Questions about an earlier M1 Garand

[TDH]

like the one sent to the Stock Shop and returned to Assembly over a year later. Sometimes they dipped into the contingency reserve if the flow of receivers was interrupted for things like machine breakdown, sharpening

Anyone that is familiar with manufacturing knows that as an operator meets his quota the extra parts go in a container and when they change to a different part the extras are set to the side and any parts from past runs of the new part is brought back to the floor. Lost a good job because of that one time. I was building differentials for lawn tractors and we had a model change. My good parts went against the wall and bad parts brought to the line that went into the transmissions which later came apart. I was on the line the day the transmission was built though I didn't build the failed part. That's when I found out my last name was Goat and my first was Scape.

[opzM1]

Thanks for the info guys, I'll take some more pictures and see if anyone can help me identify things.

[opzM1]

A few more pictures

[opzM1]

I know it's not correct, but here's what I have. It does have SA65? etched on one leg, and the op rod is winchester I guess. Let me know what you all think!

[Joe W]

I would change the rear sight to the correct locking bar type

Lock bar would not be correct for that rifle. It would need the Flush nut.
As to the "SA65", that indicates that the rifle was inspected and overhauled at SA in 1965 but does not mean that the barrel was installed at that time. If the barrel was serviceable it would not have been removed. The barrel most likely is original to the build. The face of the chamber appears that it might be parkerized. If so, that would indicate that the barrel and receiver were refinished as a unit. Had the original barrel, or the barrel that was on the rifle at time of overhaul, been found to be unserviceable and removed, the receiver would have been refinished and THEN a new barrel installed. In that case the chamber would not have any parkerizing on it. As collectors say, it would be (in the white). Nice rifle. It appears that is how it left SA in 1965 and I would keep it as is. There is no point in putting ALOT of money into a restoration of a rifle that has the rebuild marking on the receiver leg and also these Government Arsenal rebuilds, that have not been messed with, are becoming collectable in there own right.

[browningautorifle]

Flush nut

True, I guess I looked at it sideways and thought it was a 3M number. Good luck grabbing one of those to put on. A lock bar could be had. He may not be interested in changing it though... I suspect it'll shoot fine.

[Joe W]

True, I guess I looked at it sideways and thought it was a 3M number. Good luck grabbing one of those to put on. A lock bar could be had. He may not be interested in changing it though... I suspect it'll shoot fine.

Looks like it could still be as it left SA in 1965 after overhaul. If so it would be best to keep it as is. It would be "original" to the rebuild and these are becoming collectables as such. Joe

[browningautorifle]

Looks like it could still be as it left SA in 1965 after overhaul.

Yes, that's not unreasonable...

[Bad Gambler]

I also have a SA 65 Garand with the same terrible handwriting on the receiver leg. Mine is a Winchester with a 11/44 SA barrel. It came from the CMP South Store.

I personally wouldn't change a thing to your rifle. In fact, I would love to have it in my collection. Its a beauty.

[opzM1]

The rifle is so nice as it is, I don't believe I'll change a thing. I bought it very reasonably from the guy that got it from CMP in the early 90's and have be box etc that it was shipped in. I think it will be a nice piece in my collection