Printable View
There are identified instances where NPM used Underwood parts. Is there any evidence that Underwood Recoil Plates were used in the second production block in the fall of 1943? My NPM M1's S/N 1955104 places it in the 2nd production block with a NPM Trimble (TN) stock that shows no decay or damage inside the stock at the recoil plate. Why would an armor change a recoil plate when replacing a rear sight? (The sight and sear seem to be the only non-original parts.)
NPM requested recoil plates (part no. C57150 ) from Underwood:
7000 early/old style recoil plates on 9-2-43
10,000 early/old style recoil plates on 10-1-43
5,000 new style recoil plates on 10-1-43
These being *Request Dates* not documented delivery dates.
Sears from Inland to NPM (part no. B200978):
50 on 11-9-42
550 on 11-9-42
1 on 4-13-43
These also being *Request Dates* not documented delivery dates.
Above Information pulled from Larry Ruths War Baby.
Lots of sub contractor to sub contractor swapping went on.
Maybe possible the recoil plate was supplied from UEF to Trimble.
HTH,
Charlie-painter777
2 reasons I could think of...Quote:
Originally Posted by ewall
1 being if the lock up to the receiver wasn't tight enough.
2nd being if it was a change over, swapping out the first style for the later/straight back one.
Cause he had a hard nosed Sgt standing over his shoulder.
As for the adj site. For shooting I much prefer. If shooting at someone because they are shooting at me or buddies, Type II or III sight would be most desired. Don't beat yourself over a misc part, many original internal parts have been swapped out thus tossing true history.
JMHO,
CH-P777
So there is a chance the recoil plate in my M1 left the factory that way. The BI sear is likely a replaced item. Would it be inappropriate to secure a NPM sear from a reputable source?Quote:
Originally Posted by painter777
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...CFE33481-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...990629A8-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...424A9C4F-1.jpg
It's your call on the sear, just remember when parts go in the parts bins...... they do get buried over with more incoming parts.
Swap it if you want, but I'd hang on to the one coming off and tag it.
BTW, Your Recoil plate looks to fit well enough. I try to keep the under side edge clean of grime.
Cheers and nice NPM... Happy New Year..
Charlie-Painter777
Thanks, and I intend to take good care of it!Quote:
Originally Posted by painter777
Happy New Year!
Ted
Personally, I wouldn't change any parts on this carbine since it already has the adjustable rear sight and changing other parts won't add to the value on this carbine. I mean if it still had a flip sight on it as it originally did then sure, go ahead and make the sear change if you want to, but this is such a nice, almost original carbine that I'd just leave it alone. BTW, I have a NPM in the I.51 range that is almost all NPM, (dogleg hammer included) but the stock and handguard are both wrong. I'd love to find the correct furniture one day, but I'm extremely content where I am right now.
Thanks, I am totally comfortable not doing anything to my rifle. The problem is that now I've got this damned desease and I need a mix-master to shoot!!! LOL!
The simple stock cleaning and research so far really indicates this M1 will stay as it is and frankly it shoots and functions very well. I need to get it to an outdoor range and shoot it at 50 and 100 yards to see how the barrel really performs. I do want to break down the bolt and trigger assembly to verify the last few parts for my Data sheet.
So as I re-read Charlie's identification that 601 Inland sears were supplied to NPM in 1942-43, there is no way I'm taking any chances on potentially altering a Carbine that could have left the factory exactly as it now stands (except for the flip sight). However, would it be dishonest or inappropriate to secure an original NPM flip sight to return the rifle to its original condition even thought the adjustable sight was staked. No, I am not thinking of ever selling this piece. I am ok with the milled sight not being original. I am just curious as to how far one would go to recreate an M1?
My 5.6 Winchester is all W and as made. It has one non W part: an AU recoil plate. Winchester received 5,000 recoil plates from Underwood in Nov 43 and my carbine was made Mar 44. There is another near mirror carbine in the data base with an Underwood RP, made at about the same time. Another way to tell if the RP is native to the stock is to look at the etching in the wood under the plate. There will be matching marks in the wood for every machine mark on the plate. If it is original to the stock it will be VERY hard to remove as well.
Thanks. In looking at the interior of the stock, it looks pristine around the area of the recoil plate. No scuffs or deformation around the recoil plate, just indentations where the plate resides. I am pretty confident this piece is original from the factory as the S/N is consistent when Underwood was delivering parts to NPM.Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveHH
Ewall,
Remember me saying to check wear patterns BEFORE CLEANING.
Take a look at this old post of mine, it will show you wear patterns to look for.
Mostly from page 3 on.
I try to do this at first tear down/inspection.
Harder to ID some patterns after cleaning.
This will also show scars from the original recoil plate impressed into the stocks RP seat.
FWIW,
Charlie-painter777
https://www.milsurps.com/showthread.php?t=38393&page=3
Charlie:Quote:
Originally Posted by painter777
Unfortunately, I was not on this site when I first secured my M1. Nor was I looking to become a collector. I wanted to replace a rifle I happened to sell 46 or 47 years ago for a shooter and a mild shooting gun to teach my grandson how to shoot. I did initially consult with a few collectors on the AR 15 Armory forum and they directed me to the Carbine Club and from there to here...
