Wear patterns on correct M1

[SRiverrat11]

I have this M1 that is "correct" according to Scott Duff's book, but the extractor, rear sight cover, op rod have a lot more parkerizing than the rest of the rifle around the chamber. Could this "wear" be normal? Or is it obvious these parts have been replaced? I am not an expert, but would appreciate opinions from those much more knowledgeable than me. Thank You.

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.

[Bill Hollinger]

Just from what I see I would say that at least the op-rod has been replaced. Hard to say what is what and who is who without holding it.

[jmoore]

Op rods usually run darker than many other parts for some reason. But the heavy stock sanding is certainly a sign of rework. In which case: "Parts is parts".

[SRiverrat11]

Thank you jmoore. May I ask how you can tell "heavy stock sanding"? Because this rifle's stock was covered in grime when I got it. I had to use Murphy's Oil Soap and 0000 steel wool to clean it enough to see the SA/GAW, and of course you can only barely see it now. but it was totally invisible before. Yikes! did I make it that faint by using the 0000 steel wool?

[jmoore]

The edges aren't as crisp as expected. And the receiver overhang at the left rear is a clue. Add the faint marking (at least it's there!) and you have all the signs of an old overhaul. Check around the buttplate as well. As you note, it's probably a "correct" rifle. But the odds of it being factory "original"? Teeny! In the US, at least. Seems that the best place to find "used but original" M1 rifles any more is in NW Europe.

[SRiverrat11]

Thank You jmoore. I love the M1 but I have alot to learn. You said, "The edges aren't crisp as expected". Which edges please. And an old re-build. Any guesses by whom? A Bubba in the 60's or 70's? I understand there has been plenty of time for the re-build then for the stock to be covered in grime over that. I have been curious since I got it why the rear sight cover and some of the rear sight have more parking than the chamber area. And the grooved rear handguard clip seems strange too. I'm just trying to figure who would do it. I've only seen a grooved rear handguard clip for sale on GB once, for $100 and it was bought before the next day. I'm just curious. I like the WWII M-1's the best. My Uncle was a Marine with the 6th Div. wounded on Okinawa. His leg was amputated after he was flown to Saipan. I thought of him when I bought that rifle. He passed in 2006. Anyway, any additional light you, or anyone else could shed would be appreciated.

[jmoore]

Grooved bands aren't all that uncommon (at least they used to not be). Often Winchester, which will have visible machining marks on the various surfaces. But likely way too early for your rifle, unless they were digging deep into the parts bin!

The follower rod seems a bit early as well.

Where's the REAL collector types when you need 'em? Used to have most of the parts pretty well nailed down, but am out of practice...

[RCS]

The grooved rear handguard band was gone by July-August 1942, early gas trap period rifles had the grooved rear handguard band with the drawing number inside (two variations). you need the correct tool to remove the band. The follower rod is the short fork which would not be found in a rifle with your serial range, the op rod catch could be
Winchester. If you can provide more photos of the internal parts, they might be able to be identified. As jmoore stated the stock has overhang on the rear of the receiver. The rear sight cover might not be SA

[browningautorifle]

A Bubba in the 60's or 70's

That would suggest some form of butchering took place here. No such thing. This rifle seems to be fit and fine. Just mismatched parts and that's common with military re-builds. The stock is heavily sanded as suggested, because of the low left top at the receiver tail and the faint inspector's mark. Look through this forum and you'll see mint examples. The grooved band was what came to hand at the time. Probably what was on the lower hand guard. If it was good, it was used. You can find excellent examples of this rifle if you just search this forum. There's pictures of every angle of the wood work and metal parts for your examination...

[SRiverrat11]

Just mismatched parts and that's common with military re-builds

There is no electro-penciling on a reciever leg and all parts appear to be correct or earlier than Nov/44. Could that happen with a military re-build like Springfield's program in the 60's? I'm not trying to be dismissive of anyone's opinion. I truly value them. I'm just trying to figure this out. I will post more pics to help.