Go Back   CMP Forums > CMP Sales > Auction
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old 01-20-2021, 06:55 PM
nunya80 nunya80 is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Nebraska
Posts: 1,031
Default

Verified with McClain with a letter. Id say the guy who sorted them out and built the database is as close to an expert as youll find. Verified ex m1c. Ro wall, that beautiful. We should move this thread to the main garand page... good info.
__________________
my feedback:

http://forums.thecmp.org/showthread.php?t=192113

Last edited by nunya80; 01-20-2021 at 07:03 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 01-25-2021, 02:26 AM
krdomingue krdomingue is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Katy, TX
Posts: 1,390
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trepang View Post
I am new to Garands so forgive the dumb question - Am I reading the numbers on that SA-52 barrel correctly - is that a 1955 barrel on it?
You are reading it correct, which would imply it was rebuilt again in the later 50's. It is a real mixmaster, but with some very interesting parts. It has a grooved handguard clip and lower band, and an older style op-rod catch.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 01-25-2021, 04:27 PM
Trepang Trepang is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2021
Location: Calvert County, MD
Posts: 10
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by krdomingue View Post
You are reading it correct, which would imply it was rebuilt again in the later 50's. It is a real mixmaster, but with some very interesting parts. It has a grooved handguard clip and lower band, and an older style op-rod catch.
Thanks, I appreciate the info.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 01-30-2021, 09:32 PM
dogboysdad dogboysdad is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: NE Ohio
Posts: 403
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Herrmann View Post
Permit me to boast: I have an SA 52 with 52 barrel, JLG stock and WIN receiver!
(My collection favorite.)
My WRA SA52 also has a 1952 barrel, SA open box stock, and the receiver was likely made in the first few days of WRA production.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 02-14-2021, 01:56 AM
krdomingue krdomingue is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Katy, TX
Posts: 1,390
Default

I have been looking at the SA-52 plugged M1C for a while now, with goal of getting one as correct as possible. (My definition of correct is JLC stock, late 1952/early 1953 SA barrel and mostly early post war SA parts.) There have been several quality one on the auction sight, but I kept getting wildly outbid. It didn't help that this thread is pointing their existence out. I finally decide it would be a lot cheaper to bid on a barrel receiver and build the rest out. Got what I wanted. Just now need to source out the rest. Fortunately I have several of the parts already.

https://photos.google.com/share/AF1Q...tueVlRTG9sRUZB
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 02-14-2021, 01:28 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
For the most part, these plugged M1Cs were never functioning rifles prior to being plugged. SA had a bunch of M1C receivers with mounts already installed at the end of the war. They sat on a shelf until the Korean war, at which time some were built into M1C sniper rifles and some were plugged to make much needed m1 rifles.
Very interested in "M1C staking" where did you get the info that the "depot stores" M1C receivers had mounts already installed at the end of the war?
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 02-14-2021, 03:04 PM
krdomingue krdomingue is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Katy, TX
Posts: 1,390
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by col b View Post
Very interested in "M1C staking" where did you get the info that the "depot stores" M1C receivers had mounts already installed at the end of the war?
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.

Last edited by krdomingue; 02-17-2021 at 10:51 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 02-17-2021, 10:27 AM
CHARLIE699 CHARLIE699 is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Ohio
Posts: 640
Default

No expert here,. Always a student. My own plugged C is SA-52 marked. Outside of the '52 dated SA barrel, it appeared to be in mostly WW2 configuration. Still had SA/NFR wood & lockbar sight. Whether it went through complete rebuild or not? Don't know. Can't speculate. Was the process at SA in 1952 to rebuild/refurbish/update to then-current spec? Or did some receive minimal updates? Granted, my rifle spent many years in Government hands between 1952 and when I purchased from CMP. Parts retained, replaced during that time,,,,who can guess. I left it as I bought it.
Reply With Quote
  #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
  #20  
Old 03-05-2021, 12:20 PM
krdomingue krdomingue is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Katy, TX
Posts: 1,390
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by col b View Post
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!
You bring up too many questions for my brain to handle. I finally received my auction purchase this morning and the holes were showing no evidence of of being staked. I am assuming that at a minimum the drilling was done by G&H, so a few possibilities.

- This is a late war receiver (March 45), so possible it got drilled but the base was never applied.
- G&H applied the base, but it was not staked. I personally believe that G&H would have been responsible for the staking as it was their responsibility to insure the install was done correctly. But with no staking it was either never built out as a rifle or SA allowed it to be built out with out staking. The latter is doubtful to me.

Either of these possibilities kind of implies that it was never built out to be an M1C and the first time a barrel was applied was when it was built into a M1 in 1952. To me it is reasonably plausible that some plugged receivers (like mine) were never completed until the Korean rebuilds and some were decommissioned M1Cs.

Also, I would think (but have no proof) that the logical process was for G&H to drill, heat treat, add the base, then stake the posts.

https://imgur.com/gallery/wpg0uLo

Last edited by krdomingue; 03-05-2021 at 04:52 PM.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:52 AM.