Possible lend lease

Picked this up the other day. Not pristine in any shape or form, but I'm pretty sure it is original. Other than the worn stock, the only thing that detracts is someone drilled and tapped the receiver for a scope mount:crying:. I will try to get pictures posted tomorrow. Breakdown as follows.
SA 312483
-2 SA bolt RE1 with BNP proof mark
Checkered elevation
Knurled windage
Flush nut
SA GHS stock with long channel "O" marked in channel?
SA 8-41 barrel marked upside down
British proof marks on left front side of barrel behind front sight
1-SA trigger guard
5-SA trigger hsg.
2 SA hammer
6 SA safety type 2 without tooloing hole
3 Sa uncut op rod
12 SA receiver with BNP proof
Type 4 short fork follower rod
Front sight seal
Single slot lock screw ( no finish)
Type 1B grooved rear handguard clip
TE 1 1/4
MW 0
Type 1 round firing pin
Round clip latch
Rear sight cover marked "B"
Blued extractor
Type 2 op rod catch in the white
Type 3? follower arm
Type 2 follower arm pin unmarked
Type 2A follower
Type 2B bullet guide
Type 1 gas cyl. lock
Type 2 variation 2 stock ferrule with hole
Type 3 handguard liner
Type 2 trigger
Type 1 hammer spring plunger

Sounds just about the same as mine. Mine's 328219, mine has the LL return markings too. The receiver CAN be sorted out. There's threads here about doing that very thing if you wish.

Finally got some pics. Link to album: http://s186.photobucket.com/user/Irw...arand%20312483
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...9_151959-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...9_151813-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...9_151735-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...9_151659-1.jpg

---------- Post added at 04:33 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:29 PM ----------

More pics
http://i186.photobucket.com/albums/x...129_151604.jpg
http://i186.photobucket.com/albums/x...129_151557.jpg
http://i186.photobucket.com/albums/x...129_151308.jpg
http://i186.photobucket.com/albums/x...129_151259.jpg

Looks good, I wouldn't say the wood is so hashed up. I wouldn't sand it again though. Steam will pop most of those dents out I think. There's a couple guys around here can fix those screw holes so they're gone...but then you'd have to re-finish the receiver...it has nitro proofs which puts it in a different group and some don't like them as much. Thing is, it's worth lots just because of the sum total of the old parts. I'd just keep it like that. Matter of fact, I have one...

What do you guys think its worth? Should I have the receiver repaired?

---------- Post added at 04:51 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:48 PM ----------

Jim, if you look at the wood close enough, you can see a lot of sanding scratches going in all directions. Plus the color is light in some areas and dark in others. Looks pretty ugly to me.

---------- Post added at 04:53 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:51 PM ----------

There will be a whole bunch more pictures in my album in a little while. Uploading them as I type this.

Like I say, if you do then it has to be re-finished. It might be better left alone. I see the scratches, but that cartouche is worth a fortune. It's half gone now and you can't afford to lose it. If it needs a liquid strip and buff with maybe scotch brite, that would be about all. It will blend scratches but not remove wood. If you use a walnut stain or oil it should blend it in colour. I'm not sure Tung or BLO will do it. Others here have more experience with those two. There's a couple here that do extensive wood repairs, they'll be along. Value depends on your area. They're different here in Canada as opposed to where you are(U.S.).

Bob, What are you thinking on the stock.? Are you up to a complete refinish or do you only want to try and blend colors.?

Edit> don't know why I couldn't remove my pics! anyway, this rifle was a repair and complete refinish....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WarPig1976

Bob, What are you thinking on the stock.? Are you up to a complete refinish or do you only want to try and blend colors.?

---

I'm not sure yet. I think I'll see what the consensus thinks before I decide. I don't want to lose any more of the cartouche.

I vote refinish, Way easier then trying to blend.

