg

Trigger Housing
D28290-14-SA (Type 9)
(November 1944 - January 1945)

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...FE676png-1.jpg

Stock
Side: S.A. G.A.W. and Crossed Cannons
Under buttplate top: 9
Under buttplate bottom: 6 P
Bottom of grip: Circle P and P
(September 1943 - March 1945)

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...36C05png-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...04CAApng-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...308FEpng-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...3F4BApng-1.jpg

Let me know if you’d like any more pictures, although they’ll have to wait until I have more time to disassemble it again. Any insight on what I might have here would be appreciated. I’m still learning about these rifles. Hoping to shoot it in the next week or two. Thanks in advance for your expertise.

Cheers!
Tyler

Yes the op rod has the radius mod but that's OK... So, if this rifle shows a rebuild "P" after the original, have these parts been assembled after the fact? Was this rifle rebuilt and since returned to "Correct"?

Since you're here in Canada then it's hard to say. Likely a Danish return at one point since they came to Canada at about the time you procured it.

Great pictures of a great looking rifle.

Your rifle has a lot going for it. If you can afford it get the Bruce Canfield or Duff books. There is also a small blue Duff book with serial/drawing number match ups from original rifles. When I get time I can look to see how yours matches up. I don't have the dates memorized, but you have very possibly the original barrel, stock, and maybe some other parts. Yours has WW2 Lock bar rear sights, but I'm not good enough yet to know if they are type 1, 2, or 3. Yours may have only gone through one light rebuild but it's impossible to say for sure. Like the post above someone could have started correcting it. The only major things I saw in a quick glance of the photos was a rebuild p on the stock and the modified op rod. Fortunately during rebuild they didn't sand the GAW off your stock. I'll take a closer look at my book when I get time to help. In the meantime a real expert might chime in.

Best,

Tom

The modified op rod is NOT OK... that's a late rod and it casts doubt on everything.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bob seijas

The modified op rod is NOT OK... that's a late rod and it casts doubt on everything.

---

Actually, I believe it’s the correct rod (see serial number - I even posted the dates for you, and they fall within this rifle’s date of manufacture). Seems to me it has been cut or modified later, but is the right op rod.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bob seijas

The modified op rod is NOT OK... that's a late rod and it casts doubt on everything.

---

His rifle's in Canada Bob, it's not an original, it'll be a parts gun assembled or a Danish return that we got. Many were stripped to the last pin and screw in Vancouver at Lever Arms and assembled again to "Close" and then sold. All were checked to be good shooters.

This gun ain't in the USA...

Shouldn't the stock be an NFR and not a GAW? Is the -9 op rod a flat or radiused side? Is the safety -11 or _11? There is a huge difference.
There's also a HUGE difference between original and correct. A rifle is only original once--the day it left the armory.
Jon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by musketjon

A rifle is only original once--the day it left the armory.

---

Agreed...guys settle down, the rifle is in Canada and the way it is likely won't change. It's just how it is.

We don't have a proliferation of stuff here and specially since Apr 1st there'll be even less importation, so this one is nice but as is I think...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by browningautorifle

Agreed...guys settle down, the rifle is in Canada and the way it is likely won't change. It's just how it is.

We don't have a proliferation of stuff here and specially since Apr 1st there'll be even less importation, so this one is nice but as is I think...

---

Any Garand is nice. You could hand me the most beat-up, ugly, non-original M1 and I would be proud and happy to share it with others.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Singer B

Any Garand is nice.

---

I've had a pile of them...too. My point was that everyone seems to be too worried whether it's "Correct" or what. Not much chance of changing anything from as it is here in Canada...not really. Yes, nice...I'd have it.

