Pre Pearl Harbor Garand questions

Over the weekend I looked at a Garand in the 390000 range (SA barrel 11-41). I don't have my notes in front of me, but as I remember, the major components (barrel, bolt, un-cut op rod, trigger group, etc) were all correct and it still had the seal on the front sight screw and the single slot gas lock screw. It had a British proof on the barrel (lend-lease?) but nowhere else that I could find. The bore looked good and the muzzle looked fine (didn't have any gauges). The wood had been replaced with what looked like birch - light colored. The receiver drawing # was -14, but the books I looked at said it should be -13 under #400,000. Are these ser. # ranges just approximations? I saw no evidence of a reweld. What do you think this rifle would be worth in maybe 60% condition with replaced wood?

A whole lot about the value has to do with how many of the parts are original to a Nov 41 rifle. I had a Nov 41 rifle and it should have a short pinion, checkered elevation pinion cap and flush nut, though as I remember the windage knob was supposed to be knurled rather than checkered. Are those still on it? If they are, that makes it signifcantly more valuable.

Sounds like a rifle I sold on Jouster a couple years ago. Everything was correct except the wood. Even the gas cylinder had the funky paint/coating on it. The front sight seal was present. The wood had been changed out though. The metal was immaculate and the rifle was sitting in a scarred and worked over stock and the rear handguard was cracked and had a piece missing from it. The clip was a grooved clip. The stock was marked for Ogden Arsenal. Why the wood had been swapped out was a mystery to me. I sold it for $1,500.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rob W.

Over the weekend I looked at a Garand in the 390000 range (SA barrel 11-41). I don't have my notes in front of me, but as I remember, the major components (barrel, bolt, un-cut op rod, trigger group, etc) were all correct and it still had the seal on the front sight screw and the single slot gas lock screw. It had a British proof on the barrel (lend-lease?) but nowhere else that I could find. The bore looked good and the muzzle looked fine (didn't have any gauges). The wood had been replaced with what looked like birch - light colored. The receiver drawing # was -14, but the books I looked at said it should be -13 under #400,000. Are these ser. # ranges just approximations? I saw no evidence of a reweld. What do you think this rifle would be worth in maybe 60% condition with replaced wood?

---

Rob,

-13SA, -14 and -14SA ran concurrently in this area and beyond.

Thanks guys for the responses. I'm more of a carbine guru than Garand, so I don't know the difference between short or long pinion etc. I just know it didn't have a lock bar sight like my 8-42 SA and looked like the pics in my reference. Sounds like I wouldn't be hurt if I paid up to $1k.

The difference is 500- 600.00 if you have to find one and are fortunate enough to find one for sale. The short pinion will not extend past the nut on the windage knob like the long pinion does.
It is also a smaller diameter and different thread than a long pinion with out staking on the end to retain the windage knob.

I mentioned that I believe it was a lend lease Garand and had what I thought were some British proofs and something like "18 tons" stamped by the date on the barrel. Is that the only place a rifle would be stamped? The pistols I've seen were stamped all over the place - frame, slide and barrel. Does the barrel stamping hurt the value? If I get to see it again I'll have to take some pics of the rear sight.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rob W.

I mentioned that I believe it was a lend lease Garand and had what I thought were some British proofs and something like "18 tons" stamped by the date on the barrel. Is that the only place a rifle would be stamped? The pistols I've seen were stamped all over the place - frame, slide and barrel. Does the barrel stamping hurt the value? If I get to see it again I'll have to take some pics of the rear sight.

---

Rob, I had posted this on the CMP forum in regards to a question regarding a British proofed 1911A1. Thought it might be of interest to you;

The following information is taken, in substance, from an article by Bruce Canfield which I found on his web site. The web site is no longer up.
British Proof marks do not,in and of themselves, have anything to do with "Lend Lease". These are non military markings required under 1950s era British Law. Any weapon that was in Great Britain, regardless of why or when, that subsequently left the country had to be inspected, proofed and stamped with the requisite markings.
As far as, are they "more desirable", that depends. As Canfield says " markings stamped on a gun in the 1950s due to bureaucratic regulations are no reason to pay a farting extra for such a gun.
The degree that the markings devalue a gun, if any, is strictly a matter of personal preference. Some collectors don't care a whit about the markings and others don't want such guns in their collections. Canfield also states, and I would agree, " Virtually any collector of U.S. martial arms would prefer, for example, a totally original 1941 M1 rifle without British markings to a rifle with such markings, assuming a comparable degree of originality and condition. A Garand rifle of this era with an intact red paint band on the wood would be an interesting example of a true "lend lease" rifle but, as stated, it would be better if the 1950s era proof markings were not present.

"...British Proof marks do not, in and of themselves, have anything to do with "Lend Lease". Nothing to do with Lend/Lease at all. Purely "non military markings required under 1950s era British Law". Think it went past the 50's. Haven't ever been able to find anything about dates for it though. Applies to any milsurp firearm sold through England by any dealer.

Sunray, Yes, British Proofing did go way beyond the 50s. The British law that required proofing were the laws of 1925 and then the British Proof Laws of 1955. There is a very good article by GCA member David Kaczmarek to be found in Volume 7, Number 4 (Fall 1993) Garand Collectors Newsletter (Journal). Also in the April 2002 American Rifleman, Scott Duff wrote an article "Garands in the Kings Service" which also has alot of information on "lend lease" Garands and British Proof marks.
The Fall 1993 GCA Newsletter may still be available from the GCA, if not the GCA does sell a bound book which contains a number of the early Newsletters. Check out the website :
Our Association
click on "Supply Shack" on left side of page for available back issues,

Does this rear sight look correct for a Nov '41 rifle?


https://www.milsurps.com/images/imported/deleted.gif
https://www.milsurps.com/images/imported/deleted.gif

No. This is the sight that replaced the lock bar sight. It is known as the T105E1 assembly, and was adopted in Oct. Nov. 1944, as per Scott Duff. It is found on rebuilt WW2 rifles and new post war rifles.
If your rifle had remained in Govt. service after WW2 it is quite likly the original sight would have been replaced with this sight. This would not have to be done during overhaul but could have been done at the local company level of repair and maint.

Thanks Joe, I appreciate the info. Think I'll pass on the rifle.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rob W.

Thanks guys for the responses. I'm more of a carbine guru than Garand, so I don't know the difference between short or long pinion etc. I just know it didn't have a lock bar sight like my 8-42 SA and looked like the pics in my reference. Sounds like I wouldn't be hurt if I paid up to $1k.

---

Rob, If most parts other than rear sights and stock are correct you would not be hurt in the least by paying "up to $ 1000.00" for this rifle.
On most rifles in this range you will find the trigger group Spring Housing and the op rod catch to be in the white (unfinished). The parts pictured are from a Dec. 1941 rifle.

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

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

SMLE-MAN said "Why the wood had been swapped out was a mystery to me."

In the old days, collectors hated the Brit Proofs, would buy a fair non-proofed rifle in preference to a mint BP gun. If you had a nice unproofed rifle that needed wood, it was a no-brainer to take it off a Brit gun. Who cared about those junkers, anyway. :) How things change!