Pre Pearl Harbor Garand questions

[Rob W.]

I mentioned that I believe it was a lend lease Garand and had what I thought were some British proofs and something like "18 tons" stamped by the date on the barrel. Is that the only place a rifle would be stamped? The pistols I've seen were stamped all over the place - frame, slide and barrel. Does the barrel stamping hurt the value? If I get to see it again I'll have to take some pics of the rear sight.

Information

Warning: This is a relatively older thread This discussion is older than 360 days. Some information contained in it may no longer be current.

[Joe W]

I mentioned that I believe it was a lend lease Garand and had what I thought were some British proofs and something like "18 tons" stamped by the date on the barrel. Is that the only place a rifle would be stamped? The pistols I've seen were stamped all over the place - frame, slide and barrel. Does the barrel stamping hurt the value? If I get to see it again I'll have to take some pics of the rear sight.

Rob, I had posted this on the CMP forum in regards to a question regarding a British proofed 1911A1. Thought it might be of interest to you;

The following information is taken, in substance, from an article by Bruce Canfield which I found on his web site. The web site is no longer up.
British Proof marks do not,in and of themselves, have anything to do with "Lend Lease". These are non military markings required under 1950s era British Law. Any weapon that was in Great Britain, regardless of why or when, that subsequently left the country had to be inspected, proofed and stamped with the requisite markings.
As far as, are they "more desirable", that depends. As Canfield says " markings stamped on a gun in the 1950s due to bureaucratic regulations are no reason to pay a farting extra for such a gun.
The degree that the markings devalue a gun, if any, is strictly a matter of personal preference. Some collectors don't care a whit about the markings and others don't want such guns in their collections. Canfield also states, and I would agree, " Virtually any collector of U.S. martial arms would prefer, for example, a totally original 1941 M1 rifle without British markings to a rifle with such markings, assuming a comparable degree of originality and condition. A Garand rifle of this era with an intact red paint band on the wood would be an interesting example of a true "lend lease" rifle but, as stated, it would be better if the 1950s era proof markings were not present.