Do Beretta M1's show the same tooling marks as Winchester M1's?

[gary25]

Since Beretta recieved all of the old WWII Winchester Garand tooling in the early 50's, is it safe to assume that all Beretta M1's show the same rough tooling marks as the WWII Winchesters or did Beretta make tooling improvements or other modifications?

Curious....Does Beretta still have all of their M1 tooling?

Gary

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.

[Tom in N.J.]

I think the operator is responsible for the tooling marks. My Beretta (Danish G/M50) looks pretty good.

[0311Shooter]

Does this mean that my PB is actually a Berretinchester??? Worth more?

Now that you mention it, the "tooling" is kinda crude. Perhaps when this operator was pressing this one out, he was sipping some Vino.

They all seem to shoot the same though. Good barrel? Great shooter.

[Claven2]

Most of the Italian guns show less tool marks than ww2 guns and better fit and finish all 'round in my experience. Less pressure during their manufacture, I guess.

[Bill Hollinger]

Союз нерушимый республик свободных Сплотила навеки Великая Русь. Да здравствует созданный волей народов Единый, могучий Советский Союз!

Translated:
The union indestructible republics free was rallied forever by Great Russia. Long live created by will of people Uniform, mighty Soviet Union!


Wow!

[LavaTech]

Although Beretta did receive the worn and outdated tooling from Winchester along with JCG's production flowcharting and an unknown number of Winchester parts in varying stages of completion, they elected instead to build their own tooling to fulfill their NATO contract. They did stamp the parts they received with their mark, and both Winchester and PB markings are encountered on the same part. Breda MAY have elected to use the Winchester tooling, but I've no idea. Beretta didn't feel it was worth their time.

[slamfire1]

We have seen the the statements "made on German tooling" as assertions of quality for sub standard rifles.

Good tooling is important. Worn out tooling is not a good starting place. However, no matter from whom the tooling was purchased, bad management, poor process control, poorly trained workers, and non existent quality control control create junk.

Incidentally, a FN trip report from the 50's, (in the book FAL rifle) shows that Winchester process flow would be the "bad example" in todays world.

Berretta has been around since 1526. Beretta - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. At least three centuries before Winchester started building lever action rifles.

Beretta can make and has made quality firearms. And is still making firearms while Winchester is now only a trademark, purchased for brand name recognition.

I have one PB Beretta M1 (VAR barrel), and one match Garand with a BMB Beretta receiver. I have lots of Beretta Garand parts. The parts are all drop in replacements for US parts, and the part quality is good.

My Beretta receivers show much better surface finishes than a WWII receiver, particularly Winchester receivers.

[steel]

Are there any books on the Italian Garands?

[Rotor]

Although Beretta did receive the worn and outdated tooling from Winchester along with JCG's production flowcharting and an unknown number of Winchester parts in varying stages of completion, they elected instead to build their own tooling to fulfill their NATO contract. They did stamp the parts they received with their mark, and both Winchester and PB markings are encountered on the same part. Breda MAY have elected to use the Winchester tooling, but I've no idea. Beretta didn't feel it was worth their time.

That may explain this little guy.





JR

[Chilly]

The tool marks on "ugly" parts appear to be caused by running the mills at too high speeds and feed rates, and not changing tools when they get dull. While it may offend our eyes, "value" is determined by whether the customer is willing to pay for it (the original customer, not us). Winchester could have slowed down their machines and changed tools more often and the GI would have had fewer Garands in their hands and at a higher cost. I don't think they were lacking "quality control", rather they produced a weapon that satisfied the need of the customer without the waste of overprocessing beyond what was necessary. GIven the choice of an expertly machined 1903 or a Garand with toolmarks I'd take the Garand every day. Men were fighting a war, not sipping brandy at the quail club. Maybe if the 1911 manufacturers had allowed more tool marks every GI could have had an auto instead of revolvers.