M1 Garand Question

[EddieM]

Hey Gents
A repro stock means a legit stock but made in another time as a spare part? Thank you in advance.
Attachment 119863Attachment 119864Attachment 119865

[Bob Womack]

The difference is the cartouches. It is fine to make a replacement stock in a different time period. It becomes forgery when the stock is struck with cartouches with the intention to deceive and make the stock more valuable. If it is done for legit reasons, they would typically stamp the barrel channel with the legend "REPRODUCTION."

Bob

[EddieM]

The difference is the cartouches. It is fine to make a replacement stock in a different time period. It becomes forgery when the stock is struck with cartouches with the intention to deceive and make the stock more valuable. If it is done for legit reasons, they would typically stamp the barrel channel with the legend "REPRODUCTION."

Bob

Hey Bob,
Thank you for your reply, so the stock that I posted is legit but from a different time period?
Regards

[champ0608]

I'm not an expert in forged cartouches, and certainly not on M1s, but the stock would have received those stamps as part of an inspection as a complete rifle. The stock and stamps are in such good condition, it begs the question, why would it have been removed from the rifle and sold loose? Not to mention, how did the stock stay in that nice of shape after all an M1 would have been through in the last 75 years.

The EMcF stamp was for Brigadier General Earl McFarland, commander of Springfield Armory from mid '42 to mid '43. His stamp would have been on many WWII warhorses, and those stocks command a premium for anyone restoring that era of Springfield M1.

If I had to put money on it, I'd guess those stamps were added by someone trying to pass the stock off as something its not. But I could be wrong.

[browningautorifle]

so the stock that I posted is legit

The stock has been marked as an attempt to deceive. It's an M1 stock with fake markings. Doesn't really matter what era it was made.

[Bob Womack]

And that was what I was alluding to in my post. They didn't make stocks alone as replacements and whack 'em with cartouches so a replacement stock alone from any period won't have 'em.

Bob

[Bob Seijas]

Over the years some people have alleged that SA stamped stocks in advance to speed production, but there is no evidence for it and it doesn't sound like SA. They were sticklers for procedure.

[cpc]

Over the years some people have alleged that SA stamped stocks in advance to speed production, but there is no evidence for it and it doesn't sound like SA. They were sticklers for procedure.

I concur with your assessment, I expect there is a picture somewhere showing them stamping rifles. That 43 series of pictures at SA probably has one showing a rifle getting it’s finals stamps. In most if not all the inspection manuals/regs I read it indicates the stamping occur as part of the final inspections. Doesn’t mean that’s what really happened but it doesn’t make sense to me that they would be pre stamping stocks back then.

[EddieM]

I'm not an expert in forged cartouches, and certainly not on M1s, but the stock would have received those stamps as part of an inspection as a complete rifle. The stock and stamps are in such good condition, it begs the question, why would it have been removed from the rifle and sold loose? Not to mention, how did the stock stay in that nice of shape after all an M1 would have been through in the last 75 years.

The EMcF stamp was for Brigadier General Earl McFarland, commander of Springfield Armory from mid '42 to mid '43. His stamp would have been on many WWII warhorses, and those stocks command a premium for anyone restoring that era of Springfield M1.

If I had to put money on it, I'd guess those stamps were added by someone trying to pass the stock off as something its not. But I could be wrong.

Hey Champ.
You are so right about the wear, thanks
Regards

---------- Post added at 11:52 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:50 AM ----------

The stock has been marked as an attempt to deceive. It's an M1 stock with fake markings. Doesn't really matter what era it was made.

Hey Jim,
It was too good to be true.
Regards

---------- Post added at 11:56 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:52 AM ----------

And that was what I was alluding to in my post. They didn't make stocks alone as replacements and whack 'em with cartouches so a replacement stock alone from any period won't have 'em.

Bob

Hey Bob
So they did replacement stocks without cartouches.

---------- Post added at 11:57 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:56 AM ----------

Over the years some people have alleged that SA stamped stocks in advance to speed production, but there is no evidence for it and it doesn't sound like SA. They were sticklers for procedure.

Hey Bob,
Thanks for your reply
Regards

---------- Post added at 11:59 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:57 AM ----------

I concur with your assessment, I expect there is a picture somewhere showing them stamping rifles. That 43 series of pictures at SA probably has one showing a rifle getting it’s finals stamps. In most if not all the inspection manuals/regs I read it indicates the stamping occur as part of the final inspections. Doesn’t mean that’s what really happened but it doesn’t make sense to me that they would be pre stamping stocks back then.

Hey cpc,
You are right.
Regards

[EddieM]

Hey Gents

I would love to get the right stock, my Garand is marked in the receiver as SA 1.8, bolt D28287-19SA A-10, Trigger housing 6528290-SA, internal parts C46008-1, C4601 can´t see the last 2 digits, receiver D-6528291 and the barrel SA D6535448 4 53 A188A, both handguards are walnut and look pretty much the same color, the stock has the 2 drills, doesn´t have any mark and its color is lighter than walnut, it has worn over the years, can you guys tell me something about this stock, please.
Thank you in advance

Attachment 119923Attachment 119922Attachment 119921