1. Attention: We have put together a thread with tips and a tutorial video to help with using the new software. Please take a moment to check out the thread here: Trapshooters.com Tutorial & Help Video.
    Dismiss Notice

OT: Any M1 Garand Resources or Experts here?

Discussion in 'Off Topic Threads' started by throck1, Aug 14, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. throck1

    throck1 TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    42
    trying to figure out what I've got here with a nice looking M1 Garand that I am considering selling.

    I have Springfield M1 Garand serial number in the 300,000 range. I've seen some BNP stamps on the gun, but there are no red bands on the stock to indicate lend-lease. Looks like maybe the stock has been refinished, because also no visible proof marks on the wood. I took a bunch of pictures which are posted below. Figured you'd want to see the exact info.

    I can't figure out if this is a $1800-$2500+ gun or just a really nice $800 shooter!

    Thanks for any help, information, or suggestions. If someone wants to add this piece their collection, get in touch with me via pm or email. I can send you my phone number, if you prefer.

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]


    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]


    Is this a lend-lease Garand with the correct numbered part sets?
    Any idea on value?
    Is mine a gas piston version? It tears down different than the models with the exposed op springs. Any help or input would be greatly appreciated! PM me or respond to this post. Email me at gitlin at comcast dot NeT.
     
  2. Jimmyc

    Jimmyc TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    450
    Looks like a beautiful shooter. Price b/t 850 and 1200. I know yours is better than a cmp rifle but they tend to determine the "shooter" price. Try going to the cmp website. There is a forum. More than likely you will get more info there.
    Jimmy
     
  3. jimrich60

    jimrich60 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2007
    Messages:
    810
    throck1:

    Hard to tell much about a rifle just through pictures, but based on what I can see, it would appear to be pretty much original rifle with mostly, if not all, original parts. The dates place it in the possible range of a lend lease rifle, so it could be. In any case, it is far more than just a "shooter" and may well be an original, or near original collectible more in the 1500-2000 class, depending on condition, verification of originality, etc. Note that there are many "restored" rifles out there now, and these are not nearly as valuable as originals, but only close inspection by someone really knowledgeable can tell this sometimes. The completly refinished stock is unfortunate since it seems to have sanded off cartouches, etc and this would hurt value, but in any case, I think you would be wise to get this rifle evaluated before selling it off as a shooter. It would appear to be far more than that. If you want some specifics on dates, parts matching (or not), etc, PM me and I will look some of that up for you.

    Old Garand Collector.
     
  4. throck1

    throck1 TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    42
    JimRich,

    Thank you for taking time to post and share your knowledge. I'm pretty sure it's much more than a shooter, but haven't done enough hard research to back it up.

    Sent you a PM.

    JimmyC,
    Good advice on the CMP site. Just posted information and pictures there this morning!

    Jeff
     
  5. Dave P

    Dave P TS Supporters TS Supporters

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    2,512
    Location:
    Canton, Il.
    There is a site called The Fulton Armory that may help you.
     
  6. Jimmyc

    Jimmyc TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    450
    Jeff,
    hope I'm wrong and it's worth a fortune. I was glad to see the pics.
    Jimmy
     
  7. trench12

    trench12 TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    369
    tears down differently??? how 'bout a look at the front end?
     
  8. kehrby

    kehrby Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    667
    Location:
    Indiana
    I know absolutely nothing about garands other than I would love to have one. It looks pretty, does that count?

    Steve
     
  9. halfmile

    halfmile Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    15,642
    Location:
    Green Bay Wisconsin
    Here is a link to the Garand Collectors Association, good people and good info.

    I have an all correct late 1944 SA, and got a lot of info here.

    HM
     
  10. throck1

    throck1 TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    42
    When I say "tears down differently", I mean to say that the uncut operating rods (like mine) do not disassemble in the same easy manner as those that have been cut. I had not disassembled a Garand before, so I was following some instructions. I plan further disassembly to check some more markings and take more pictures.

    Are there certain angles or parts you'd like to see in the next round of pictures?
     
  11. Em_One

    Em_One TS Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2009
    Messages:
    155
    Whether the op-rod is cut or not has absolutely nothing to do with how the gun disassembles. With the gun out of the stock, and the op-rod spring removed, as well as the latch and other "guts", pull the op-rod back and pull it out of the track on the receiver.

    The cut was a relief cut where (as best as I can describe) the handle meets the piston, just above the "D" in the drawing number of the op-rod. It was done post WWII because it was found under stress and age, a crack would develop in that location. That's all there is to a cut vs. un-cut op-rod.
    http://www.scott-duff.com/oprods.htm (mash the link!)