I read the suggested file and for the most part my National Postal Meter has come through quite well. I'll have to be a bit more deliberate in photographing EVERYTHING with my next M1. I still want a shooter as I will most likely be very careful with my early NPM.
Thanks for keeping me on the straight and narrow.
ewall,
After reading back thru my reply............. It reads BOSSY.
Surely not my intention.
Regards,
Charlie-painter777
LOL! Never took it that way... I have had a ton of helpful comments, including yours! And as a result of this, I now have this "collector's" habit under my skin....Quote:
Originally Posted by painter777
Just picked up an as issued NPM from very late in the first block. The sear stamp is only part which doesn't jive with most references. It is not a BI sear, but instead a B1 sear.
From the evidence and condition of the rest of the gun, I think it is a 99.9% chance of being original. I can't imagine that a near mint specimen would have had only a sear replacement post-WWII. The gun is not upgraded, and a Korean War bringback.
The recoil plate has no visible outward marks, BTW. I won't be removing it to check, though. I think you will see why I choose to leave it alone.
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...IG14192l-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...wWwF9vKl-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...fbnMLksl-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...L4SRm1fl-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...XVmqBGXl-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...rz6eu0gl-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...ktp9TmUl-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...75NhU2Ql-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...QmMgzlKl-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...0VUXNlvl-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...ATO4sHrl-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...uFFkqHtl-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...DiG6UBvl-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...vBu5s22l-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...yq6QUNVl-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...OESQCnul-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...10h7IKIl-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...FcqueLIl-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...2hUbvU4l-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...wn5WzGCl-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...xFU5IXIl-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...bVsJOKol-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...9nd5o7Ml-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...F9MC64ol-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...foYqFYxl-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...R4sn0wbl-1.jpg
Nice little carbine, if truly a bringback and untouched then it becomes a time capsule of information. It shows us the early features that I knew they were carrying at that time, not all converted to bayonet lugs, round bolts and adjustable sights. I had the chance to buy any amount of these unmolested carbines in the '70s when they meant nothing to anyone and were just being released by their thousands. You could find any manufacture and any features you desired. This one's classic and very nice...virtually all early features.Quote:
Originally Posted by martin08
I bought it from the daughter of a recently deceased Korean War Army Veteran. Her statement was that her dad came home from the war and hung it on the den wall, and it didn't come down until last week.
It did have about a ten year window from DOM to date of return, so there is a chance that something could have been changed out. But the condition just screams, "As-issued".
There is a little pitting on the bolt face, so it is not un-fired since issue. But it saw no hard service, nor any apparent post-WWI upgrades.
Just so you'll know, NPM used some type two recoil plates that had no markings on them. I have 1.511xxx that while not a mirror image to your carbine, it's very close. The finish on mine is better, but the stock and handguard on mine were both wrong; I've found both items recently along with a better sling. Your sear is odd, but I have heard of a few sears that have a similar marking to yours. I'd think a possible integrated part from someone, but I am not going to say that with any certainty to I look into it a but more. I prefer carbines like your that have a complete or near complete matching patina. It adds a certain authenticity to it that cannot be denied. Nice purchase!
NPM did incorporate small outside orders of sears into original builds, but the source of the B1 sear is tough to track down. I can only find one other reference on the net which has a similarly marked item. It is also in an NPM trigger housing with correct hammer and mag release markings.
It is also possible that other B1 sears are mistakenly identified or reported as BI. There may be more of them than we think.
On the patina, I do believe that it is mostly dried oil. There is likely a near pristine finish underneath. In order to show maker marks on items such as the rear sight, I needed to take a q-tip and oil to clean, or the letters would not show. The S-stamp on the left sight base is a good example. You can see a very decent finish around the cleaned area.
I'm a stickler for leaving things alone, though. So the dried oil will stay. The stock had been finished with BLO by a local gunsmith just before the sale, and I did strip that with hand rubbing and soapy water. The raw linseed oil finish is ten thousand percent better. Here's a before and after.
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...VtxneQrl-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...vBu5s22l-1.jpg
No way I'll challenge that statement. My only point was here's what we saw for available carbines back in the '70's, all unchanged from issue and having been through two wars. So much for the mentioned parts being standard and all guns changed over for Korea...lots of as issued stuff carried on into RVN...and central America, South America...Quote:
Originally Posted by martin08
Anyway, nice carbine.
I've read a couple of times that it's hard to get RLO to adhere when BLO was there first. I would keep an eye on the RLO finish to make sure it doesn't dry up. My barrel is an Underwood with a 6-43 date on it and only a punch mark as a proof about half way down the barrel from the front sight. I have the same MN mag catch, HN dogleg, square S flip and NN marked front sight. If you laid our carbines next to each other they'd be hard to tell apart from a distance. The sear again is odd. I have seen it mentioned, but yours is one of the few I've seen pictured. I'm guessing it's a dye issue or just simply stated a rarely seen marking.
This is "nit-picking," but it looks like the oiler is installed upside down. :D - Bob
Yeah, I noticed when I was processing pics. Already fixed.Quote:
Originally Posted by USGI
Beautiful example! What a find...