+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: Sad / Quality.

Click here to increase the font size Click here to reduce the font size
  1. #1
    Really Senior Member Mikey51's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Last On
    12-29-2013 @ 02:09 AM
    Posts
    464
    Local Date
    02-22-2020
    Local Time
    07:47 AM

    Sad / Quality.

    A few remains I obtained. Opinions on stake marks and colour appreciated. Sometimes I buy bad / not so good stuff, in order to get to know others interested in the same subject. Cheers, Mike.

    Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version

Name:	Quality 4.jpg‎
Views:	334
Size:	74.6 KB
ID:	15977   Click image for larger version

Name:	Quality. 1.jpg‎
Views:	341
Size:	61.2 KB
ID:	15975   Click image for larger version

Name:	Quality.2.jpg‎
Views:	339
Size:	66.4 KB
ID:	15976  

  2. # ADS
    Friends and Sponsors
    Join Date
    October 2006
    Posts
    All Threads
     

  3. #2
    Member Ernie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Last On
    11-05-2017 @ 08:14 PM
    Location
    Midwest
    Posts
    34
    Local Date
    02-21-2020
    Local Time
    01:47 PM
    To my eye, I can see a pair of what were probably the original chisel marks on a flip sight at the far right side of the dovetail. It also looks like it was rebuilt 2 times based on the 2 different sets of punch stake marks for an adjustable sight. Nice springtube piece. Finish might be original although I would expect it to be a little less charcoal black and more of the green/black. I believe it might be refinished as I would expect to see a bit of difference in color under the woodline as above the wood line.

  4. Thank You to Ernie For This Useful Post:


  5. Avoid Ads - Become a Contributing Member - Click HERE
  6. #3
    Really Senior Member usgicollector's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Last On
    12-21-2016 @ 10:14 PM
    Location
    IL
    Posts
    448
    Local Date
    02-21-2020
    Local Time
    12:47 PM
    Looks to me that the 4 stake marks away from the dovetail could be from the early QHMC round staking when they staked the edge of the dovetail and the rear sight at the same time.
    I agree with ernie on it be refinished. Is it cut in half or just not original?
    Just wondering what is sad about it?
    Dave

  7. #4
    Really Senior Member Bruce McAskill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Last On
    02-19-2020 @ 11:57 PM
    Posts
    1,739
    Local Date
    02-21-2020
    Local Time
    01:47 PM
    Mike that has been refinished but it was not a very well done parkerizing job. But the receiver appears to be in good shape other then the stake marks for the rear sight and can be made into a good shooter.

  8. #5
    Really Senior Member Tired Retired's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Last On
    07-02-2014 @ 11:58 PM
    Location
    Fort Worth Texas
    Posts
    1,006
    Local Date
    02-21-2020
    Local Time
    01:47 PM
    Mike, can we see the rest of it please? From what I can see (half blind and with no morning coffee) it looks equivalent to some of the barreled receivers coming out of CMPicon lately. Is it in a rebuildable condition? I would hate to think that your receiver is useless since it is 4,000 into QHMC's production.

  9. #6
    Really Senior Member Mikey51's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Last On
    12-29-2013 @ 02:09 AM
    Posts
    464
    Local Date
    02-22-2020
    Local Time
    07:47 AM
    Thread Starter
    Gidday Tired. Yes, this poor old girl has been rebuilt and refinished to death ! I only got the barrel, receiver and trigger housing. Barrel is 6/44 Inland and housing was BE-B so they can go in the parts box. Only Quality part in the housing was the sear. I'll keep all the Quality parts. I dunno why, but Qualitys are very hard to find here. I think as Wtmr says about early STD PROs, "The ship they were all on must have been sunk". Hope these pics are what you want. Mike.
    Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version

Name:	Ed 10.jpg‎
Views:	195
Size:	55.6 KB
ID:	16038   Click image for larger version

Name:	Ed 6.jpg‎
Views:	193
Size:	55.5 KB
ID:	16039   Click image for larger version

Name:	Ed 7.jpg‎
Views:	100
Size:	52.7 KB
ID:	16040   Click image for larger version

Name:	Ed 4.jpg‎
Views:	93
Size:	50.0 KB
ID:	16041   Click image for larger version

Name:	Ed 8.jpg‎
Views:	101
Size:	50.0 KB
ID:	16042   Click image for larger version

Name:	Ed 2.jpg‎
Views:	101
Size:	90.9 KB
ID:	16043   Click image for larger version

Name:	Ed 11.jpg‎
Views:	99
Size:	73.6 KB
ID:	16044  

    Click image for larger version

Name:	Ed 3.jpg‎
Views:	101
Size:	66.1 KB
ID:	16045   Click image for larger version

Name:	Ed 5.jpg‎
Views:	97
Size:	51.1 KB
ID:	16046   Click image for larger version

Name:	Ed 1.jpg‎
Views:	96
Size:	77.8 KB
ID:	16047   Click image for larger version

Name:	Ed 9.jpg‎
Views:	89
Size:	55.7 KB
ID:	16048  

  10. #7
    Really Senior Member Tired Retired's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Last On
    07-02-2014 @ 11:58 PM
    Location
    Fort Worth Texas
    Posts
    1,006
    Local Date
    02-21-2020
    Local Time
    01:47 PM
    Mike, she does look a bit worse for wear. That tube looks like it may fall apart at any minute. But have faith that she still has alot of good shooting left in her. Kinda like Pamela Anderson - you just keep doing plastic surgery until you get her looking just right!

    I guess one question I am curious about for the New Zealandicon collectors... since ya'll have a limited number of carbines and a difficult time importing them, who has the EARLIESTexamples of each? That QHMC should be early April 43. Or do you already have an earlier example?

    My first USGI carbine was a QHMC and I am sure that it will be one of the last carbines I ever get rid of.
    Last edited by Tired Retired; 09-29-2010 at 12:11 AM.

  11. Thank You to Tired Retired For This Useful Post:


  12. #8
    Really Senior Member Bruce McAskill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Last On
    02-19-2020 @ 11:57 PM
    Posts
    1,739
    Local Date
    02-21-2020
    Local Time
    01:47 PM
    March 1943 for the serial number. Highest number for QH during testing at Inland March 15,1943 was 1553060. Only about 1200 before Mikeys serial number.

  13. Thank You to Bruce McAskill For This Useful Post:


+ Reply to Thread

Similar Threads

  1. Un-quality
    By CrossedCannons in forum M1/M2 Carbine
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 08-17-2010, 04:22 PM
  2. UN-Quality M1
    By Lt1 in forum M1/M2 Carbine
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 08-02-2010, 05:17 PM
  3. Cmp Un-quality
    By frankderrico in forum M1/M2 Carbine
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 05-01-2009, 09:06 AM
  4. Un-quality Hardware
    By mac in forum M1/M2 Carbine
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 04-29-2009, 01:51 AM
  5. UN-Quality questions
    By shamrocks in forum M1/M2 Carbine
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 04-13-2009, 03:59 PM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts