M1 Garand 1941 Springfield

Gents!

I don't spend much time on this side of the fence, as I usually play with the Arisaka crowd!:madsmile::madsmile:

However, I would like to show off my NEW (to me) M1 Garand receiver. While I have a .308/ NATO kit to convert a Garand, I won't spend it on this receiver, as I would like to actually dress it up USGI.

I am told that the Serial Number: 224,357, is an April make of 1941.

What drew me to it, was the two tone nature of the beast! According to the seller, this was the earliest SN that he had encountered with the two tones. I had never seen a two tone before, and was at a loss as to what it was until he explained...

I am told that the two tone nature, is due to a lead annealing process used on some receivers. Especially for grenade launching purposes, until a change in steel was done.

Here are some photos...

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...e97f7441-1.jpg

Two tone heel

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...1e63590a-1.jpg

Drawing numbers and heat code:

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...5669eda6-1.jpg

Just like with my 1903 that I am working on, this will be a multi year project, if I stick to my "guns" and rebuild with 1941 parts.

I have the "correct" bolt sourced for this already... so now onto the expensive and hard to get things to find!:surrender:

Thanks for looking!! And wish me luck! :cheers:

After the grenade launcher was developed, earlier receivers were annealed whenever they came in for rebuild. Some were also done at depot levels. That means you could find a two-digit with two-tone, I've seen 3-digit receivers that were annealed.

Very nice receiver. Can't wait to see the end result, whenever that is.

Ahhh.....the grenade launching fable that refuses to die .
The M7 launcher and the poppet valve vent gases at firing . The bolt does not travel back , therefore cannot strike the reciever heel , therefore cannot harm it in any way .
The recoil from firing moves back to the reciever and to the stock through the reciever legs , again no force on the heel.
Chris

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by emmagee1917

Ahhh.....the grenade launching fable that refuses to die .
The M7 launcher and the poppet valve vent gases at firing . The bolt does not travel back , therefore cannot strike the reciever heel , therefore cannot harm it in any way .
The recoil from firing moves back to the reciever and to the stock through the reciever legs , again no force on the heel.
Chris

---

Granted, but I think you may have misinterpreted what Bob said. He states "AFTER the grenade launcher was developed, earlier receivers were annealed ........", which is correct, but he makes no reference to the grenade launcher being the cause. If you have Canfields new book, see page 357 for comments by Bob Seijas on the "Lead Pot Annealing".

Thanks, Joe. Whatever the merits (and I have my own opinion), Ordnance changed to a less brittle steel. To be perfectly accurate, earlier receivers with the original steel were annealed. The change was made at the time of the development of the launcher.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Midmichigun

I am told that the two tone nature, is due to a lead annealing process used on some receivers. Especially for grenade launching purposes, until a change in steel was done.

---

Actually , I was refering to the OPs comment .
Chris

Sorry Chris, I didn't notice the last sentence of the OP's post until now. In any case, the comments by Bob Seijas in Canfield's book are an interesting and informative read.

Gents,
Thanks for the informative correction on the annealing. That is why the OP generally posts on the internet forums... to understand... learn... and humbly be corrected.

I will certainly buy Bob's book for the correct information, as I don't recall this being in the Canfield book that I currently own.

Perhaps the myth continues due to the proximity of the events tied to the statement "around the time the grenade launcher was developed" makes one conjure that they were related... I will mention this to the individual who sold me this receiver....

When I get a chance, I will post the bolt that I have sourced, for this receiver.

These bolts (NOS) would have been correct for your rifle when manufactured, both revision 2 heat lots J9A and RE2

During rebuild, the bolts would have been parkerizedAttachment 55360Attachment 55361

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Midmichigun

Gents,


I will certainly buy Bob's book for the correct information, as I don't recall this being in the Canfield book that I currently own.

Perhaps the myth continues due to the proximity of the events tied to the statement "around the time the grenade launcher was developed" makes one conjure that they were related... I will mention this to the individual who sold me this receiver....

---

The book I am referring to is Bruce Canfield's new book, " The M1 Garand Rifle". Bob Seijas wrote the forward and contributed
quite a bit to the book, especially in regards to the National Match M1 Rifle, but it is Bruce N. Canfields book. All 800 plus pages.

