View Single Post
  #20  
Old 03-05-2021, 12:20 PM
krdomingue krdomingue is online now
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Katy, TX
Posts: 1,445
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