I would leave the rifle as is. It is sad and a shame that the receiver has been drilled and tapped for a scope which also leaves it scratched up a bit. Unfortunately, I have seen way too many Lend Lease rifles with this travesty. I myself have three I found on auction sites over the last few years.

One came with the scope installed, one with the mount only, and one had the holes plugged and the receiver "painted" to very nicely match the color and finish of the rest of the receiver. The fellow who made this repair is/was a hobbyist of miniature metal soldiers which require painting so he used his experience and knowledge from his hobby to achieve a very fine "repair". The plugged holes are still visible but they do not jump out at you. He painted only the entire flat vertical face of the receiver where the scope screw holes and clip latch are, not the entire receiver.
Personally, I would not try to fix the rifle. Admittedly that damage will decrease the value when it comes time to sell the rifle. Unfortunately, there are too many guys who would not hesitate to destroy this original rifle for its parts and congratulate themselves for doing so. Such a shame.

I acquired the first such drilled and tapped rifle in Nov. 2004 with the intention of cannibalizing the parts, but I cannot bring myself to do it. In thirty years of collecting rifles and acquiring many parts, I have "restored" only one rifle. That was this year on a 2.07M SA. Since then I have acquired an original 2.05M SA so I may just "unrestore" the 2.07M. I wanted a SA rifle or receiver with the annealing that touched the rear receiver legs. Now I have two.

From your pics, your rifle looks OK as compared to many original rifles I've seen, Lend Lease and others. The finish on the receiver is beautiful and to repark it would be a further insult to your rifle. I withhold any completely firm idea about the stock without being able to see it in person. From your pics though, I think I would leave it as is with its dents, dings, and gouges.

I have to say, I pretty much agree with EdG...

Sporterizing LL rifles in various ways was very common when they were imported, there were even articles in gun magazines on how to do it. The guns were in wonderful condition, they were cheap, and they had no collector value (ha ha) with those British proof abominations. Even Griffin & Howe offered to sporterize your M1 and add a scope plus a custom fit wood cheek piece.

I have the articles here still on how to get rid of the wood weight and move the gas back a bit. Scope it so you had a bit of accuracy and a recoil to tame the unmanageable recoil...

Would you guys say that this a lend lease, or is the jury still out on the matter of it being proofed on the front of the barrel instead of behind the op-rod? What do you guys think its worth in the current state?

The later exports were proofed on the front of the barrel. Earlier ones were done under the op rod.

Don't recall ever seeing one on the SIDE of the front of the barrel, only on top. A transition between the barrel date area and the later top front type?

I've never seen them marked at the front, just heard about it. We don't get so many of them here.

So, are we calling this a lend lease or is it a run of the mill rifle that was proofed for export?

The serial number alone put it in the LL group.

I too agree with EdG, especially his comment "Personally, I would not try to fix the rifle. Admittedly that damage will decrease the value when it comes time to sell the rifle. Unfortunately, there are too many guys who would not hesitate to destroy this original rifle for its parts and congratulate themselves for doing so. Such a shame "

As to your question " So, are we calling this a lend lease or is it a run of the mill rifle that was proofed for export? ". I had hoped Bob Seijas was still following this thread and would answer this question. As it appears he is not currently following the thread, I will tell you what Bob replied to a question I asked some time back. It was his opinion and "undocumented theory", that the rifles with the British proofs in the date area, behind the op-rod, are LL for sure. Those marked between the rings of the gas cylinder might also be LL, but there's no guarantee unless the rifle screams originality on its own.
To me, it sure looks to be a LL, but how can you know for sure. Bottom line, does it really matter considering the receiver. It's greatest value, like it or not, is in it's parts.

Joe said it about the safest way. There's no way for someone like me who didn't deal with the import of the LL rifles to say it's an LL for sure. The number makes it desirable though in that area...it's right in the block of the LL.

