Printable View
Hello:
Just purchased this 1941 vintage garand, made in may-June of 1941.
I noticed that the gas tube assembly is of the different color than the rest of the gun.
Also, attached is the picture of the rear sight.
can someone comment on these parts being correct or incorrect for this vintage rifle?
Thanks!Attachment 34806Attachment 34807Attachment 34808
That is pretty normal for the M1. The gas cylinder is made from stainless and doesn't hold color like the cast and forged steel does. Your gas cylinder is a narrow sight base type and is correct for your 1941 M1. The sight is a flush nut and also correct for your M1.
Your rifle looks very nice! Can you give us a detailed parts breakdown and serial number of your rifle?
Thank you!
I should be able to provide the serial number and the drawing numbers for small parts in a few days.
I second Bill's opinion and request for pics. I have one that's probably about the same era and numbers close.
ditto on bills quote,i to have a 1941 only december,an a lend lease.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Hollinger
by the way bill i realy enjoy your story about the willys,[not the smash up part]
i had a 53 civilan.
pics of the 41garand
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...2/06/062-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...2/06/061-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo.../06/gun8-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...2/06/060-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...IMG_4921-1.jpg
Attachment 34831Attachment 34833Attachment 34834Attachment 34832Thank you for your input, fellows...
The serial number is 248291.
Barrel is made in June of 1941 and is so dated.
The stock had been varnished with only the circled P proof mark remaining.
The rest of the stock cartouches is gone.
Providing all the small parts have the correct drawing numbers and the metal finish is excellent and original - what would be the approximate value of this rifle?
If some of the small parts are incorrect - how much would it detract from the value?
Is $1600 too much, too little or just right?
Here are some more pics..
Thanks!
seems kind of high to me.
It's not a gas "tube," it's a gas CYLINDER. FWIW, the gas cylinder lock screw is not a "gas plug," either.
I don't have an accurate feel for the market anymore because of so many CMP Garands being sold lately but $1600 seems high to me too. The barrel/receiver match and WWII provenance are helpful. If you somehow knew this rifle was a 1-owner gun for many years ther would be a better chance that someone didn't put it together from correct parts. The important thing to know is that ALL WWII Garands were rebuilt after the War so if it's absolutely correct, someone made it that way to increase the value. Anyway, still nice to have a correct WWII Garand. It looks very nice FWIW...
I don't agree that ALL M1s were rebuilt after the war and if it's absolutely correct someone made it that way. There are more than a few that didn't see an arsenal rebuild and are original. Granted, they are few and far between, still they are out there. I am not saying this rifle is original. A careful study of the rifle by someone more versed with them would be needed to determine that.
Thank you, again for all of your input.
Having looked at this rifle one more time, I decided to pass on it on the account of redone stock and price that did not reflect the stock alterations.
Thank you, all!
I guess I should clarify Bill... EVERY Garand that was returned to the US by the Military after WWII was stripped down and and then rebuilt using whatever parts were serviceable, no matter the original brand. That's simply a documented fact. I guess a few may have been smuggled back by troops or were battlefield pick-ups that made it back here somehow. But rest assured, if it came back in the Military's hands it was rebuilt. Even if it was a brand new rifle that just arrived overseas as the War ended. That's just what they did.
the only exception is the ones made after the Korean war, they are all correct?
Yes, it's my understanding there are some 50's Garands that are unmolested. I like to think mine is one of them but who knows. I would never presume so. I know it's at least not in it's original stock. It's in a Type 2 national match stock. But all of the metal is correct for a 1955 Springfield Garand. But again... I'd never presume it to be unmolested.
How about the rifles that came back with the troops after the war ended ?? I am not sure about Army procedure but I am pretty sure that Marines returning to the states would have taken there rifles back with them. Those Marines stationed at Camp LeJeune or Camp Pendleton when the war ended would have kept there rifles until they were discharged. I am sure as the Marine Corps downsized following the war a number of M1 rifles did go to overhaul, but they still had to keep quite a number on hand for the post war troops. I know from first hand experience that there were still rifles in the armories at Camp Lejeune, in WW2 configuration, in the mid 1950's. Quite a few rifles with lock bar sights and single slot gas cylinder lock screws. As very few marines fired granades it really didn't become necessary to change out the lock screws until the introduction of the M5 bayonet. Had these rifles went through an overhaul / rebuild after WW2 they would no longer have had those lock bar sights or lock screws.Quote:
Originally Posted by oneshot onekill
Joe, Oneshot, there are more than a few Korea era photographs that show lock bar sights. National guard units may have taken their rifles back to their respective armories and after a good thorough cleaning and perhaps a re-barrel they would have been stashed back in their racks and may have stayed that way for many years.