You guys seem to be missing the the word “almost”, and also the question mark at the end. I never once tried to state this thing was all original - clearly it’s not. But is it mostly original? It’s a question. So let’s settle down a bit and move on. I’m looking for your expertise, because I think it’s at least partially, if not mostly original - with some replacement parts that were likely an attempt to restore it back to “correct”. I say this because I think it would have been a nearly impossible feat here in Canada to assemble this rifle and get this many parts correct. I think most of the parts must have been there from the start and the “incorrect” ones replaced over time. There just isn’t the supply to build this. Now, which parts are which? What more information/pictures do you need?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by musketjon

Shouldn't the stock be an NFR and not a GAW? Is the -9 op rod a flat or radiused side? Is the safety -11 or _11? There is a huge difference.
There's also a HUGE difference between original and correct. A rifle is only original once--the day it left the armory.
Jon

---

Okay so first, I understand the difference between original and correct. Just because a rifle isn’t 100% “original” doesn’t mean it can’t have some “original” parts. I’m not experienced with the M1 Garand, but I’m experienced in researching WWII rifles as I collect them. I’m finding the M1 Garand particularly difficult to find information on (even tougher than the M1 Carbine). All I really have to go off is usriflecal30m1 - I entered my serial number and it brought up a huge list of parts that would be correct for my rifle. Every part I found markings on was included on this list. Both NFR and GAW stocks showed up on the list too, so what makes you say GAW is incorrect? As for the -9 op rod, what do you need a picture of? I don’t think the list mentioned flat or radius. As for the safety, it looks like _1 now that you mention it, but I’ll have to disassemble and look again. What’s the difference? It sounds like you have a lot of knowledge and I’d love to learn, if you’re done poo-pooing my rifle lol.

Like I said earlier, I think this one came from Lever arms in Vancouver back some years. They had a huge influx of M1 rifles from Denmark and they stripped them ALL to every part to build "Correct" models. They had everything from three digit serials up. This would be one that was assembled when they were left with good parts that could only be put together to a nice shooter. Nothing wrong and wouldn't worry. Trying to figure out what's the correct era for the serial number will just be frustrating...and pointless.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by browningautorifle

Trying to figure out what's the correct era for the serial number will just be frustrating...and pointless.

---

AMEN. If one part is wrong it puts everything into question. There is a legal maxim about a witness that says "Falsus unum, falsus omnia." If he tells one lie, you have to discount his entire testimony.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bob seijas

AMEN. If one part is wrong it puts everything into question. There is a legal maxim about a witness that says "Falsus unum, falsus omnia." If he tells one lie, you have to discount his entire testimony.

---

Well we can agree to disagree on that. When it comes to WWII rifles, if it’s 100% original, it probably doesn’t have much of a story to tell. It was either unissued or it just didn’t see many battles. Not that I wouldn’t want it - from a collectors standpoint, 100% original is the holy grail. But from a history standpoint, I’d LOVE to have the rifle that’s 80% original with 20% replacement parts because they got worn out, dinged up, or broken during the war and had to be replaced. Just because it’s not your cup of tea doesn’t mean it’s worthless just because one or two parts aren’t original from factory.

We don't really disagree, your points are valid. My point is only that it is usually impossible to differentiate a rifle such as you describe from a total rebuild that some collector partially restored with a few correct parts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bob seijas

We don't really disagree, your points are valid. My point is only that it is usually impossible to differentiate a rifle such as you describe from a total rebuild that some collector partially restored with a few correct parts.

---

Well after all this, my question remains: which parts are “correct” and which ones aren’t? I guess I should just go off the list I found on USRifleCAL30M1 and do my own research. Unlike you guys, I quite like this rifle and want to learn more about it - even if it’s not 100% original. I think it’s neat to find something like this in Canada when the majority of the market are complete mix-masters and just finding a WWII Garand can prove to be a difficult and expensive task. I am certainly jealous of your U.S. market, even more so now that I’ve read these comments :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hurrikane18

Unlike you guys, I quite like this rifle

---

You've misunderstood, we do like it. They're just answering your question about originality.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hurrikane18

just finding a WWII Garand can prove to be a difficult and expensive task

---

There's a guy in London ON I should try to put you in contact with, he has a set of five all correct/original time capsules, he searched long and hard for them. One was my LL M1 SA 328219 that was all original/correct/unaltered. Now he has all five inspector stamps and the accompanying rifles. That took some looking and some coin. I probably sold mine about six years ago...

