M1 Garand Experts Please Help

[Joe N]

I have a late November 1941 Springfield Armoury M1 Garand. A member here has seen pics of it, and I believe he is very knowledgeable on US weaponry. He believes or has been told that the cartouches on the M1 are faked. This ws given a thumbs up on a previous post here. I am no expert at all on these, but this is what I know. I know where this rifle has been for the last approximately 15 years, as it sat unregistered after being bought at a Bud Haynes auction in the early 1990's. It has been with one owner since, and although there is no guarantee what the previous owner may have done, I do trust him. Back 15 years ago when Garands were $199 each, did the technology (stamp and hammer) exist to fake the cartouches?
So, does this look fake to you M1 experts? I know milsurps, but sadly not Garands. The finish and wear look authentic to me for a 60 year old rifle. I believe the cartouches are authentic. Please give me your honest opinions here. I know it is difficult to tell from a few pics, but it's the best I can do at the moment. Thank you all for looking!
Joe

[76white02]

It could go either way in my book. I will however point out a few things that raise my eyebrow. A few areas look to be doubled up. As if it was stamped over the existing stamp. So maybe it had an original cartouche and someone wanted to restore it.

It seems almost TOO crisp. But that doesn't always mean its fake.





Here is a photo of my EM cF (why does it asterisk E***) cartouche. After some action and 65 years, needless to say it doesn't have much definition.

[Joe N]

Thank you Sir, I appreciate this

[sneakerd]

I agree. There is a marked difference in the depth and clarity between the SA/GHS and the crossed cannons. This is one sign of a "refreshed" cartouche. However, that is not to say that the possibility does not exist that the original inspector did not swing the hammer off a little and hit the SA/GHS wrong or off or whatever you want to call it. The current fakes are so good that you have to look at the associated wear, finish, depth, strike, etc.- in hopes of finding good stamps with consistant strikes. The real ones are slightly off-center, as the inspector was not all that careful after having stamped 50 or 100 or more rifles that day. Most will not be appear fresh, as the stocks will have been refinished or sanded AT LEAST once.
imho,
Dave

[birddogg]

They look good to me . Look like nice original marks. John

[Johnnie]

It is hard to come to a conclusion from my point of view, but the stamp does indeed look "fresher" than the ordnance insignia. However, all US ordnance items get recycled a number of times before being de-milled, and stocks certainly were. So there could be a number of plausable explainations. Have you tried comparing this inspector stamp to the same one of a known original?

Johnnie

[CH47]

For several of the reasons previously mentioned I would put money on this one having been "enhanced".

[Joe N]

Some more pics

Thank you Gentlemen, I am grateful for the expertise. I have had quite a few pm's asking for pics of the entire rifle, so here it is . I did not pay a premium for this, in fact it was quite reasonable. I believe this to be one of the "King's Garands", or Lend Lease so to speak. I believe all components are early. Hope more pics will assist us, thanks agin for looking!

[Joe N]

[Joe N]

[Joe N]

[Joe N]

[Joe N]

[Joe N]

[Joe N]