My new M-1 Garrand

[Rich Landy]

Gentlemen, I picked this up yesterday from the retied Navy vet's son. The son was a retired Navy Commander! It has a story which the son wrote up for me. His Dad was a machinist mate assigned to a landing craft to carry Marines to the beach of a Japanese held island(the son did not remember which island). The landing craft struck a coral reef and became stuck - so everyone went ashore abd participated in the fighting. His Dad picked up this rifle from a dead Marine. After 3 days he was able to get back to his ship. He kept the rifle. It is marked Springfield Armory 288297. The back of the barrel is marked
with a capital M and about an inch from that 9-A 5 41. Only other numbers I
see are near the front just where the stock begins D-35449-SA. The stock
and the mechanical parts are in great shape. I know many of these are
reworked, but I don't think this one was. If someone can tell me where to
look for rework stamps, I will try. Click on the photos for larger pics.

[sneakerd]

Only one little problem, it appears to have a postwar rear sight. These weren't installed on Garands until around 1947. Unlikely that a direct-from-the-beach original WW2 Garand would have a postwar sight. Sorry.

[Dan Niles]

Actually this appears to be an original gas trap rifle that has been converted to gas cylinder by the military in early 1941.

Many of them were, if you could post a side picture of the rear sight it would help to identify it but based on the top view it looks like it is the proper flush nut design used on the early M1's before they adapted the lock bar sight.

The flush sight is similar in design to the post war T105E1 sight system.

[sneakerd]

If so, I stand corrected!

[ncthorn]

Im sure you guys will correct me if I am wrong but to my knowledge the gas trap system was only used on the first 50000 M1s. After that came the gas port. With this in mind, I doubt this rifle was ever a gas trap rifle. It looks to me however that the rear sight may be a pre lock-bar sight so it should be okay.

Are there any cartouches on the stock? It looks like birch and I would expect walnut. It could just be the lighting though.

Nice M1!

[Dan Niles]

Sneakerd,

I really wasn't trying to correct you, its just from the photo angles it is really hard to tell. The flush nut with short pinion was used into March of 1942 with an overlap of a couple of months with the lockbar. A better picture from the side of the sight would help to positively identify it.

The stock appears to have been varnished at some point in time as many were to "dress them up" post war by the vets.

The stock, if original, would have had an S.A. GHS cartouche on the left side of the stock along with the ordnance wheel.

The barrel marking shows the barrel made in May of 1941 which would be correct for the serial number of the rifle. A tough gun to find in an early configuration.

Check out Scott Duff's book on the WWII Garand, he's one of the most knowledgeable individuals on this rifle, and the book is great reference material. He is also a very good guy to deal with when wanting to purchase or restore a Garand. Just a side note, I own a March of 1943 Garand myself and are a great piece of military history.

Dan

[Dan Niles]

NCTHORN,

You are correct on the Gas trap version, so I stand corrected, it appears that it has the proper gas cylinder on it.

Dan

[ncthorn]

No biggie, we all make mistakes. An all original piece of this early on that is not a lend-lease rifle would indeed be a desirable rifle. The stock has me a little worried as it is so darn light in color but this could have been caused by stripping it before applying that varnish. Otherwise, the rifle looks pretty good!

[Dan Niles]

I agree on the stock, it would be nice to see some more pictures of it. These early Garands are rarely encountered in original configuration.

[Rich Landy]

M-i Garrand

Gentlemen, Wow You all are terrific for sharing knowledge with the rest of us. Thank You. I have posted more pics based on your comments. I agree that it looks like someone varnished it along the way. I did carefully look over the stock for any stampings or letter imprints - and I don't see any. What is acartouche? I am not an expert but I think the stock is walnut. PLs click on the photo for a larger image. Thanks Rich





URL=http://img152.imageshack.us/my.php?image=additionalhelmetpictureut5.jpg][/URL]

[bigschuss]

Rich, from the pics and some of the other comments, here are some observations. The picture of the rear sight you took helps to identify at least the elevation knob as a WWII era Springfield part. Looking closely though at the picture of the receiver looking down, it looks to me like the windage knob is knurled, not checkered, like the elevation knob. If this is the case, the windage knob is probably a post-war T105E1 sight as sneakered already mentioned. A better pic of that would clear it up.

Also, the finish on the rifle does not give me the "picked it off a dead Marine" feeling. Instead it gives me the CMP Greek black finish feeling. Again better pics might help, but in some of the pics the finish looks to be kind of a shiney black, like the finish on Greek CMP returns. Also, the overall finish on the entire rifle is very uniform, and uniformly black. If it is not a Greek CMP rifle, I would say that is has been reparked. One way to tell would be to look inside the chamber to see if the throat is "in the white." Is the steel nice and shiney and polished looking? Or is it the same color as the rest of the parts?

Some of your pics aren't that great. But from what I see, I don't buy the story. If by some chance this was direct from the battlfield (which brings up the issue of the incredibly rare, if not impossible, occurences of G.I.'s keeping their Garands as souvenirs) souvenir, I would then expect the finish on the rifle to exhibit the classic 60 old year patina that you see on known original examples....that is, a kind of greenish-grey-black patina. However, if this story is to be plausable, then the stock would also exhibit cartouches, which it doesn't.

I'm no expert. This is just my opinion based on these pics. Maybe somebody more knowledgeable than me can refute or support what I said.

In any case, I hope she shoots well! Shoot it unit it smokes!

Best,
Blair

[sneakerd]

2nd.

[ncthorn]

The rifle, while having many correct parts cannot be original in its current state. While I do not believe that the finish is Greek, it certainly appears as tough the M1 has been refinished at some point as the parkerization is too darn even and too fresh. In addition, the stock would have an inspection stamp on the left side near the receiver heel. To me, the stock appears to be birch as walnut, even when stripped, has a darker tone than seen in this example. The early date also raises a few questions in my mind as the Marines had not widely issued the M1 until later on.

Remember, buy the rifle, not the story. The good news is that eventhough the rifle does not appear original, it may have many correct parts and may be mostly original. Hopefully you did not pay extra for the story and can enjoy the rifle for what it is, a fine M1.