97 trench gun, looks real except?..

[bob4wd]

Got a question or two on my 97 takedown trench gun, s.n. 946209, matching numbers
First the good news:
Barrel is dated 42
Barrel has the flamingbomb
Left side has the U.S. And flaming bomb stamps
Action and finish still have most all of the original finish, showing very little use.
Shoots good.
Now the bad news:
The gun is heavily pitted, the wood has many worm holes (no, really!) and seems to be some light weight wood, not walnut.
No stock markings at all
No rear sling swivel nor was there ever one.
The story i got when I bought it, long ago at the defunct Great Western gun show (sigh), was that it came from the Phillipines and was originally supplied to them late in the war
, which explains the little-use but obvious signs of being left on the jungle floor appearance, and perhaps the replaced stock, although it sure looks like a genuine one.
Now the big question- how do I tell a real military issue heat shield and bayonet adaptor from repro? There are no markings whatsoever on either, at least not any that I can find.

No rear sling swivel nor was there ever one.

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.

[scosgt]

Got a question or two on my 97 takedown trench gun, s.n. 946209, matching numbers
First the good news:
Barrel is dated 42
Barrel has the flamingbomb
Left side has the U.S. And flaming bomb stamps
Action and finish still have most all of the original finish, showing very little use.
Shoots good.
Now the bad news:
The gun is heavily pitted, the wood has many worm holes (no, really!) and seems to be some light weight wood, not walnut.
No stock markings at all
No rear sling swivel nor was there ever one.
The story i got when I bought it, long ago at the defunct Great Western gun show (sigh), was that it came from the Phillipines and was originally supplied to them late in the war
, which explains the little-use but obvious signs of being left on the jungle floor appearance, and perhaps the replaced stock, although it sure looks like a genuine one.
Now the big question- how do I tell a real military issue heat shield and bayonet adaptor from repro? There are no markings whatsoever on either, at least not any that I can find.

No rear sling swivel nor was there ever one.

Post pictures

[bob4wd]

Post pictures

I'll do that but it'll be a few days- I'm on my way to the Reno gun show in a couple hours. Long drive!

[bob4wd]

Here are a few pics. Sorry about the poor focus, but my old camera lacks a close-up lens, plus my old arms lack an anti-shake mechanism. But if anybody really cares, i could rig up a tripod, I guess.
But- no markings at all on the adaptor/heat shield, but all of the correct ones on the gun itself, except for the stock which is a replacement.
So what do we think- is it a hit or is it a miss?Attachment 26121Attachment 26122Attachment 26123Attachment 26124Attachment 26125Attachment 26126

[Tom Doniphon]

An unmarked bayonet adaptor is correct for that gun.

It looks like a real WW2 Model 97 trench.

[bob4wd]

Well how about that. Not bad for a couple hundred only afew years ago! Thanks.

[scosgt]

The parts shown in the pictures look right

[RobSmith]

Looks good to me. Worm holes/cosmetic water damage on the wooden parts is not terribly unusual for firearms that have seen service in Asia.