Hurrikane,
The site you reference is known to be loaded with incorrect information.
Back when I started studying and collecting M1 rifles (40 or so years ago) there was no 'net. Reading books, asking LOTS of questions and writing letters was the norm. I've paid my dues. I'm usually freely forth-coming with the info one asks for but your snydeness does not warrant it. Read the books, write the letters and ask the questions yourself. Good luck on your endeavors, mon ami.
Jon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by musketjon

Hurrikane,
The site you reference is known to be loaded with incorrect information.
Back when I started studying and collecting M1 rifles (40 or so years ago) there was no 'net. Reading books, asking LOTS of questions and writing letters was the norm. I've paid my dues. I'm usually freely forth-coming with the info one asks for but your snydeness does not warrant it. Read the books, write the letters and ask the questions yourself. Good luck on your endeavors, mon ami.
Jon

---

I didn’t know that site was loaded with wrong information (how could I?) - that’s the first I’m being told of this. But there’s not much else to go off of and that’s exactly why I’m here, asking questions (very organized questions, even posting each specific part with a brief description and a picture to make it as easy and being as helpful as I can). To which I’m told this rifle is not original - that seems to be the only information anyone’s willing to share. Real helpful. I guess I have a few specific parts to research now. The stock (for some reason GAW may not be correct for this rifle, not sure why, but I’ll look into that). The safety (still not sure the difference between -11 and _11 other than the difference is a “BIG” one). The op rod (I knew from the start the cut was not original and said so in my original post but there may be more to look at here besides that). So in a way this group has been helpful. Actually, I shouldn’t lump everyone into the same category here. A couple of you have been very helpful and messaged me privately and I do appreciate that. Seems like the ones with the most information prefer to hold onto it though. Make the new guys learn the hard way and pay their dues before they’re part of the club type of mentality. Which is fine, I can appreciate that. My collection is not specific to the M1 Garand, but rather WWI and WWII rifles and handguns in general. So I’ve done this many times before with each new firearm I acquire. As I learn, I immediately start to share my knowledge and help others. I can tell the M1 Garand is going to take the most work of anything I’ve acquired so far - but that’s half the fun, isn’t it? No hard feelings here.

Cheers!
Tyler

Tyler, I usually hang-out on the Carbine Forum, but came over here last night and read through all the recent threads. I'm a "newbie" on Garands and bought mine just a few months ago. I've been trying to figure out what's original and what isn't, just like you. One thing I noticed on your trigger group picture is the hammer spring plunger. I believe yours is the later one like I have. It doesn't straddle the hammer like the originals did. Hope I got this right, and believe I do. Nice Garand! :thup: - Bob

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Singer B

Any Garand is nice. You could hand me the most beat-up, ugly, non-original M1 and I would be proud and happy to share it with others.

---

I 2nd that.

You have a really sweet Garand on your hands :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by USGI

the hammer spring plunger. I believe yours is the later one like I have. It doesn't straddle the hammer like the originals did.

---

Right, the early ones had "Ears" and later didn't.

Comparing the OP's rifle to a relatively close serial numbered rifle in Scott Duff's data sheet book, most of the parts shown in the photos are correct. I believe the barrel date is significantly too early for the serial number and the barrel's finish appears too good for the condition of the receiver. The op-rod was modified and there is a second P proof of the stock. To me, this all adds up to someone's attempt to correct an arsenal overhauled rifle. This is quite common. Based on this, I don't think there is any way to conclude any parts are original to the rifle.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by John Wyatt

this all adds up to someone's attempt to correct an arsenal overhauled rifle. This is quite common. Based on this, I don't think there is any way to conclude any parts are original to the rifle.

---

So maybe at some point people will believe me when I tell you all the story of firsthand knowledge of...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by browningautorifle

I think this one came from Lever arms in Vancouver back some years. They had a huge influx of M1 rifles from Denmark and they stripped them ALL to every part to build "Correct" models. They had everything from three digit serials up. This would be one that was assembled when they were left with good parts that could only be put together to a nice shooter.

---