Wouldn't this one have lock bar sights if it was all original?
No, as I stated in my first post, the flush nut is correct for this rifle.
The short pinion w/ lock bar didn't show up until about Mar. 1942, as Bill said, the Flush Nut is correct for this rifle.Quote:
Originally Posted by ABPOS
A clarification is required here fellas:
The re-barreling of any weapon would not have taken place at such a low level as a NG armory. It would have been at a much higher level. If such upgrades would have been applied, updated sights, relieved op-rods just to name two would have been appropriate. This does not change my belief that more than a few M1 rifles made it back without going through arsenal rebuilds and adding all the latest updates and upgraded accoutrements.
In Chicago, all National Guard units sent their M1 rifles to Riverside (National Guard Ordnance Unit) for a new barrel. In the armory, all rifles had to have the gas cylinder screw with valve to launch grenades etc, all slings were web. All or most rifles had lock bar sights and spare parts to complete additional lock bar sights, only on the M1D rifles were the later knobs found. Wood was supplied by Riverside. The flush nut or spanner nut was found on imports such as Lend Lease or other imports, veteran bring backs or restorations.
I would guess that before the Korean War the flush nuts were all replaced in most US services rifles. Never heard of a DCM purchase with a flush nut - but it might have happened.
Thanks Robert, I had always just thought that unserviceable N.G. rifles would have been sent back to the Army arsenals. In the marine Corps the single slot lock screw was not an issue until we were issued the M5 bayonets as they would not mount on a rifle with the single slot screw.Quote:
Originally Posted by RCS
Most Marines unless in an infantry unit never fired a rifle grenade but if they did then the screw would be changed. The web sling was issued with the rifle in boot camp and only a few old timers still held on to there leather slings. The web sling can be seen at the bottom of the pile.
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...d782Gear-1.jpg
That looks more like the pants belt. I'm wearing one right now...
As Billy Pyle stated " the lock bar never left the system"
All that webbing looks like a pack. My guess on this photo is the Marines are getting equipment issued to them or inspected.
It looks like initial issue of field kit.
It is what was called "782 gear", Marine term for field gear. It was with this issue that the rifle sling was issued. I was looking at the very bottom belt or sling i the picture, the one with the metal tip, but I might be wrong. As the sling was not issued with the rifle this was the only picture I had that I thought, might show the web sling. This picture is from the early 1950's based on the utility jackets and the EGA emblem on the covers. The picture below is of rifle issue to Marine recruits in a about 1955. Notice the different utility jackets, no, what was called "granade pockets", in later jackets. Doubt they were ever used for "granades, but that is what they were called.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Hollinger
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...fleIssue-1.jpg
That Marine looks just like my son Jeff! Must be the look they issue a Marine!
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...P3010008-1.jpg
Where is that picture taken Bill? Parris Is or San Diego?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Hollinger
Aaaah, I guess I didn't understand what "flush nut" meant. I thought you were talking about the gas nut. Oooops. Thank you.
Camp Pendleton SOI San DiegoQuote:
Originally Posted by browningautorifle
Been there too.
My guess would be San Diego, no mountains like that at P.I., only sand. He looks alot like you too Bill. You must be very proud of him. I wish him good luck. Semper Fi, JoeQuote:
Originally Posted by browningautorifle
Never been there Joe. That's why the ask...Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe W
Fellas, I am so very proud of my son Jeff! I live vicariously through him and his stories. Jeff is a lance corporal in an MP unit. This photo below was a true highlight in my life! I love the bottom photo of Jeff during training at SOI in San Diego, albeit, Jeff is looking right at the camera! Ha Ha
Joe, if you hold my baby pictures against Jeff's baby pictures, the only way to tell the difference is mine are black and white!
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...60565989-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...07/Jeffb-1.jpg
Sorry it's not an M1 rifle photo :o
Jim, There was a time I wished I was "never there" either. LOL
Probably while at the hands of some DI or another. Contemplating life in the pushup position...
Great pics and I bet you are proud. I have a question about that second pic. The barrel profile is not an M4 stepped barrel. Is it a rubbie duckie? Or do they actually issue carbines other than M4's with a straight barrel? I have seen a few of these in pictures or videos, but not very often.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Hollinger
Thank you very much. I noticed that the barrel wasn't stepped as well and suspect it is rubber training carbine. Note there is not much of a sight channel in the carry handle. BTW, sorry for highjacking this thread of Veloce's :(
Yeah, I don't think there is a channel in there, so... probably the training rifle. But sometimes shading can be deceiving. Great looking young Gentleman.
Yes, it a rubber rifle. I noticed it right off...