[QUOTE] I have the "correct" bolt sourced for this already... so now onto the expensive and hard to get things to find [QUOTE]

Finding a GHS stock that will match the wear of the completed restoration will be tough. But, I do wish you luck.

With the receiver refinished and annealed, I would restore it as a WW2 mid war or later rebuild, a modified rev 3 op rod could be located, lock bar Type 2 rear sight and perhaps a rebuild SA GHS stock plus a WW2 barrel. It would look nice

Well I for one have seen many split receivers at the heel and seen quite a few blown off. Many were on Parade rifles but hey Blanks just like those used on the grenades could never cause this right????? Knowledge and hands on is key. Rick B

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rick B

Well I for one have seen many split receivers at the heel and seen quite a few blown off. Many were on Parade rifles but hey Blanks just like those used on the grenades could never cause this right????? Knowledge and hands on is key. Rick B

---

Well , a grenade launching cartrige is NOT a blank , but , in a functioning system , you are correct .
Now , an M7 launcher with it's stem missing or shortened so as the valve won't open , yeh , I can see it doing harm .
A M1 with one of those aftermarket solid single sloted plugs with the large center hole that will accept an M7 with no valve to open , yep , them too.
An M1 with a BFA attached and fed a GLC instead of a blank , oh yeah , better believe I could see that .
Otherwise I'd just chalk it up to a lot of M2 ball or a lot of M2 AP .
Chris

I'm guessing that the decision was made in the early days of the launcher development when they didn't have the venting correct. Add in that some receivers cracked because the bolt recoiled too far as Rick B said -- I think this might have been the result of poor attention to tolerances during heavy pressure to deliver rifles in 1942. When the two were added together, SA made the decision to use a less brittle steel. I'm guessing, of course, but what was the risk in doing so? I'm not aware of any drawbacks to the new steel.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bob seijas

I'm guessing that the decision was made in the early days of the launcher development when they didn't have the venting correct. Add in that some receivers cracked because the bolt recoiled too far as Rick B said -- I think this might have been the result of poor attention to tolerances during heavy pressure to deliver rifles in 1942. When the two were added together, SA made the decision to use a less brittle steel. I'm guessing, of course, but what was the risk in doing so? I'm not aware of any drawbacks to the new steel.

---

I think that is true and part of it may have had to do with the early op rod springs. That spring had to perform several jobs, one of which was to prevent or at least reduce the impact of the bolt hitting the back of the receiver. We know SA used 2 types of springs before finally settling on the one piece round wire spring that came into use in December 1940. The original Keystone spring and the Keystone spring with the compensating spring were experimented with but eventually discarded in favor of the one piece round spring. I don't know exactly what the reasons were, but I think it probably had something to do with the problem of making a spring strong enough to slam the bolt into battery, but not so strong that it kept the bolt from travelling rearward far enough to pick up the next round, but also not so weak that when the bolt reached the end of the rearward travel it would hit the end of the receiver hard enough to break it. Too add to all those requirements, the spring also could not be so strong that it would be difficult for a shooter to push a loaded clip into the rifle. A difficult task to design a spring with the proper seat pressure and spring rate to reliably perform all these tasks. It would be interesting to know the seat pressure and rate of the early springs. The one piece Keystone was obviously too strong somewhere in the range of travel and that lead to the shorter Keystone with the compensating spring, which was an obvious attempt to build a dual rate spring that would be softer at the extended range of travel but would get strong quickly at the very end of the compressed range, probably in an attempt to prevent a hard impact when the bolt hit the rear of the receiver. Obviously neither were satisfactory and that is why the Keystone type were abandoned in favor of the round type.

Your reasoning seems sound, especially the need to develop a dual rate. Tuttle said Garand always hated the keystone, called it "that screen door spring." The comp spring was added to improve "sluggish" performance until Wallace Barnes was able to develop a round one that worked. No specifics on what sluggish meant exactly, but I think you hit it.

I think both of you hit it on the head . That would explain both being developed at the same time ( launcher & reciever ) .
Chris