    I have an all original (except for a WRA safety, don't ask me why!) 1955 HRA with its (previously) only test-fired original barrel and post-war op-rod (sold as CMP HRA Special), and a CMP Springfield Special. The S-A Special came with an un-cut op-rod. Having been into both of them (and countless others), I assure you they come apart the same. If you had trouble removing it either something is amiss with the gun, or your technique wasn't quite right.

    Anyway, beautiful Garand. I hope to acquire a few more over the years!
     
  12. jimrich60

    jimrich60 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2007
    Messages:
    810
    Following up on some of your additional comments, I am puzzled by your comments on "tearing down differently". All garands disassemble in the same manner, and there are no differences in op rod set ups. In some ways, your description sounds more like instructions for disassembly of an M14 rifle rather than the M1, particularly in reference to the op rod spring.

    Further to the possibility of these being a former lend lease rifle, close ups of the front top of the receiver would be useful, as well as close ups of the bolt top and both bolt lugs. Properly proofed and marked lend lease rifles will normally have a small crown stamp on the top front of receiver, altho this is often very hard to distinguish sometimes and may look more like a large dot or dent unless very closely examined. Also the bolt will normally have the same crown stamp usually on one of the bolt lugs. Other early rifle distinguishing features include a cap over the front sight attaching screw which was designed to prevent GIs from messing with the front sight (cannot be removed without destroying it), as well as a single slot in the gas cylinder lock screw as seen from the front.

    Jim R
    old garand collector
     
  13. JerryP

    JerryP Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    1,753
    deleted
     
  14. throck1

    throck1 TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    42
    Did some additional disassembly and took more pictures. Once I got it figured out it was actually fun. Geez guys, cut me some slack on not knowing what the heck to do to get this thing apart! The little video I was watching looked different than mine, but I got there. Inexperience and bad technique, for sure.

    Everything I've verified is correct for the rifle. Some very helpful and knowledgeable people have been contacting me. Much appreciation to everyone for the help.

    Bolt is correct D28287-2SA. There is another bolt stamp below which reads REP2
    Safety is a correct revision 6SA. You couldn't see the 6SA in the original pictures (I have more now that show the entire stamp).
    Follower arm - didn't see any stamps on that piece - not even a *
    Bullet guide is unmarked and appears to be milled (have pictures).
    Stock - At a minimum, it's been sanded and refinished. I did notice something of interest during careful examination. Posted a couple of pictures in this message <br>See where the "P" in this correct lend lease stock is located? Notice the deep indent/line/gouge just above the "P"? My stock has a very similar line/mark.
    Correct (not mine):<br>
    [​IMG]


    Mine:
    [​IMG]


    I took a number of additional pictures of the stock. Added some and will add some more later. Also included a picture of an interesting imprint on the sling. I've seen green slings on these guns. Anyone know if this leather sling is original?
    [​IMG]


    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    The barrel stamp appears to have been lightly struck, because there just is not a final number imprinted<br>
    [​IMG]
     
  15. jimrich60

    jimrich60 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2007
    Messages:
    810
    JerryP: I think you mis-read the serial number. March 40 would be a 5 digit serial, not a six digit. This receiver was manufactured in Aug 1941 and does match the barrel, etc. Most definitely not a rebuilt gas trap, as it was made long past that era. The 30-06 stamped on the barrel is part of the British proof stampings, not part of the original armory stampings.

    Throck1:

    The sling appears to be the M1907 leather sling, and would have been correct for this rifle. The green web slings you mention are post war slings, Web slings during WWII (ecept toward the very end) were Khaki in color and used interchangeably with the leather slings. Your sling appears to be dated 1918, and in fair condition.

    The indent or gouge you show on both stocks pistol grip is not a part of the proof P or any cartouche or intentional marking. It is just a normal wear and tear in this area, fairly commonly seen on many stocks. It does not denote anything but is just routine handling damage to the area.

    The REP2 beneath the drawing number on the bolt is the heat lot number, denoting the particular lot of steel used in making this bolt. The armory used heat lot numbers in order to trace some critical parts if they should have problems with some of those parts, they could then track down all parts made of that particular batch of steel and withdraw them from service.

    The follower (not the follower arm, which is attached to the follower and the recoil spring) is the later Type 2 wide tail, but should be a revision 8, and should have the 8 stamped on the bottom side of the wide tail (your picture shows this blank). However, I would note there is some controversy on this subject, as several otherwise original mid-41 rifles have been found with un-numbered followers (some collectors think the first Type 2 wide tail followers were thus un-numbered, with revision 8 being the first numbered, and going through revision 13) so although your rifle is a bit late for the mid-41 period, it is possible that an un-numbered follower could have been used. It, of course, also could be that it is simply a later, post war un-numbered follower. Would take very close inspection of wear patterns, etc to determine if actually original to the rifle.

