I've been looking at trigger housing and have noticed that Type IV housings trigger guard looks as though it can seperate from the housing. Stamped not milled. Not one solid piece like the earlier versions. Am I seeing things?
Printable View
I've been looking at trigger housing and have noticed that Type IV housings trigger guard looks as though it can seperate from the housing. Stamped not milled. Not one solid piece like the earlier versions. Am I seeing things?
Rocky,
That stamp/brazed construction was a less expensive construction designed and approved later in the war. Trust me when I say that it will not separate and the trigger guard will not come off. Ok, you could probably pull it apart if you placed it between two trucks at a monster truck pull (?????) Some people prefer the Type IV's because of their strength.
I did not mean to imply that it COULD seperate, only that it LOOKED seperate. It makes sense that it could be stronger than the early version. Like a weld is stronger than the material itself. Thanks
Rocky321,
I'm a little confused here.
Why do you call it a type IV instead of a I, II, III, V, or VI?
If you know enough to call it a type IV, then you must have read about it somewhere and know it is sectioned.
If not, then you need to at least buy a $20 book called U.S. M1 Carbines, Wartime Production by Craig Riesch. I think it is up to edition 6 now. It is a paperback book with over 200 pages. Not 100% correct like any reference. But it shows the basics with lots of pictures, charts, parts, makers, and markings.
You will be able to do a little research on your own and have the enjoyment of learning about you rifle. It should be very interesting to a new Carbine owner. And will probably answer most of your questions. I am guessing most people on this forum have at least one edition of it.
Jim
I called it a Type IV because that's what all the stamped versions I came across were designated as. I do have Craig Riesch's book, but I don't carry it around with me, especially to work. Not confusing at all!
I guess I'm being grumby again. But if you have that book and have read it, it seems you would have most of the answers to the questions you ask.
And the big deal if I ask them anyway? Now I'm confused!
If you already know the answer, why ask the question?
Unless your a lawyer.
Sometimes I just like to make certain. And no, I'm not a lawyer, but you sure sound like one. Pounding people who are not a fountain of knowledge like you profess to be. Lighten up. Last time I looked, this was a forum. Yep, you are grumpy!
I didn't profess to be anything. I just stated the obvious.Quote:
Originally Posted by rocky321
Jim,
you state the Riesch book is not 100% correct. Is there anything listed (possibly CC newsletter) that lists the errors/inconsistencies. Or at least can you say where some of the error are (markings, serial ranges, etc.)
Geo (no, not that George)
Sent PM
Jim,
I'm affraid stating the obvious here won't get you anywhere.
Sometimes reading comprehension can't be overcome.
:surrender:
JMO,
Charlie-painter777
Whould You Trade?