Well both Babcock and Harrison say they do. I been told by a W.R.A. researcher that they don't.
What do you Guys think?
Well both Babcock and Harrison say they do. I been told by a W.R.A. researcher that they don't.
What do you Guys think?
Interesting.... More photos.
What is a "Type 8" safety, in layman's terms............
Some people think all parts with a punch mark are WRA. They also think front sight screws with an "A" inside the wrench recess are WRA. They also think all parts with rough machining are WRA. None of this is true. To my knowledge, no one has ever stated the serial numbers of any WIN-13 that had that kind of safety. Until an experienced researcher states he has seen it on an original rifle, and tells exactly which rifle it is on so it can be confirmed by other researchers, I will consider it just another internet myth. There is a big difference between doing research and publishing a book. It doesn't make sense that Winchester would decide at the last minute to completely change thier safety and make so few of them that no experienced collector has actually seen one on a rifle.
Just because something is published in a book, that does not give it the meaning of confirmed facts. Authors have published stuff based upon information from dealers, who lie, to classify their fakes for sale as original.
Once a fake item is listed in a research book, it now has the belief of thousands.
I am not involved in this Winchester Safety issue, but if I were, my response would be to contact the authors and ask them how they came up with that information.
Harrison passed away a few years ago.
Why would WRA mark all their other safety's with a "WRA" and not do that on this supposed "last run"? Makes no sense. Looks like a old, rusted SA safety that's been re-parked....or subcontractor.
Mike D
The old rusted part might fly except the holes and the machining are crisp and sharp.
Jesse did have some errors in his earlier book on the M1 that he sent to me. Some of his explainations and conclusions were drawn from observing a large grouping of Captain Crunch parts that were either later crunched or saved from the jaws for honor teams or their like. There was no complete rifle data from that particular source.
I asked Scott about 15 years ago if he or Mac had any data on round top safety usage in any pure Original or darn close to WRA rifle. Answer then was no and I'm stilling looking for a confirmed benchmark rifle.
Small pad housing theories..........we know WRA made them smaller later on in production, possibly for future use with a round top safety or SA directive on interchangibility. Question is, did they actually manufacture them, and then use them in later production rifles?
He continued with several errors. One item shows a round hole lock screw, which he lists as experimental for GL. It was a manufactured screw circa 1960's for sale to South American armies and is without a vent. They would not use a non vented screw for launching Rifle Grenades. This was made up by a dealer/exporter because there were no huge quantities of lock screws available for export. I have one and know its origin.Quote:
Jesse did have some errors in his earlier book on the M1 that he sent to me
I have the drawings, patent information, and the contractor for the experimental lock screw for the GL's. It is nothing like his picture.
His drawings are incredibly good in showing what an item is. The information about it can be totally off base.
If I recall one of the authors list a Revision 14 bolt for the Garand, yet nobody I know has ever seen one. I have asked several individuals who claim they exist, to post a picture. So far none have.
I want to confirm!
I had one of the unissued WRA Museum guns that was among the very last made, too late for delivery when the WWII contract was cancelled. It had a flat top safety.
STP,Quote:
Originally Posted by StoneTemplePilot
Let me see if I understand this correctly: Harrison determined a WRA round topped safety existed from a pile of loose, stripped random parts which were not seen in any complete rifles and publishes it, then Babcock swears to it and publishes the same?
God help us................:)
Hack..........Yes, A pile of parts pulled off rifles that were earmaked for the Captain. M1 research at its finest...ZIKES!
William J.......Been looking for that Rev 14 bolt too, but not as hard as my search for the CM marked WRA bolt. Seen Two in 25 years.....Bought zero. Had to buy the rifle on one and the other was owned by a rather wierd type who use to visit my table at Springfield Mass and show me his trinkets which I was never allowed to purchase. Then one day he just stopped coming to the shows and lost contact and never could document with a photo :( STP
Not only that, but Jesse actually told me (in person at a Tulsa gun show years ago) that looking at some boxes of various, loose parts constituted just about all of his research before writing his book. Also interesting that some of the boxes of parts belonged to a neighbor who had been an Army officer in charge of a major armory that rebuilt M1s. Lots & lots of lockbar sights and uncut op rods in those boxes. I bought a bunch when they were up for sale.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ramboueille
As we all know, he never bothered to go back and fix the plethora of mistakes either. So sad that some folks tend to believe the written word, no matter what reality is.
That's why we try to be so super-careful in what we publish in the GCA Journal -- for many people, if it is in print it is Gospel. Bill Ricca will attest to how some of his early mistakes get repeated by subsequent authors until they become accepted "fact." Sometimes it is disheartening.
Bob Seijas is correct. Back circa 1986 I relied on Supply Bulletin 9-35 to identify a Grenade Launcher Manufacturer in a GCA article. Since then I have found many reasons why one should not rely on that information. It was never designed to identify piece markings.
We now have better documentation showing the actual name of the maker, but a few individuals will not go with the current confirmed information.
What/who made it? Why so much file work?
Lots of file work. Who made it?