1943 M1 in GCA article spring 2011

[Garandrew]

Stated this receiver heel isnt annealed..
Is it my eyes, or is this annealed?

Heres mine to compare

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]

The author initially said it was, but I questioned it during editing because of the last photo. He looked again and said it probably was not. Maybe he was right the first time. Sometimes the camera shows things the eye can't see.

[Garandrew]

Thankyou for the info Bob. I think many of these receivers between 1.4 and 1.6 were factory annealed.
Andy

[Maniac]

I agree, Andy and I also believe most in that range were issued to the USMC.

[Garandrew]

Maniac? USMC I would love to know..where is that info from?
Andy

[Maniac]

Maniac? USMC I would love to know..where is that info from?
Andy

My apologies, the ranges are a little narrower but here's some links that gave me the notion:

http://www.popernack.com/library/Win...ed%20Rifle.pdf

http://www.scott-duff.com/GuamMono.htm

I have SA 1.5618xx and it's annealed, and according to the Guam Garand monographs that Scott Duff sells, of 26 of 27 of the "Guam Garands" between 1.14 and 1.77 are annealed.
The Guam Garand monographs are a collection of 30 data sheets that Duff compiled from his involvement in the sale of these historic M1's. A wealth of info and from what I can see of the parts contained in them, there wasn't as much of parts swapping during "cleaning parties" going on as some folks might think. The data given is well worth the $ Duff gets for the monographs, IMO.
I saw an article a while back in the GCA Journal that told the story of a Marine and his experience from boot to the Pacific theater, it showed a score sheet from a shooting match at boot camp and he used a 1.56 Garand. I sent an e mail to the editor asking they could find out if the same M1 accompanied him when he shipped out but I never got an answer back.

[Garandrew]

What chances does my 1471154 have being USMC 50/50, or better?

[Maniac]

Hard to say for sure, Andy. Yours is only 6741 digits above a known USMC Garand (1464413), which itself is only 42 digits above Guam Garand 1464371 so it's relatively close. It would be super if the Springfield Research Service website was still posting their serial # lists, or even if the books were still available for purchase. The serial # patterns seem to offer clues to the disposition of rifles that are close to but not listed by SRS.
The earliest "Guam" Garand listed that is part of a serial number "run" was SA 1142472, made in January 1943, not long after the USMC fighting troops started to realize the worth of the semiautomatic Garand over the bolt action M1903. I'd be curious to learn the percentage of Grands issued that weren't in the "Guam" ranges that have annealed heels. It begs the question of whether the USMC specified that any Garand they accepted had to have an annealed heel? The two 6 digit Garands listed weren't, nor was the last, made in Nov. '43 and only 1 of the remaining 27 wasn't annealed.
Duff may have been speculating when he wrote his piece about the Guam Garands back in 1996 but as we've seen in recent issues of the GCA Journal, there have been M1 Garand relcs found in and around Bastogne that also fall in close serial number ranges too so it seems to support his argument for the Guams' relationship to the 3rd Marine Division.
BTW, none of the "Guam" Garands are Winchesters, and I once owned SA # 1472046, it also had an annealed heel.
HTH

[Garandrew]

Maniac, have you seen my 2.4 Guam Garand look alike?

[Maniac]

Maniac, have you seen my 2.4 Guam Garand look alike?

No, I haven't. The highest serial numbered Garand among those found on Guam was 2.124xxx.