Printable View
Was the reciever leg on all the RRAD rebuilds stamped in some way after rebuild? I've looked all over and can not find a mark. The stock is stamped RRAD in large letters on the left, but no other marks on the rifle. The only marks on the stock is a boxed P and the RRAD. I assume it is a replacement stock? Thanks for any opinions. The reciever is 7/42 and barrel 9/51.
Attachment 12771
Attachment 12772
Attachment 12773
Attachment 12774
Attachment 12775
I have a Winchester rebuilt at RRAD. It also only has RRAD on the stock and nothing on the reciever legs. I believe I have seen posted on this site in the past that you can find them marked either way. The stock on mine is also a rebuild stock.
Thanks Cajun, I appreciate your info.
Rebuild facilities marked stocks up into the early 1960s. They then switched to marking the receiver leg instead of the stock.
Thanks for the info Tom.
Pre 1962 it was Red River Arsenal or RRA. In 1962 the Army was re-structured and it became Red River Army Depot or RRAD.
Bill, any idea when and if they might not have been stamping the receiver leg and just the stock? Thanks
No, that is not in my area of research.
If it was RRAD, it was sometime after 1962.
Anyone know whether they replaced all the wood when they rebuilt them during the 60's? I understand that they would reuse the original metal parts if they guaged good and had them refinished but what about the stocks and hand guards? Did they refinish old wood pieces and reused them?
If the wood was good they used it. There are lots of stocks that still have the original cartouche and a rebuild stamp. There are stocks and hand guards with arsenal repairs clearly visible.
Thanks for all the responses. I was hoping to narrow down when RRAD might have begun stamping the legs or if sometimes the legs were not marked. The wood up front on mine is old and looks like the rear stock was replaced. No marks other than the boxed P and large RRAD stamped on the left side.
I would say that prior to 1965, maybe 1964, rebuild codes were not being etched on the receiver legs.Quote:
Originally Posted by deserttrans
According to an article "In the System" By Bruce N. Canfield, found in the Dec. 2003 American Rifleman, it is stated, "As the Viet Nam war heated up in the mid 60s, additional M1s in the government's inventory were needed as supplemental service rifles and for military aid requirements. Several U.S. Government ordnance facilities were given contracts for the overhaul of more M1s during that period. M1 overhaul work was done primarily by Tooele Army Depot and Letterkenny Army Depot. Red River Army Depot and Springfield Armory also overhauled some M1s as well. Unlike the earlier rebuild markings, which were stamped on the stock, these facilites typically utilized identity codes that were hand etched on the right side of the receiver leg by electric pen. In most cases the code was accompanied by month and year the rebuild was performed. Some of the facilities stamped a "P" proofmark on the pistol grip of the stock after the rifles were proof fired as part of the final overhaul inspection procedure. Unlike factory proof stamps which consisted of a circled "P", the overhaul proof stamps were either a block letter "P" enclosed in square or by itself."
Alot more good information regarding rebuilds/overhauls can be found in this article.
One other thing that must be considered is that the rifle may not be the rifle that was overhauled at RRAD when the stock was installed.
Also per Canfield " Rifles overhauled at overseas ordnance installations were not required to have the initials of the facility stamped on the stock or engraved in the metal, thus not all rebuilt arms will have stamps."
I'm guessing the electro-pencil began around 1964. The instruction to mark the leg is in the 1965 SA rebuild specs.
It seems every RRAD etched receiver that I have inspected was etched before parkerizing. Whereas all LEAD and SA etching was done after parkerizing.
I have a LEAD 12/65 rebuild, the stock is clearly a Overton replacement and the wood is burch. The park is a silvery gray and the EP mark was done after refinnishing.
The rifle is a 5.91 and the barrel date is a SA 8/55 T/E=1-M/E=.5 are very low, the only non-correct part is the SA-77 series op-rod, what could be so wrong with a rifle that would need too go to a rebuild depot? I figure a unit armorer could more that handle a op-rod replacement?
I have no codes just the 12/65 and the LEAD?
Thanks for all the replys and info. I've learned a lot by starting this topic. I've done more inspection and found all marked parts are SA. Since only a stock marking of RRAD and no leg mark. One might assume 1964 give or take. The sling on the rifle is dated MRT April 1964. Was it normal to leave the armory with a sling a attached to the rifle?
Attachment 13024
Attachment 13025
Attachment 13026
Attachment 13027
Attachment 13028
your sling is on upsidedown:rolleyes: I thought I would let you know.;)
"Thanks for all the replys and info. I've learned a lot by starting this topic. I've done more inspection and found all marked parts are SA. Since only a stock marking of RRAD and no leg mark"
There is another possibility: Only your stock went through the rebuild process at RRAD. Many times stocks were switched in the field and op rods certainly could be changed at a unit level.
Phil, in 1965 M1 Garands were no longer in the hands of regular U.S. troops as it had been already replaced by the M14. The rifles that were rebuilt in the 60s were rifles were from government inventory. Some needed very little work, others quite a bit. Read my earlier post in this thread regarding Canfields article on rebuilds.Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil McGrath
Not necessarily. Remember the entire country of National Guard and various Reserve units all still had M1's.Quote:
The rifles that were rebuilt in the 60s were rifles were from government inventory.
I knew someone would jump on that statement, that is why I said "regular U.S. troops". I should have been a bit clearer.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Ricca
Phil had asked why a rifle that only needed a op-rod change would go through an overhaul/rebuild at Letterkenny in 1965. For the most part I would think that rifles going through rebuilds, in large numbers, in 1965 or so, would be those rifles that had been in storage after being replaced in the active duty military by the M14. Some of those rifles may not have been in need of much work and just had a part or two changed or nothing at all.
Phil also asked why a "unit armorer" would not have changed out an op-rod.
I was also trying to point out that, in the case of these rifles, being in storage and not in active service, they would not have had the opportunity to receive any type of repair at the unit level.
True, Reserve and N.G. units used the M1 throughout the 60s and 70's, maybe longer, but these were not the rifles going through large scale overhauls in the mid 1960s. Joe
OK, now your explanation shows a difference. I was under the impression you were stating that the only rebuilds were stuff in storage. Now I see your clarification. Good point.
I have a RRAD marked stock (though the A looks like an upsidedown V,no horisontal bar) any way thanks for all the info and the aprox date of my stock I thought it was newer.