Printable View
I have the opportunity to acquire what appears to be a very nice WIN-13. Very nice overall with minimal throat & muzzle wear and nice cartouche. At first glance all the internals look correct. My only concern is the front sight. At its widest point it measures .761.
I thought the Winchesters were closer to .800 and had a punch mark of which this one has no such mark.
Any fellow GCA members / experts about to verify or deny.
My original DCM Win 13 front sight is .815 wide. I have an earlier WRA rifle that's partially restored, and the front sight is .802 so it would appear they are .800 or wider. Both have the punch marks.
That confirms my finding elsewhere. This to is a DCM gun that has an Aniston cartouche in addition to the WRA so that probably explains the mismatched front sight though all other internals seem to be correct for a WIN-13.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Dick
Perhaps I can add it to my modest collection.
I have the data sheets from the first Winchester M1 rifle (serial 100,001)
note the front sight is .785 inches wide. The early numbered gas cylinders from Winchester M1 rifles manufactured during the early years (1941 plus) also show the smaller front sight.
Sometime, I would guess, the larger front sight was introduced into production (1942 ?)
With the Win 13 production, it is difficult to set a standard of which parts are correctAttachment 138428Attachment 138427Attachment 138429Attachment 138430
Sorry for the poor photos, I do not have the measurements but here is one example from a WRA reference collection WIN13 of what it would have looked like new.. While it appears this sight has a punch mark, as RS says they were all not. You will at least be able to see the approximate width in this sight. regards.
Attachment 138451Attachment 138452Attachment 138453
Gas Cylinder appears to be painted in the imagesQuote:
Originally Posted by cpc
I HAVE seen some that were done with Oxynate 84 that had this extreme black look. Not done by military sources though...Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark in Rochester
It’s a well documented win-13 from the Winchester reference collection, it’s dulite.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark in Rochester
If you look carefully it does not compare well with the dulite pictured below also the chip on the back edge of the cylinder under the front sight seems out of placeQuote:
Originally Posted by cpc
https://www.milsurps.com/attachment....3&d=1738615065
vs
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo..._1785JPG-1.jpg
https://www.m1garandforum.com/fileda...?photoid=15092
https://thumbs.worthpoint.com/zoom/i...b98891caa9.jpg
I'm certainly no expert but I have to agree with Mark. Looks to be a paint chip on the side. Dilute should not act this way
I wonder if it's one of the spray on bake on finishes?
Don’t know what more to say. The rifle is listed as #3279, pg 472 in the inventory of WRA company firearms reference collection (rare book), the GCA journal 16-3, summer 2002, and canfields book on pg 373. I have a rifle with similar finish. It is exactly what mint and like new WWII dulite looks like.
I recall reading a post regarding a N.O.S. Winchester gas cylinder that when removed from the original packaging it pristine finish faded in a short time. I wonder if the du-lite finish would still be there after all these years.
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...cture562-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...cture516-1.jpg
More Here
https://www.milsurps.com/showthread.php?t=37148
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...esterWid-1.jpg
Is it Dulite or Dichromate? I wouldn't think Dulite blue would work well on steel with such high nickel/stainless content. I learned that the Dichromate black finish was very poisonous to apply. Many lower-level maintenance shops applied paint to them the same as post service owners have and do.
If my memory is correct, I recall that Winchester used a copper plating before the dark finish was applied to the cylinder. Also original WRA gas cylinders do not have a bevel on the bayonet stud.
Photo shows a WRA gas cylinder.Attachment 138759Attachment 138760
I've read an iron finish was applied.Quote:
Originally Posted by RCS
I think your correct Jim
Just looked again and deeper, here's a quote from Fulton's Armory quoting Scott Duff...
"As manufactured, the stainless steel gas cylinders were (literally) "in the white"; a variety of coatings was tested, including Armor-Vit and Silco Black. Eventually "a molten dichromate black" was found to be most durable. Winchester gas cylinders have been observed (that) were iron plated and blued. In adition, Winchester gas cylinders have been observed which appear to have been copper vapor plated and blackened" (Quote from Duff, "The M1 Garand: WWII," page 147)."
Here is my Win-13
I can take better pics if anyone needs them..
Win-13 1st day of production - Album on Imgur
I encountered this one in an estate. Appears to be a late type 2 national match. The only defect I can find is the sliver missing from the upper handguard. ME 1 TE 1.5. All NM parts are there save the front sight . Last four of the SN in the barrel channel. SN 548XXXX. Barrel date 6/54. Beautiful rifle.
Is there any way to verify the National Match Rifles other than rolling the $25 dice with the CMP hoping they had custody at some point?
While some gurus can do a very good job of verifying that it is more than likely a NM rifle, about the only way to really enhance the value to most collectors is to have a piece of paper verifying its NM history. The $25 spent, if on record, will add over $1k to your rifle to some collectors. It is well worth it either way, it’s just another piece of history documenting what you have. And because they don’t have a record of it doesn’t necessarily mean it is not a match rifle. For example I once sent in paperwork on a rifle I knew was a NM rifle but they did not have record of it, I waited a while and sent my request again and they found it and in the interim the seller found his dads paperwork and mailed it to me. I have another that they did not verify that experts believe that it is a type 1 that was modified by the shooter as upgrades became authorized. While I have no doubt, and is considered most likely a NM by experts, it is not papered will not demand the value on the secondary market should I decide to sell it later. Good luck! PS. They received the records from RIA and even if they never had possession of it they may be able to verify it’s history. Regards
Beautiful rifle! Is that a hardness test punch mark on the op-rod handle? I've never noticed that before, very neat thank you for postingQuote:
Originally Posted by Ls6man