Type 2 NM WRA!

[Mark in Rochester]

Never say never

M1 Garand National Match Type 2, Winchester Repeating Arms Co., s/n 1356251. This may be a one-of-a-kind Type 2 National Match M1 rifle as the receiver is of Winchester manufacture.

Scott Duff Publications & Historic Martial Arms: M1 Garand, M1 Carbine, M1903, Krag, M1911A1

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]

Want to hear what Bob Seijas has to say on this one. Reminds me of the HRA NM that was on sale on G.B. a few months ago. That one did not have DCM papers and most believed it was a team built rifle but it did look alot like a SA build. I know, someplace, there is a story of how this rifle came to be. Doubt we will ever know the facts behind it. I know the saying, "never say never" but.............

[Cosine26]

Rhetorical Question
I have a rhetorical question for the M1 Experts. The question concerns a “Winchester Type 2 National Match M1”
I am not a collector but my definition of a National Match rifle (be it a M1903, an M1 or an M14) is a match rifle built at the Springfield Armory by SA technicians to the specification in effect at the time the rifle was built. All others while they may be MATCH rifles are not National Match. This is not to impugn the accuracy of rifles built by armorers other than SA. I have a Match M1 built by an army armorer on a Winchester receiver using all NM parts that will shoot with any NM M1, but it is not a National Match by my definition.
It is my understanding that the first 800 NM M1’s were rifles taken from the assembly line at SA which when targeted showed exceptional accuracy. These were reworked and issued as NM M1’s. In subsequent years NM M1’s were either new M1’s taken from the SA production line or rebuilt M1’s from previous years which were turned in by service teams until 1960. After 1960 the M1 was no longer in production so that all 1960 and later NM M1’s were rebuilds. It would seem to me that all true NM M1’s (according to my definition above) would have SA receivers.
For many years from 1959 through 1969, the heyday of the M1 as a NM rifle, I lived within 20 miles of two Army posts, shot with and against the post teams, and knew the post rifle team members and armorers very well. Each year these teams when traveling to the National Matches at Camp Perry would turn in last year’s rifles and draw a new issue of the current NM M1’s. The “turn ins” would be rebuilt for reissue next year. I suppose that some of the receivers would be found to be “unserviceable” and would be replaced with receivers drawn from stock. I suppose that it is possible that at this time a receiver manufactured by a manufacturer other the SA could be introduced into the system but I should think that the SA would maintain a stock of receivers for replacement purposes. I would wonder if the artisans as SA would consider a Winchester receiver with its rough machining would be considered adequate for use in building a NM M1?
Just a rhetorical question for the experts.

[Joe W]

The one thing this rifle has that the service built match rifles do not have is DCM shipping papers. You might want to go to Adobe Wall's Place- WWW.GARANDITIS.COM and see what some recognized experts, such as Bob Seijas, have to say about this Winchester N.M. rifle.

[Cosine26]

Thanks for the Info.
The DCM papers would make a difference.
This is something that I have always wondered about.

[victorfourzulu]

It wouldn't suprise me to hear that a "couple" of rifles have been sold through the DCM or CMP as NM rifles when in fact they were not built along the guidelines collectors recognize ( SA Built ). NM barrles and bedded stocks are often found on service rifles. As I understand the CMP uses a great deal of volunteer help, and thier expertise may vary .... Like someone else said though, never say never...

[Curt]

I have a identical WRA to the one in question, about 8,000 off the serial number. I was told mine was a team rifle or presentation gun. I could see team rifle getting turned back in and making it's way to SA and appearing the next year as a real SA NM.

[Mark in Rochester]

From Garanditis

IMHO - (Bob Seijas) 07-24-09
It was mine, too, until this rifle turned up. I haven't seen it physically, but Scott assures me it is SA work and DCM docs. The only thing I can think of is that it was made when the SA NM program was desperate for raw material ... the Air Force ordered 200 NM rifles, and SA told them they could only build them if AF supplied regular rifles to rebuild, they had none on hand. If AF or another user supplied a WRA rifle, SA would have had no choice but to build it into an NM for them. This is the first NM I have seen in 35 years of looking at them that I could say appears to be a legit SA NM on a non-SA receiver. It's yet another reinforcement of "Never say never."

[Ramboueille]

Better to just post the URL directly rather than do it by proxy:

http://www.bulletinboards.com/TreeMs...Calling=No&x=x

[victorfourzulu]

As I see it, at best it's a bastard rifle. Everyone knows SA only wanted to use SA recievers. The nature of collecting may be such that oddities and abnormalities such as this (it may well be a very fine documented rifle, but it is undenieably off the beaten path) have a greater appeal than what is generally accepted by the collecting community and scholars therein as the norm. If this rifle were to bring the price of two comparable SA NM rifles, I would prefer to have the two SAs. It's kinda like the largest brain on record... it belonged to an insane man and wieghed 8 pounds. OK... the museums can fight over that one, I'm out of the bidding.