I am following the thread, Joe, and you answered it perfectly. My rationale is that when Sam Cummings bought the original lot of LL guns, he had them proofed in the chamber area to make the proofs less obvious. Collectors back then hated non-standard marks and he knew it would hurt their value (it did). After the success of the initial deal, he scoured Europe for Garands and imported a lot of them. They all came through his warehouse in Manchester no matter where they were found, so had to get proofed. It was far easier to mark them up front on the barrel, and later imports got stamped there. Were some LL? Probably, unless he got all 38,001 on the first shot. Were some from other sources? For sure, we gave the Free French 300,000 and never got a one back. My point has always been that you can't be absolutely certain they were LL if they are not marked in the date area as the original first lot was.

However, I have also felt that putting a big premium on LL guns is pretty thin justification. The attraction to the LL guns was their superb condition and pre-war manufacture. That was worth a premium, because after the war it was hard to find an unused M1, especially an early one. So the gun has to stand on it's own.

Thanks guys. I appreciate the help.

That's a beautiful rifle. I wouldn't do anything to it. It's an original and I would overlook the screw holes. Could always use the holes to make a replica M1C if looking at them was bothersome.

Here are two, not stamped with Brit Proofs over the chamber area.

The first is a 687xxx SA with 6-42 bbl.
Brit proof stamped on the top of the bbl at the front, but NO crown stamp on bolt or receiver.

The 2nd is a 325xxx with 8-41 bbl. It is stamped with Brit Proofs on the side of the bbl at the front. The receiver and bolt are both stamped with the crown on the 325xxx.





Attachment 48032Attachment 48033Attachment 48034

Supposition/question.......... when the garands came back from England, not necessarily LL---is it possible that the first imports were stamped at the muzzle end initially, and that became objectionable, so Cummings then had the succeeding bunch stamped at the Chamber to make them more acceptable?

LL can obviously only fall in a certain serial #range, and the rest may just be interesting guns. Mine many just be interesting guns in ex condition.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

Supposition/question

---

Read post #22. This is his first hand knowledge.

The Distribution of the screw holes reminds me of the mointing screws used on the M1 C sniper equipment.

The proof marks ( barrel) etc are British Commercial proofs ( ie, the rifle passed "in trade" through the UK after it was surplussed from anywhere in the world) Nothing to do with "Lend Lease"
AFAIK, The US did not "Lend Lease" any M1 Rifles during WW II, but did "Military Aid" a lot of countries AFTER WW II. A small batch of M1s were used by Canadians ( at Dieppe) and reportedly a few were "Trialled" during WW II by British units ( ?Royal Marine Commandos?)
but it seems these did not come under formal "Lend Lease" arrangements.

Before writing off the screw holes as "Bubba" I would check the M1C screw hole arrangement to see if this is correct. Complete M1Cs are like hens teeth....Probably nearly all were dismantled when the M1 D (Barrel Mounted scope) camne into service.

Doc AV ( I have an M1D, but not an M1C....)

Down Under.

The guns we sent to Britain were loaned to them under a formal Lend Lease Act by which Roosevelt was able to get around our neutrality laws. We sent some old Destroyers under it, too. Britain was woefully short of rifles after leaving so many at Dunkirk, and they were under threat of imminent invasion. Nobody else qualified under the Act because they had all been overrun and Russia was allied with Germany at the time. Pearl Harbor ended our neutrality, and the act was repealed in the spring of 1942. We did provide M1s to others after that but it was not under Lend Lease.

As to how they were marked, the Interarms deal was the first importation I can recall. All those I ever saw at the time were marked in the chamber area, never saw one marked up front until much later. BTW, the Brits were supposed to give them back when they were no longer needed, but they sold them to Sam Cummings. Nobody cared about them at the time so no objections were made.

The Lend-Lease Act gave the President virtually unlimited power to send weapons, food, ships, and anything that would aid our allies. While the term Lend-Lease sounded good, he could loan, give, trade, or whatever he deemed appropriate to get aid to our allies. Some of the L-L material was traded for harbor space and facilities. It was much more than sending small arms.

