View Single Post
  #19  
Old 02-17-2021, 04:48 PM
col b col b is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Huntsville, AL
Posts: 3,280
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by krdomingue View Post
Now that you asked the question, I might be remembering wrong. Page 31 Collection the American Sniper Rifle 1945 to 2000, Joe Poyer refers to 1,500 M1C rifles being withdrawn from storage. So it looks like the plugged may have be decommissioned M1Cs.

But I want to say that I read it some where, but I don't remember where.
Let me say up front that I am no fan of Poyer reference Carbines or M1s. There is conflicting information all over the place and I have not decided between myth, conjecture and fact. But, if bases were installed on all WWII produced M1C receivers, why did the GCA find so many '51 program M1C builds that lacked any WWII receiver staking at all? If you look at SA-52 M1C plugged receivers, you will see the same phenomenon. Some with WWII staking evidence and some with no receiver staking and "screw only" staking. For the "WWII assembled" staking to be true, screw only staking would have to have been adopted much earlier than the '51 program to have those receivers as part of the "depot stores" pile. Could that have happened? Of course. After all, if you have ever milled a Rockwell 60+ receiver, you know that pre heat treat staking is going to look different than post heat treat staking......but no one to date has signed up for what staking actually looked like post heat treat assembly. Who actually did the staking? The GCA article said G&H staked "all WWII receivers" and SA "had to take them apart to heat treat." Really? If G&H "installed" the bases, to include staking, then all M1C receivers should look like depot overhauls with "staking removal" evidence for all M1C receivers assembled after the separate heat treat process began. Not to mention, why did serialization by G&H even begin? So, SA would have marked bases to go by? If this doesn't make any sense to you.....join the club!
Reply With Quote