M1 Garand Sniper Optics

[JMJS]

I'd appreciate your source for all this info given for future reference. Some pics of those three scopes mentioned would be nice for comparison use too.

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.

[Bob Seijas]

Dave McClain and I have been researching the M1C for about 40 years. We have over 5,000 observations in the database and can identify an authentic M1C receiver to at least 97% reliability. We have written four extensive research articles for the GCA Journal. The scope database is 15 single-spaced pages of observations. Johnny Bell and I wrote a detailed analysis of them for the Journal about ten years ago. When you look at the table of observations, things pop right out at you.
That's Dave on the left with Tony Pucci examining Tony's mint original M1C from the first 100 made, the finest M1C known, a museum piece.
Attachment 94389Attachment 94390

[JMJS]

Well, how can I access all of this information? I would like to read it. The four extensive research articles. The 15 pages of scope observations. The detailed analysis for the Journal. And the pics of those three scopes you mentioned. Having that kind of info can be a time saver and allow me to help others too.

[Bob Seijas]

Easiest way is to join the Garand Collectors Association and buy the Best of the Journal books, it's all in there. Our 8-page piece in the Winter 2013 Journal on the USMC M1Cs has a lot of good data on scopes. The serial and scope data bases are proprietary, we use them to answer questions, mostly from fellow GCA members.

[JMJS]

Easiest way is to berate a posting within minutes of seeing it. Refuse to prove what you say. Tell the poster to search somewhere else for the info. Then return to your bottled hobby? Sorry?

[rcathey]

The kind or research you're asking Bob to give away for free takes a very long time to acquire.
Further, some information is best not widely disseminated lest *better* fakes be created and muddy the market.
In summation, them's some mighty rough words from a month old member with 6 posts.
We're fortunate folks like Bob share any of their hard earned information with us for free.

[browningautorifle]

Easiest way is to berate a posting within minutes of seeing it.

You haven't been berated yet...matter of fact we were helping.

[JMJS]

That's why the tongue was bitten before re-posting. I guess not hard enough. Asking for help after doing as much info searching as one can, then having someone like Bob with decades of it, talk down to it, saying he has knowledge of three scopes just like it, is it too much to ask to see just one of them?

[Bob Seijas]

These are observed scopes in a statistical database, I only list the significant characteristics. The bf denotes full groove military caps numbered on top. The cd signifies the late commercial caps like those on your scope. The F denotes the rear lens housing is numbered, D means the turret housings are numbered. The spacing in the table doesn't show well on this post.

Alaskan 6916 1 left side bf || F A-W; GI internals; F # and Power rear
Alaskan 7282 #1 cd || 1DF 1 housing marked ALASKAN; F number and power at rear
Alaskan 7293 #1 cd || A-W, small rounded corners, no nbrs; ebay 1/06
Alaskan 7293 #1 cd || A-W; ebay 5/03
Alaskan 7673 #1 bf || A-W; clipped corners; ebay 1/07
Alaskan 8651 #1 cd || F A-W; rounded corners, pointer dials; ebay 12/05

[Bob Womack]

I am an audio recording engineer by trade. On online forums I visit people regularly ask technical recording questions. I'll often do some research for them. After investing a reasonable amount of time I'll try to give them an answer. By the time I answer I may have impinged on work and family time and have had to draw a line. I'll usually state the limits of my answer, noting that I am unable to go any further than a certain point due to constraints. I also usually have to scale the technicality of my answer on the basis of an estimate of technical capacity of the questioner.

Sometimes a questioner will come back with a demand for documentary proof of my answer or criticize the depth of the answer. That's pretty discouraging because he has no idea how much of my personal or professional time I have invested in answering his question and/or how I've had to scale down the technicality of my answer so that he can understand it at all. So, for instance, at the end of a four-hour research endeavor or after I've pulled out some gear and made a measurement or tried out a recording technique or even scoured my brains for an idea and then looked for an illustration, it's pretty discouraging to have someone throw my gratis answer back in my face. Frankly it would be easier to not answer but I do try to help as much as I can.

So, perhaps we could go easier on our resident experts who offer free info to those in need as they can. They've got lives and families outside the forum that rightly need their attention more than we do.


Bob