As military rifles the M1's did not have to be proofed when they reached England, but before they could be sold commercially they had to go through one of the British proof houses. This was British law on any weapon that came from a country that did not have a reciprocal proof law with England, which the US did not. All the British proofed L-L M1 rifles I have seen have been proofed under the requirements of the 1955 Proof Act. I have one with the chamber proofs, and one with the barrel proofs. The barrel proofed rifle was proofed in 1960, but can't quite make out the letter for the date on the chamber mark.

The Lend-Lease Act was in effect until cancelled by President Truman in September of 1945. Some that received L-L aid were the British Empire, Canada, China, French Forces, Russia, and some of the American Republics. The U.S was still sending 1911A1 pistols to England in 1945. As with the L-L rifles, most of these came back in new condition.

Looks like you're right, Johnny, it was not formally repealed until 1945. I have seen records of a formal act to stop sending M1s to Britain in early 1942 and shipments were halted in April. Can't find it, of course, but it's out there. I always thought that was kind of late when we were screaming for rifles after Pearl Harbor.

There is a group of Colt 1911A1 pistols in the 2.27 million range which would have been manufactured in February/March 1945 time frame that were sent as Lend-Lease to England. The ones that came back were in new condition as were most of the others.

The theory I'm currently nursing : the location of the proof marks, whether under the op rod or on the muzzle, probably would not have involved Sam Cummings.
In 1955, I would not think that he would have enjoyed such influence with the British government or either proof house. He was relatively new to the arms business, having begun about 1953 if memory serves. Also, he did not necessarily have only the US domestic trade in mind when he started his business. I'm sure the sales of these military firearms were intended as much for or maybe more for other countries, including pre-Castro Cuba.

My thinking is that the proof laws required the proofs to be on the chamber end. Birmingham proof house, having such a long and cumbersome proof mark, probably found it difficult and tedious to stamp it there so appealed to the British proof gods to move the proofs to the muzzle when Cummings came back in 1959 or 1960 to purchase another batch of M1 Garands. I have seen what appears to be a K (1959?) and an L (1960?) on the muzzle.

Since London proof house had a simpler stamping with no date code, it would have been easier to mark the chamber end and so continued to mark the barrel on the chamber end. To date, I have not seen a London-proofed Lend Lease era rifle marked on the muzzle. Unfortunately for collectors, having no date code by London, we cannot determine when the London-marked rifles were acquired and proofed. (I have seen rifles outside of the Lend Lease period that are London- proofed on the muzzle, especially postWWII rifles and particularly several International Harvesters.)

Is it possible that London house and Birmingham house both proofed the 1955 batch of M1 Garands due to a large inventory being acquired by Cummings, but only Birmingham house was engaged to proof the later acquisitions due to smaller numbers of rifles or maybe London house being too busy doing something else? That is one guess that would account for no muzzle London proofs.

I have not yet seen the Birmingham date code F (1955) anywhere but under the op rod. And F is the only code I've seen there. No F codes on the muzzle, no K or L under the op rod.

If Cummings did ask that the proofs be marked under the op rod so that US buyers would not be turned off by them, why was the crown over BNP still stamped on the top of the receiver instead of under the op rod handle where London placed its proof stamp? And why would the later batches of rifles then be marked on the muzzle?
Of course, the proof marks were disdained and stayed that way until very, very recently. Now the Lend Lease rifles are highly sought after and the current prices have exploded!!!
The Lend Lease rifles were shunned by many collectors due to the proof marks and because they had not been issued to US military personnel. Not too many years ago, I picked up several for very low prices because so few collectors wanted them. I wish I had bought all I saw or at least all I could have afforded at that time.

