Printable View
I have this M1 that is "correct" according to Scott Duff's book, but the extractor, rear sight cover, op rod have a lot more parkerizing than the rest of the rifle around the chamber. Could this "wear" be normal? Or is it obvious these parts have been replaced? I am not an expert, but would appreciate opinions from those much more knowledgeable than me. Thank You.
Just from what I see I would say that at least the op-rod has been replaced. Hard to say what is what and who is who without holding it.
Op rods usually run darker than many other parts for some reason. But the heavy stock sanding is certainly a sign of rework. In which case: "Parts is parts".
Thank you jmoore. May I ask how you can tell "heavy stock sanding"? Because this rifle's stock was covered in grime when I got it. I had to use Murphy's Oil Soap and 0000 steel wool to clean it enough to see the SA/GAW, and of course you can only barely see it now. but it was totally invisible before. Yikes! did I make it that faint by using the 0000 steel wool?
The edges aren't as crisp as expected. And the receiver overhang at the left rear is a clue. Add the faint marking (at least it's there!) and you have all the signs of an old overhaul. Check around the buttplate as well. As you note, it's probably a "correct" rifle. But the odds of it being factory "original"? Teeny! In the US, at least. Seems that the best place to find "used but original" M1 rifles any more is in NW Europe.
Thank You jmoore. I love the M1 but I have alot to learn. You said, "The edges aren't crisp as expected". Which edges please. And an old re-build. Any guesses by whom? A Bubba in the 60's or 70's? I understand there has been plenty of time for the re-build then for the stock to be covered in grime over that. I have been curious since I got it why the rear sight cover and some of the rear sight have more parking than the chamber area. And the grooved rear handguard clip seems strange too. I'm just trying to figure who would do it. I've only seen a grooved rear handguard clip for sale on GB once, for $100 and it was bought before the next day. I'm just curious. I like the WWII M-1's the best. My Uncle was a Marine with the 6th Div. wounded on Okinawa. His leg was amputated after he was flown to Saipan. I thought of him when I bought that rifle. He passed in 2006. Anyway, any additional light you, or anyone else could shed would be appreciated.
Grooved bands aren't all that uncommon (at least they used to not be). Often Winchester, which will have visible machining marks on the various surfaces. But likely way too early for your rifle, unless they were digging deep into the parts bin!
The follower rod seems a bit early as well.
Where's the REAL collector types when you need 'em? Used to have most of the parts pretty well nailed down, but am out of practice...
The grooved rear handguard band was gone by July-August 1942, early gas trap period rifles had the grooved rear handguard band with the drawing number inside (two variations). you need the correct tool to remove the band. The follower rod is the short fork which would not be found in a rifle with your serial range, the op rod catch could be
Winchester. If you can provide more photos of the internal parts, they might be able to be identified. As jmoore stated the stock has overhang on the rear of the receiver. The rear sight cover might not be SA
That would suggest some form of butchering took place here. No such thing. This rifle seems to be fit and fine. Just mismatched parts and that's common with military re-builds. The stock is heavily sanded as suggested, because of the low left top at the receiver tail and the faint inspector's mark. Look through this forum and you'll see mint examples. The grooved band was what came to hand at the time. Probably what was on the lower hand guard. If it was good, it was used. You can find excellent examples of this rifle if you just search this forum. There's pictures of every angle of the wood work and metal parts for your examination...Quote:
Originally Posted by SRiverrat11
There is no electro-penciling on a reciever leg and all parts appear to be correct or earlier than Nov/44. Could that happen with a military re-build like Springfield's program in the 60's? I'm not trying to be dismissive of anyone's opinion. I truly value them. I'm just trying to figure this out. I will post more pics to help.Quote:
Originally Posted by browningautorifle
I have a Danish return that has no electro pencilling. Mine is like that. It came in with a matching finish and perfect 1959 marked barrel. I've seen many with US barrels as well from this source. They truly used anything in the bin. There are so many sources that could have had it and returned it, and this done so long ago...it's hard to say just what took place. Not everyone marked their re-builds.
OK. The heavy sanding explains the faint cartouche and the wood in such great condition. If its a military rebuild, why didnt they replace the lock bar sights? Or repark it? This has a 10/44 SA barrel too. I guess some of this stuff I'll never know. Thanks to all. I still have volumes to learn. After reading many posts looking for similar M1's I have discovered there are many former Marines on this site. So Semper Fi!Quote:
Originally Posted by browningautorifle
My M1 that I referred to has a lock bar too. It was serviceable so it was left alone. #3340115 SA a Danish rebuild. I've seen grooved lower bands, forged trigger guards, early gas cylinder locks clean walnut with inspectors markings...just whatever they had that still was good. The best part is, I witnessed the Danish carrying these in Cyprus in 1975 as personal weapons...so I know they used them for duty.
I believe that didn't start until 1964 or 1965. Prior to that, rebuild marks were usually on the stock, but of course stocks often got switched with another rifle. AFAIK the first receiver marking was the SA-52 on the heel.
An additional factor is that civilian folk have been doing the "mix and match" game to configure their rifles as they see fit for many, many years. Between military rebuilds in all sorts of countries and folk "improving" their rifles, there's not but a teeny number that are as left their factory. Probably less than 1%.
That would be 50,000+ rifles :)
I would like to thank you all for your sound opinions. I am learning so much here, and have already got back more than the "Contributing Member" fee was.
:cool:Quote:
Originally Posted by bob seijas
It DOES give one hope that they're out there. But I've yet to obtain an early to mid WWII rifle that's without suspicion in 30 years of admittedly fairly casual looking. Now that prices for reasonably correct rifles have risen so high, it's an ever harder quest. Have come close several times, but the most correct one I have (from Dec '41/Jan '42) came with a Gas Trap trigger group and a EMcF stock. Would reckon most of that nominal SWAG 1%/50,000 would be Korean or Post Korean War vintage.
Attachment 43236Attachment 43237Yes, agree that far more Korean era guns are found mint than WWII rifles... CMP has found hundreds in the last few years. However, those early rarities do turn up with some regularity, I have a 6-digit WRA with no-trap stock that is 100%, apparently issued to a lighthouse keeper during WWII and not used. Perfect 1945 guns continue to be found, the GCA Journal has written up a perfect 19000 Gas Trap, a perfect matching M1C, and a perfect 4-43 SA.
I know it's a reach Bob, but do you suppose you could show us a bit of this one?? Please??Quote:
Originally Posted by bob seijas
It was the Featured Rifle in the Spring 2011 GCA Journal, three pages of photos and a data sheet :)