M1 Garand Lower Band Pin Question(s)

[Ms15710]

Hi all,

I apologize for the slight influx of threads I've been creating ever since I've joined the forum, it is all just to gain more insight into the M1 Garand as I delve more into collecting.

I see that on many auctions for these rifles, they make a noticeable claim to the pin still being in place on the lower band. What exactly are the implications of this? Does this simply mean that it was never disassembled (the barrel + front handguard section) of the rifle? Is it a negative connotation if it missing?

Furthermore, when and where would the lower band pin be removed if this was the case?

Apologies if there are any misused terms.

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.

[Patrick Chadwick]

I see that on many auctions for these rifles, they make a noticeable claim to the pin still being in place on the lower band.

So what? Why shouldn't it be in place? After all, one can readily dismantle the whole assembly and replace it.

The fact that a pin is still there proves nothing, other than the simple fact that a pin is still there!

[Patrick Chadwick]

Does this simply mean that it was never disassembled (the barrel + front handguard section) of the rifle?

That is what they want you to think - without actually making a claim that might be disproved later!

[Bob Seijas]

The issue is not whether the pin is in place, it's whether it shows signs of having been removed or replaced. That is a strong sign of originality, you can't rebarrel a receiver without taking it off. The best telltale is undisturbed original staking.

[Ms15710]

The issue is not whether the pin is in place, it's whether it shows signs of having been removed or replaced. That is a strong sign of originality, you can't rebarrel a receiver without taking it off. The best telltale is undisturbed original staking.
Attachment 123406

Interesting, thank you!

In this regard, if the pin is missing but there are no signs that it was removed, does this mean anything?

Is it possible that they could just fall out on their own?

[Jersey Devil]

Interesting, thank you!

In this regard, if the pin is missing but there are no signs that it was removed, does this mean anything?

Is it possible that they could just fall out on their own?

It's unlikely that a lower band pin would fall out on its own because they were staked in place. As you can see in Mr. Seijas' photo above, there's a bit of metal that's disturbed on either side of the pin. That was done so as to prevent the pin from coming loose and falling out. I've never seen a truly original, unmolested example that didn't have the pin in place. I suppose anything is possible, but I'd be highly suspect of such an example that claims originality but has a missing lower band pin.

[Ms15710]

It's unlikely that a lower band pin would fall out on its own because they were staked in place. As you can see in Mr. Seijas' photo above, there's a bit of metal that's disturbed on either side of the pin. That was done so as to prevent the pin from coming loose and falling out. I've never seen a truly original, unmolested example that didn't have the pin in place. I suppose anything is possible, but I'd be highly suspect of such an example that claims originality but has a missing lower band pin.

Thank you for the reply!

I would assume as much that there’s no feasible way it would fall out on its own with indented metal to keep it in.

Moreover, is it safe to assume that on these completely undisturbed rifles the staking is only on one side of the lower band? And evidence of disturbed metal on both sides is rather suspect?

I am just on the lookout for an all original rifle, and am taking all of these details into consideration so I know exactly what to look for.

[Patrick Chadwick]

Well Bob, maybe it’s just my eyeballs, but the “staked” region in that photo looks very untidy. The few examples I have of staking show one clean dimple from a punch. That area looks as if it had been struck at least twice - first at 8 o’clock and later at 9 o’clock. As it might appear if, for instance, the pin had been driven out, replaced, and then staked again.

It is noticeable that the position of the head of the pin in that photo is rather deep. Which would happen if, just maybe, the pin was driven in flush on the other side.

To form a clearer opinion, one would need to see a good close-up photo of the other side.

[browningautorifle]

but the “staked” region in that photo looks very untidy

I had one of the LL rifles that still had it's solid pin and looked exactly like that. Looks like they used something with a chisel point. It's the "Solid pin" that matters too. They changed to roll pins about 1952(?) I think.

[Patrick Chadwick]

I think it might be useful at this stage to consider the following:

To claim that an object is “untouched” - whatever one takes that to mean - is an attempt at a negative proof. After all, the objects in question were all “touched” extensively - in manufacture and proofing. Apart from the extremely rare cases of rifles still sealed in a factory wrap, after distribution and unwrapping, rifles were handled, used, and maintained.

It may be possible to demonstrate that a rifle has been altered from its “out of the wrap” configuration - a positive proof.
But in the days of mass-produced components that do not require any individual fitting, it is hardly possible to prove that no components have ever been replaced - a negative proof.

Nevertheless, since so many collectors often place such an astonishingly high value on this presumed “untouchedness”, it is not surprising that sellers will do their best to suggest it - although they cannot prove it.

Recourse is thus taken to insinuation, conjecture, hypothesis - anything but a firm guarantee…

Because that is impossible.