I agree with EdG, as once the British decided to put the U.S. made small arms on the commercial market they were sent to the proof houses in order to get them ready to sell. I have never seen any figures as to how many of the 38,000 M1 Rifles were returned to the U.S., nor how many of the almost 700,000 pistols and revolvers, but it would have been a tall order for the two proof houses as most appear to have been proofed under the 1955 proof law. The 1911A1 pistols are a mix of London and Birmingham proof houses, but over the years from what I have seen the Birmingham proofs seem to be the most common on the M1's.

The first of the 1911A1 pistols had "RELEASED BRITISH GOVT. 1952" and "NOT ENGLISH MAKE", but the 1955 proof law did away with the latter marking, and it appears the release date just went away as probably being too much trouble.

Years ago I asked the Birmingham Proof House historian why the location of the proof marks was changed to the muzzle area. I don't know what his source of info was nor how deeply, if at all, he researched the issue, but his response was that it was simply easier to mark the guns near the muzzle than near the chamber area.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tom Doniphon

it was simply easier to mark the guns near the muzzle than near the chamber area

---

And that's what I always figured the reason was.

"never seen any figures as to how many of the 38,000 M1 Rifles were returned"

Funny story about that -- in about 1980 I wrote to Interarms and asked a lot of questions, including how many they imported. I got back a letter brushing me off and saying they don't give out information. I got mad and followed up with a nastygram on Morgan Stanley letterhead and all my titles. That elicited a reply directly from a guy named Ring who evidently was the boss under Cummings. He was not impressed with my prestigious Wall Street credentials and began with, "It's obvious that you know as much about weapons importation as I know about the stock market, which is not much." He went on to say that this was all highly confidential information, and they would not answer my questions. I chuckled and invited him to visit the Stock Exchange, saying I'd be happy to show him around and further his education. I never heard from him :)

How many of the 38001 ended up back in the States? There was a book published many years ago with a title like 'Merchants of Death', or some such - my copy is in storage at the moment. This book had a chapter on Sam Cummings and Interarms, in this it stated that he purchased 25,000 from the British Government and that these in turn were sold to Haiti, Guatemala and Indonesia. When they had the riots in Haiti a few years ago I saw MI's being fielded by the Police or Army that were completely lacking any original finish.

There is a file in the British National Archives dealing with an 'American company's' offer to by Garand rifles, I have yet to read the file.

Regards

AlanD
Sydney

I remember that picture of the Haitian fellow with the Garand, can't remember where but you are correct.

Edit> it was here.!! Garand picture of the day #12-236

Here it is... 12-236 Garand Picture of the day - Haiti present day

I'd bet that it was a mixed up story. The first sale by the Brits was the LL guns, most of which were in warehouses. The government stipulated that only UK dealers could bid on them, so Cummings bought the defunct Brit firm of Cogswell & Harrison to buy them. There has always been an undocumented assertion that some M1s were issued to guard air bases, but I've never seen that in writing. It's possible that these were bought separately from the warehouse guns, most of which were minty when they came back. It's also possible that "some" of the Brit guns were sold to Haiti et al, but IMO the bulk came into the US. They were EVERYWHERE at the time, even Sears Roebuck.
Cummings did have CIA connections and fronted for them in supplying arms to people we couldn't openly associate with.

I have read a few good articles regarding Sam Cummings and Interarmco. One was "Arsenal on the Potomac" by William Armistead, published in the Oct. 1959 edition of "GUNS" magazine. The other was "America's Biggest Arms Merchant" by William B. Edwards. I believe this article was also in "GUNS", but not sure as the copy I have does not have the magazine noted. This article speaks of the various deals Cummings did with a number of countries. One such deal was described as follows " Cummings' most important single deal recently involved German war surplus machine guns. When the West German Army was organized, to Cummings fell the pleasantly profitable task of rearming them. From his New York foreign trade zone warehouses, Cummings sold a large quantity of MG 42's, the fast firing, efficient German light machine guns. This was his pride and joy, for they were all new. He had picked them up in "some European country where they were dumped when the Germans left after WW 2." Now, through the irony of the international trade in arms, they were sold back to the Bonn government."