    After re-viewing the stock pictures, I am not sure that this is even the correct stock for the rifle. The profile of the stock does not appear to be correct, in that the curve of the pistol grip is too abrupt and not like garand stocks in 1941, and the comb nose is also too sharp and abrupt. Overall, the stock appears to me to be a later stock, although that too could have been refinished at some point. One area of the stock to check is inside at the front end, where the barrel channel narrows down to barrel width. In SA/GHS stocks of this period, that narrow channel area was approximate 2 3/8" long, while later stocks in the war and after the narrow channel area was approximately 1 5/8" long. During rebuilds at the armory, if the stock was useable otherwise, the armory often cut this channel area to shorten it to the later specifications. This would of course, indicate an armory rebuilt, at least of the stock, and thus not an original rifle. Still, my overall impression, based just upon the pictures, is that this may not be a correct stock, but that is just my impression at this point.

    Jim R
    Old garand collector
     
  16. jimrich60

    jimrich60 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2007
    Messages:
    810
    Throck1:

    As I noted in my previous post, the stock of your rifle does not appear to me to be quite right to be correct for a 1941 Springfield garand. As an example, see the pictures below of a verified original late 1941 garand (also a lend lease) and compare several features. Note the fairly long sweeping curve of the pistol grip as compared to the short, steep, almost angled pistol grip area of your stock. Also note the very marked difference in combs. Your stock comb is very sharp and abrupt, whereas all originals I know have a very low, sloping comb nose which is characteristic of wartime garands. As I previously noted, another clue is the length of the barrel channel (early stocks have long channels) so you would need to look at this also. My guess (and since it is based on a few pictures only, it is only an educated guess) is that your stock is not original or refinished, but a later replacement stock, probably not GI since it has no proof markings or arsenal markings of any sort.
    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]
     
  17. JerryP

    JerryP Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    1,753
    jimrich60, you are right, I screwed up the number. Getting my info from Scott Duff's book. Also have an illustated book by J. C. Harrison.
     
  18. throck1

    throck1 TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    42
    Jim,


    I took some measurements and more pictures tonight. I think you are on to something with the stock not being right. "Something is amiss with the stock!" :)


    The good:
    You spoke of "where the barrel channel narrows down to barrel width". The measurement looks to be a heck of a lot closer to the correct 2 3/8 than to the incorrect (shorter) 1 5/8.


    The bad:
    18 new pictures of the stock from side angles - some compared with your example visible in the background on my laptop. Not the same. Refinisher with the worlds strongest hands custom fitting a stock to someone with small hands :) Not likely. Interested in your thoughts. The saga continues... It's 3am and I'm going to bed!


    http://smg.photobucket.com/albums/v445/throck1/M1%20Garand/


    Guest password - Jennarator
     
  19. jimrich60

    jimrich60 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2007
    Messages:
    810
    Jeff:

    Reviewing your added pictures, and going back over the old ones, I would have to judge the stock is not an original re-sand, but more likely a commercial replacement stock from some years ago. The barrel channel is a shorter style (you have to measure only the straight portion (your ruler is set at the start of the curve in which gives a false reading) and even the inletting does not appear GI. Another clue is the curve of the pistol grip. This is very sharp, almost vertical, but if a proof P had been sanded out of this area (they were typically stamped fairly deeply) this would inevitably have been sanded into a more curved out area. The comb nose is totally wrong for any GI stock I am familiar with and other areas of the stock do not seem to conform to GI contours, something typical of older commercial stocks (though some of this could be due to heavy sanding by someone). Thus I tend very much to a commercial replacement stock at some past point.

    While the metal appears to be at least mostly correct, originality is another question altogether. One thing I note is that I do not see the proof "prick" mark (stamped dot) in the bolt that should be there if the bolt is original to the rifle. Not sure about wear patterns in general, but the discoloration and wear on the front end metal (gas cylinder, gas lock, etc) do not seem to be what would be expected based on other metal condition. Not really possible to tell in pictures though.

    Overall,it is a fine looking rifle, but at this point whether it is really an original lend lease, or just a rifle that went through Britain in the 50s or early 60s and was Brit proofed, and subsequently "restored" with some correct parts and a commercial stock (stock I believe to be commercial in any case), I cannot say. Many of these early rifles brought back by Century Arms, Arlington, etc were largely original, though often the wood was very bad, which might be an explanation for your rifle. But any reasonably definitive determination would require close physical inspection by a very knowledgeable evaluator.

    Jim R
     
  20. over the hill

    over the hill Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2007
    Messages:
    1,377
    Great photography.

    What did you take the photos with?


    Regards....Gerald
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Search tags for this page

d28287-2sa rep2

,

m1 garand bolt d28287-2sa rep2

,

m1 garand british proof marks