Gunboards Forums banner
1 - 20 of 28 Posts

·
Senior Member
Joined
·
1,693 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Picked up this carbine today. For the price I couldn't pass it up. It has a Quality Hardware receiver with an Underwood barrel. The parts seem to be from all over the place. Is is some kind of "mixmaster"? The stock has a faint mark inside the sling well but I can't make it out. The barrel seems to be marked 1-43.



The Garand I traded for with my VZ2008. Seller described it as made by CMP but I don't have any way of proving that. From the serial number I believe the receiver is a '44. There seems to be a gap in the fore stock. Should I try to tighten it up? It looks to be in very good condition. I was really just looking for a good shooter so I am happy with it but anything you can tell me about it would be great. Thanks.

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
404 Posts
Mike from the added carbine pictures the trigger guard looks to be correct type III not sure on the small parts such as mag. catch,safety,hammer,trigger and sear.
The slide looks to be a correct type III but I need a better view of the rear and right side.
The bolt looks to be a correct type II but need to see the extractor and firing pin.
The handguard looks to be made by Rock-ola for Quality.
Is the front band or swivel marked and is the butt stock marked with a ordanance wheel on the right side also are there any marking on the right side of the rear sight ?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,966 Posts
It's not all original. The barrel has been replaced. The serial number dates to about September 1943. The carbine has been refinished. The bolt should be blue not parkerized. The rear sight is a reproduction. But still for the price you paid you did very well.
 

·
Senior Member
Joined
·
1,693 Posts
Discussion Starter · #11 ·
It's not all original. The barrel has been replaced. The serial number dates to about September 1943. The carbine has been refinished. The bolt should be blue not parkerized. The rear sight is a reproduction. But still for the price you paid you did very well.
I thought the rear sight looked a little different finish wise but I didn't know if maybe that was normal from usage. When you say the barrel has been replaced are you referring to the Garand or the carbine?
 

·
Senior Member
Joined
·
1,693 Posts
Discussion Starter · #12 ·
Mike from the added carbine pictures the trigger guard looks to be correct type III not sure on the small parts such as mag. catch,safety,hammer,trigger and sear.
The slide looks to be a correct type III but I need a better view of the rear and right side.
The bolt looks to be a correct type II but need to see the extractor and firing pin.
The handguard looks to be made by Rock-ola for Quality.
Is the front band or swivel marked and is the butt stock marked with a ordanance wheel on the right side also are there any marking on the right side of the rear sight ?
I do not see any marks on the front band or swivel. Inside the sling well there is a faint stamp. It looks like a rectangle with some letters I cannot make out inside of it.


I'll get some pictures of the other areas and get them up as well.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,966 Posts
The barrel on the carbine has been changed. A barrel dated 1-43 would not be on a carbine made nine months later. The barrel was one of the major bottle necks for carbine production. Everyone wanted barrels but those that were making them had a hard time keeping up with production.
 

·
Senior Member
Joined
·
1,693 Posts
Discussion Starter · #16 ·
Mike from the added carbine pictures the trigger guard looks to be correct type III not sure on the small parts such as mag. catch,safety,hammer,trigger and sear.
The slide looks to be a correct type III but I need a better view of the rear and right side.
The bolt looks to be a correct type II but need to see the extractor and firing pin.
The handguard looks to be made by Rock-ola for Quality.
Is the front band or swivel marked and is the butt stock marked with a ordanance wheel on the right side also are there any marking on the right side of the rear sight ?
I hope these are helpful. I do not see any markings on the right side of the sight, and I do not see any markings on the barrel band. It seems to be a 3 spot band.




@ Tuna
Are you certain the rear sight is a reproduction? Looking at it again it looks a lot like it has a Saginaw "S".


rear sight on Quality Hardware
rear sight on my SG.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,966 Posts
Pictures 11 and 12 of a rear sight are two different sights. Picture 11 is a reproduction and it's on the carbine pictured above. In fact look close at both of these sighs and compare them to each other. There are differences between them. Look at both sides since you have them and compare them to each other. As I said photo # 11 is the repo.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
404 Posts
Mike the s on the sight stands for the small side as it is tapered not for SG .the slide is a type II for QC possibly a little early and the mag. catch is a type IIa correct for QC , the hammer is a type III for QC a little late, the ord. wheel looks to be for QC but the length of the cannons should be a 1/2" from end to end.
Mike this info is from the 7th edition of Craig Riesch's U.S. M1 Carbines Wartime Production.
 

·
Senior Member
Joined
·
1,693 Posts
Discussion Starter · #20 ·
Mike the s on the sight stands for the small side as it is tapered not for SG .the slide is a type II for QC possibly a little early and the mag. catch is a type IIa correct for QC , the hammer is a type III for QC a little late, the ord. wheel looks to be for QC but the length of the cannons should be a 1/2" from end to end.
Mike this info is from the 7th edition of Craig Riesch's U.S. M1 Carbines Wartime Production.
Thank you very much. I actually have that book, but I have not gone through it yet.

So is this rifle original minus the rear sight or is it something recently thrown together with correct parts? I am leaning to more recently since the finish on the different parts seems to show different rates of wear. Also, as Tuna pointed out the barrel has been replaced as well. In addition, the stock and fore end seem to go together but the stock has clearly been given a light sanding or some other form of "cleaning". I guess they thought the fore end was good enough. It is not so clear from the pictures but the finish on the stock is strikingly different than on the fore end or my other 2 carbines. Am I making a reasonable assumption?
 
1 - 20 of 28 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top