-
3 Attachment(s)
Help re SP cartouche
Guys,
I've had a stone mint early Standard Products M1 carbine. It came out of Lynn Lugar's estate/private collection. Nothing refinished, crisp unissued condition, but the ordinance escutcheon on the stock is unusual. Compared it to those in my Ruth book and it doesn't look SP. The stock is marked S-HB in the sling cutout. Same with the handguard. Everything is textbook correct SP. It is either an anamoly or someone popped a fake escutcheon in a like new, untouched original SP stock. Thanks in advance for any help.
Regards,
Hambone
-
Hambone, I think Hillerich and Bradsby, Louisville Slugger bat factory made that stock. Don't know much about the crossed cannon cartouche though.
-
If that Carbine is a 65 year old, "never been used one", I'm thinking, the cartouche may very well be correct. Standards will have an SHB or SJ slingwell. Here's a couple of well used ones, that didn't make it back to the States for rebuilding. A 1.9 and a 2.2. Compare to yours and let us know what you think. I'd like to know what the left hand side of the butt plate on your one can tell us. Here's hoping an STD. PRO expert contributes !. Mike.
-
-
On a good note, it does not match the pics in Harrisons and WB carbine books as we know they are wrong.
Need BrianQ on this one, I have studied cartouches from the different carbine mfg's, but the Std. Prod. and IBM cartouches are the hardest do to there size and being 65yrs old with alot of wear, very hard to see details.
One thing to look at is the fuse hole in the right cannon and the shape of the pinions on the left cannon. Hopefully Brian will contact you.
hth Scott
-
-
It look like an IBM
It also looks like a Winchester as well but the cannon butts are curved on the Winchester, IBMs are not. Flame is also like IBM.
-
1 Attachment(s)
Why would it be on an otherwise mint original condition SP with an SP stock? I think this a little closer pic.
-
I hope that CC is real....... because that is one beautiful carbine.
Did notice the op slide stop pin is parked, but i sure wouldn't throw it away over that.
When you get a chance could you give us a parts breakdown?
maybe a few more pics like the frt sight, barrel marking, rear flip etc.
Thanks for sharing it with us !
Charlie-painter777
-
I remember a collector friend who has been collecting carbines for 40 years laughingly lamented to me how he had made "correct" carbines that the Ruth book said were already correct. That is, original carbines were a$$ed up being made "original". I'm not a US collector, but it seems to me that there is an awful lot of misinformation masquerading as "textbook correct" information in books and such. Just as soon as I swapped this stock or the pin out, another book would hit the shelves or "conventional wisdom" would change. So, Lynn Lugar had it for many years like this, and I will too I reckon.
-
2 Attachment(s)
I have a similar cartouche on a S-HB stock and handguard combo that look new on a similar barely used Inland 290XXX that I picked up 17 years ago off a kid who said it was his grandfathers from ww 2. The only non-inland parts are the rear sight which was loose and the stock set. see pics below. the barrel on this carbine gages less then one on TE and muzzle is virtually new its dated 5-43. Not sure if this helps but the cartouche sure looks similar.
-
Always remember this: If you just have to change out a part on a carbine or anything old and collectable is this, save the part that you changed out, because you may later find out it was correct. A friend who collects old telephones told me he had did this and later found the old parts were correct, but he had got rid of the correct parts he took off the phone. :banghead:
-
cannon butts, cannon butts, cannon butts--look at cowboys, the other posted pics, then look at the ? stock--look at base of butt-they are different-I am not saying fake but am saying different and not seen by me on a original gun that I have handled-paste both side by side on your puter and blow them up--you will immediately see what I am referring to-
-
different, yes i agree with Marcus. the flame is hinky too
