M1D on Auction Arms

[Devil Dog]

The guy says ALL parts are ORIGINAL. There is a better chance that NONE of the parts are original than ALL of the parts are original. I guess he thinks an original FAKE NFR stock is still original. At least he could get the correct trigger guard.


Auction Arms link:
http://www.auctionarms.com/search/di...temnum=9100109

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.

[goo]

mine's original, too.
originally got it from miltech. more of a shooter than a wallhanger.
...
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2361/...g?v=1199831431
...
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2414/...7d3f82.jpg?v=0

[Tom Doniphon]

What's wrong with the trigger guard?

[Ben Hartley]

The advertised rifle's serial number, 3345665, indicates December, 1944 production, at which time, Springfield Armory was no longer using the forged trigger guard, having replaced it in production with the stamped component.

(Information from Duff, Scott A., The M1 Garand Serial Numbers & Data Sheets, pp 40-45, passim. Also, Poyer, Joe and Riesch, Craig, The M1 Garand 1936-1957, p. 92, indicate that the forged trigger guard -- they call it "milled" -- was superceded by the stamped part at ca. serial number 3000000.)

Further (snarky) comments: 1) the stock date, 1945, might, at a stretch, be considered correct, but how does he know it's 1945 production? Also, my screen's not all that clear, and the seller's photos aren't all that good either, but it sure looks to me that the "iron" sights are post-war type, rather than late-model lock bars. Wouldn't lockbar sights be correct?

HTH

Ben Hartley

[John Wyatt]

Just about any parts could be right on an M1D since all were converted from standard service rifles, so the sellers claim that the rifle is original is obviously wrong. That NFR cartouche is a very bad fake and from what little I can see of the scope mount, it's also fake. Makes you wonder about the barrel.

[rotorwing70]

First these comments are not directed at any individual, they are intended to address a general trend I have observed of late. Flame away, those that know me know I am qualified to make these comments, the others I don't give a rip about.

Ya'll really need a primer on M1D production. Not only does the seller not know what he is talking about, so far few of the other comment indicate a knowledge of the M1D production history either. Please don’t let your zeal to comment prompt you to make a comment on items and details you are not knowledgeable about. I’ll go ahead a say what no one wants to hear; an individual is not qualified to make a definitive statement about anything when their only source of information is and qualifications are “I read in Duff or Pryor says”. All of the reference materials are flawed, some more than others, not an indictment of the authors but time has changed many of the assumptions and theories. Please don’t let this forum deteriorate in the quality of responses. Assumptions and citing questionable quotes as fact does not promote the exchange of quality information. If you don’t know ask, if you don’t know the correct answer don’t respond just for the sake of logging a post.

With reference to the M1D for sale it has all the earmarks of a parts gun. Sans some formal documentation beware.

[Devil Dog]

So if I understand your post. Everyone is correct with their observations, but none of us are qualified to say so.

[Maplebacon]

So if I understand your post. Everyone is correct with their observations, but none of us are qualified to say so.

His post said nothing of the sort, unless your "observations" are limited to what you read in a book.

[mack]

I will start by saying I am not an expert, but have spent almost 45 years owning M1's and observing along the way. I have spent the last ten years in diligent search of information about the Garand and I am sorry to say this forum is no longer the major source of such information. But, it ain't the fault of the guys here, it's this miserable format and erratic function. Sorry to have to be hateful, but the Jouster name was a big traffic builder for an otherwise pretty mundane and boring site. Milsurps is good info but not much of a format. This design could not support all the Jouster traffic (and, yes, I am the expert in that!) so we lost tons of info and thousands of contributors.

My usual complaint is that someone puts up a site and then spends the next year going over the same 5-10 questions on these "repeat" forums. Info gets stale and people leave and that is apparently the case in this forum.

The rifle in question is a compilation of parts, some correct and others of unknown origin. Frankly, the whole sight system (less the scope of course) looks like the French stuff sold on eBay, but that is only what I can get from observing. The stock is an obvious fraud and looks like a birch one anyway from the grain. Unless it sells in the $1500-1700 (the parts value, MAYBE), it is certainly no buy.

As to sights, no M1D would ever have left an ordnance shop with lockbars, since these rifles are postwar FOR THE MOST PART. It certainly would have gone in for work at some point in the last 65 years and the lockbars, if they were on there originally, which I doubt, would have been instantly replaced and those beloved lockbars would have hit the junk parts box in a heartbeat. They were outmoded and made sight adjustment clumsy compared to the 105's.

[Ben Hartley]

Mack...

Thank you for the clarification.

As to sights, no M1D would ever have left an ordnance shop with lockbars, since these rifles are postwar FOR THE MOST PART. It certainly would have gone in for work at some point in the last 65 years and the lockbars, if they were on there originally, which I doubt, would have been instantly replaced and those beloved lockbars would have hit the junk parts box in a heartbeat. They were outmoded and made sight adjustment clumsy compared to the 105's.

Your point is well taken, but I was simply suggesting that original sights -- on an "all original" rifle produced in 1944-1945 -- would hardly be the post-war sights, T105E1(?) would they?

Ben Hartley