Thanks--I'm quite pleased with it.
I'd like some feedback from more knowledgeable members, but my "theory" is that it is post-war rebuild, and received a new barrel, and that it is simply a fluke that the receiver, barrel, bolt and stock are all Underwood.
The carbine is an almost identical match to my older rifle, in terms of finish, wear patterns, etc. There was a reasonable level of gunk and lint around the metal/wood interfaces, the wear patterns on the moving parts are pretty consistent and what I would expect, ditto for the wood, but the barrel is a bit of a puzzle to me.
The barrel appears to have not been fired through very much--there is little to no wear around the feed ramp or chamber as there is on my other carbine. There's very little wear around the muzzle or the sight fins.
The barrel appears to be dated 9-44. I say "appears" because the first "4" is very faint, and might be a product of wishful thinking. The 9 is distinct, the - less so, there's a gap/shadow of a 4, then a distinct 4. This seems to be consistent with my other carbine, as well: the "outer" numbers (and letters in the name) are very slightly more distinct than the "inner" numbers and letters.
The barrel and band have a very dark grey finish, and the areas of the barrel covered by either the band or the stock are quite a bit lighter which makes me think they have been in that configuration for some time--I tried to show that in one of the photos.
There's no visible proof mark on the barrel.
So, I guess my biggest questions for the forum are:
1:Would a replacement barrel have a proof mark, and if so what and where?
2:Is an Underwood barrel date of 9-44 correct?
Thanks to all--I enjoy lurking here every day, but it was finally time to come out of the closet, so to speak.............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.