Just curious as to what you folks think.
M1A1 Carbine Orig. Paratrooper m1 carbine Garand : Curios and Relics at GunBroker.com
Printable View
Just curious as to what you folks think.
M1A1 Carbine Orig. Paratrooper m1 carbine Garand : Curios and Relics at GunBroker.com
No expert here, but it's got my fake one beat! I wouldn't quite call it "original" - something about the pistol grip and some of the markings look questionable. To me it looks 'enhanced' a bit and some of the stock metal may be refinished, or swapped from a reproduction. One thing demonstrated here is how differences in the photography can sway your opinion. For example, compare pictures #24 with #40 - the finish can look so much different depending on the lighting. Boy, the muzzle and rifling sure look good! Harlan taught me all about slings, so I know that's legit! Without looking up the dates for all the pieces, to me the mix of early and late parts are questionable. I think the closeup of the front band shows the correct features discussed recently in the other threads. I wouldn't mine owning it. - Bob
I agree with Bob here. Taking a look at picture 39 the metal sure looks brand new compared to the rest of the gun
I looked up all the parts, and I believe they are all correct for that SN. The metal stock looks refinished, but the only thing that was questionable to me was the numbers on the buttplate. They looked stamped rather than sand cast, but it's hard to tell. In any case it sold for $2000.Quote:
Originally Posted by USGI
The carbine is nice and nothing wrong with it. Well worth what it sold for, Ray
I believe the number on the butt plate is incorrect. This butt plate is numbered "B357614." Original butt plates were cast "B257614." The pistol grip also looks a little new (look at photo 45). I believe the "RI" should be serifs and that isn't exactly clear in picture 9. Lastly, the crossed cannon cartouche looks a little big. I believe the larger crossed cannon cartouches on the second run M1A1s measure 0.50 inch. (Maybe it is just the angle of the pistol grip in photograph 18).
I could be completely all wet on this, but to me, this carbine looks like a mix of original and new.
A better picture straight on the numbers would help. It's a little blurry photo of the butt plate marking. The spacing of the characters looks good. Could be just a bad spot in the casting?
This is a known #6
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...A1Plate6-1.jpg
This is the one in question
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...02/Fake6-1.jpg
I have had a number of M1A1 carbines but only one rebuild by AA, the photos look very genuine to me, consistent with a rebuild that has gone back in service. The only "strange" thing I see is the CC on the grip as being very sharp where the rest of the markings are worn, could be this is a replacement part but then it should not even have the CC. My knowledge is limited to personal experience and all the neat books I have read, no telling what 65 years have done to the originality of this piece.
I also think the pistol grip has been replaced. Different color, and a lot better condition then the rest of the stock.
As for the crossed cannons. I don't know which books you have. The first two I checked shows that "War Baby" page 348, Riesch 5th edition page 125 mention them.
Any opinions on the buttplate casting/stamping? As bkavanaugh said, "I believe the number on the butt plate is incorrect. This butt plate is numbered "B357614." Original butt plates were cast "B257614."
That's what I read in Riesch. Has anyone seen one marked with "B3....?"
Quote:
Originally Posted by G26ster
Good eye, didn't notice that. I just checked the three M1A1's I have and they all have #2 not #3. Don't know what to say. I'm sure they used different moulds maybe one was mis-numbered?? Ray
I can't really tell if that is a 2 or 3. There is a little blob of something going across the middle. The real 2 does round up a bit on the bottom.
circle P on rear of lowwood? cross cannon on right side of circle P marked stock?? maybe to late for and too early for so one of wood pieces is time incorrect but as a rebuild is genuine, nice accumulation of parts, probably was worth what sold for-just not a orig gun
It's an obvious 'put-together' that is not in serviceable condition (would not be found on an armory rack because of the stock condition and worn finish). I think its a stinker, and I wouldn't give $350 for it.
Don't bother with arcane discussions about numbers. Just look at pictures 7 and 15, showing the skeleton butt ( or whatever you M1 fans call it) and the back end of the woodwork. The damage to the wood just does not match the condition of the butt frame. The skeleton frame came later.
I may, of course, be wrong, as I do not have the rifle in my hands, but an important criterion for judging authenticity of any old artefact is : is it consistent within itself with regard to patina, wear, dirt, damage - all the effects of time. That rifle is not.
:wave:
Jim I was referring to a replacement grip, not original issue with CC acceptance mark. All of the replacement pieces I have seen were without the CC. Mike
Ebay item #130473736791 - part of an M1A1 stock (claimed genuine) sold on 1/16/2011 has a buttplate with a "3" that looks like the one that's the subject of the thread. The rest of the numbering looks questionable though. The seller calls it a "2" - what do you guys think? - Bob
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...253D&viewitem=
Looks like a 3 to me.
I also say 3