830k - original?

About a week ago I asked a question about parts in the white, and was kindly directed to a site w/ a fairly complete list of parts/sn's. I checked it out and now my question, does this rifle seem fairly original?
The story goes like this...A friend's lady friend knew a widow wanting to sell some of her late husband's guns. He was a WWII, armorer, twenty year vet, died recently, rip old Soldier, God will bless you for your service, no doubt. I offered to take a look and ended up spending way more money than I could reasonably explain to my wife to buy 4 guns.
Anyway, this is an 830k M1. I believe it is a piece of history, no indication it ever saw a depot after the war. Stock is sanded (dam!), no cartouche but a faint circle P up close to the trigger cut out, cant tell if it was serifed. Slant cut clip latch feature. Single slot gas cylinder lock screw. Gas cylinder and lock may have been wire brushed, but the front sight retains thin park. Narrow base front sight w/ screw cover. No chrome on the barrel, gauges 1 3/4 TE, 2 MW by CMP gauges. Short fork spring. -11 follower, -9 safety. I think that is a type II lockbar? Op rod latch and hammer plunger were white w/ no indication of wire brushing. I will let the pictures speak for themselves, and hope the resident experts will chime in.

Thanks in advance for your opinions.

Not bad

I think the barrel is a year too early for 830,XXX.

hmmm never occurred to me the barrel wasnt right, never checked the dates as they were both early. But now that I look, darn if it doesnt seem to be about a year early. I havent had the upper handguard off but didnt see any muck marks on the barrel.....
Is there no way it coulda come w/ that barrel? Any data out there show any variations? a year early is better than a year late?

I suppose you are right when looked at in that way. I rather doubt that the barrel would have sat around for that length of time in the early years of WWII when there was a mad dash to build up the "machine". On the other hand, never say never!

Although there is no way we can know for certain, it might be that the Receiver was "held back" until mid/late 1942. I remember reading in Scott Duff's Red Book on the WW2 M1 Garand Rifle that the Receiver Steel order placed by Springfield Armory was cancelled (maybe during 1942?). SA had a backlog of Receivers and was able to keep going until more steel could be produced.

Maybe, this receiver was one of the ones that was "held back"?

What are the receiver heat lot and revision number? Be sure to let us know if there is or is not a dash between the drawing number and revision number.
Thanks.
Could you post a picture of this?

The receiver is from Sept. 1942 and the barrel is from 1941, so the 1942 steel issue wouldn't have affected the discrepency between the older barrel and the "newer" receiver. That doesn't mean that it isn't original to it. That I could never say. The type II rear sight might also be considered a late feature that isn't correct. Again, who's to say that in a year or so, more information may surface that suggests that the type II was used earlier than originally thought. Regardless of what part is where, I wouldn't change anything on that rifle - not that you were suggesting that. I think it is a fantastic rifle and one to be proud of, as I'm sure you are.

By the way, oddities did occur. I have an October 1942 - late 800,000 numbered receiver that has the rounded front receiver legs - a practice that was supposed to have stopped around the 500,000 serial number range if memory serves. This particular receiver has a -17 revision number, and my understanding was that this number was stamped in pretty early in the production of the receiver therefore I don't believe that it is a hold-over from earlier production. As M1 Rifleman pointed out, Springfield stockpiled receivers in the event that something would necessitate a need, which happened when SA's steel order was somehow canceled toward the end of '42 for some reason. Those stockpiled receivers were then used until more steel could be acquired.

Here's pic of that receiver

[IMGW]http://i200.photobucket.com/albums/aa291/islandhopper11/1942receiverrightside.jpg?t=1242240287[/IMGW]

Its a -13. Here are the pictures.

Hey look, rounded receiver legs! Hum......Never say never!

my embarresment knows no bounds. Not only am I old , but I cant see. And senile. And dyslexic.
Did I mention idiotic?
I actually used to own rifle # 831xxx.
It was a fine rifle.
did I mention dumb?How about blind?
And I named the file names of the pictures 830k.
First impressions....?
Eye checkup in the morning!

Started thinking was it welded? and looked again........

Like Gilda used to say, ....Never mind!:banghead::o:red face::slap:

guess it is original:runaway:

The barrel anyway. Have to say the bolt is not. and the rear sight. Most of the trigger group.....follower.......
I'm going to bed.
Seriously hope you all can get a good laugh on me for your time.
jeeeeez.

Barrel is correct sight is wrong as are some other odds and ends. That okay though, it is still a very nice rifle!

You should have a flushnut sight on your rifle. Good luck ;>)

I have an SA 9-42 that I believe to be all original. The s/n is 8152XX. Early Sept '42. Bbl SA 9-42 (upside down). It has all the same features yours does, even the same heat lot on the bolt. What is the revision number on the trigger housing? You've got a real keeper there. Cherish it and don't change a thing on it. I wish mine still had the front sight seal--that's one terrific find of and by itself. Front sight seals just aren't found any more.
Thanks for sharing with us.
Jon

Makes sense now. Notice the hand stamped SA after the revision number and the rounded front legs. At first, before you mentioned that the serial number was a five digit and not an 800,000, I thought this one could have been a hold-over with that revision number and the rounded legs. Regardless, your receiver heel markings are spectacular and the parts on that rifle are awesome. Great rifle and I wouldn't change a thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by popup

my embarresment knows no bounds. Not only am I old , but I cant see. And senile. And dyslexic.
Did I mention idiotic?
I actually used to own rifle # 831xxx.
It was a fine rifle.
did I mention dumb?How about blind?
And I named the file names of the pictures 830k.
First impressions....?
Eye checkup in the morning!

Started thinking was it welded? and looked again........

Like Gilda used to say, ....Never mind!:banghead::o:red face::slap:

guess it is original:runaway:

---

Popup,

Forget it, I'm sure it's not your first error. Nevertheless, your rifle is nice and has a few updates that are not unexpected. The rear hand guard should have a milled, grooved clip so it's been changed at some point in the past too as have the other items mentioned.

I would leave it like it is for what it is, it's a nice rifle. :thup:

You might check under the rear sight for additional markings. I have an M1 from about that timeframe - S/N 852xxx, with part of the Heat Number under the rear sight.

There was an article in an earlier GCA Journal issue by Anthony Pucci about that topic.

I'm leaning towards the Type 2 lockbar being legit.... the Type 1's showed up in the 5/42 534k range and didn't last long before the type 2s showed up.