[dalbert]

Model 65's are C&R

No. I referred to the picture only because the Model MC-58 also has the words "Model #65 Modified" stamped on the receiver and that sometimes causes confusion.

Cass

Fushigi Ojisan,

Cass is correct. Model 65's are C&R. I have corresponded with ATF on this subject, and they also confirmed C&R status.

David Albert
[email protected]

 

[dalbert]

Confused a bit. Did only the 58s have the safety in the trigger guard? Also saw one with "APG" stamped on it. Meaning?

vintovka,

Yes, only the MC-58's have the Garand style safety in the trigger guard. Although I've never seen one marked "APG," it's likely to stand for "Aberdeen Proving Ground."

David Albert
[email protected]

 

[dalbert]

Cass, Spotted another Mod 65 for your records however, this one is a bit strange. Standard Mod 65 markings except that right above the reciever markings it is stamped "USMC property" using what looks like standard die stamps. Two things that were on the down side. Someone had drilled and tapped it for a scope along the left side of the barrel (had to take a small bit of the stock out to fit). The two holes are drilled so the "22 long rifle" is centered in between them. The other thing that was on the down side was the price for the condition at $800 plus. Serial #15518. Seems like a high number for USMC use?

type-14,

Any chance of posting a picture of the "USMC Property" marking on your Model 65? I'd like to document it and compare it to my Model 65 NM with a "USMC" marking.

Thanks!

David Albert
[email protected]

 

[dalbert]

MC-58 Manual Examples

BTW, has anyone ever turned up an original manual for the MC-58, the TM-ORD-2000? I am still lookng for one.

Regards,
Charlie Flick

http://www.cowanauctions.com/past_sales_view_item.asp?ItemId=81209

Charlie,

TM-ORD-2000 covers operation, maintenance, and inspection of the MC-58. While I don't have one available to sell, I have one in my personal collection, and it is pictured below for reference.

David Albert Collection

Another MC-58 manual that exists is a Marine Corps Stock List, (SL-4-01423A), which shows and lists all parts for the rifle, along with their procurement stock numbers, for use in repair of the rifle. The example from my collection is pictured below.

David Albert Collection

David Albert
[email protected]

 

[dalbert]

Hi Dave:

Thanks for posting the pics of the manuals in question. I was not aware of your post here until I got the notification of Cass' posting below. I do have a copy of the Stock List which came with my rifle, but am still looking for the TM-ORD-2000. Your pic is the first one I have seen of this scarce manual. Now at least I know that the Manual does exist and what it looks like. You have a great selection of manuals and other information on your site, something that is helpful to all US martial arms collectors.

Regards,
Charlie Flick

Charlie,

You are very welcome. The link to the Reising reference page is included below. I recently acquired many paper items from the family of the late Jeff Reising, who was an avid Reising firearm historian, and a relative of Eugene Reising, the designer of the Reising SMG, Reising .22's, and various other firearms. I have posted some of the material on the Reising reference page, and have much more to add when I have the time.

Good luck in your search for TM-ORD-2000. If you would like me to check for some particular information in mine, just let me know.

http://www.machinegunboards.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=9688

Thanks!

David Albert
[email protected]

 

[dalbert]

You provided some amazing resources, its what inspired me to get my on Model 65 and to get my brother-in-law a 150.

A bit off-topic though, what do you know about the Reising .22 pistols of the late 1920s? The research out there is spotty at best and I would love to find about more about these nifty little pistols.

Fushigi Ojisan,

Reising .22 Pistols are the next project I have slated for the Reising reference section. Among the items I acquired from the Jeff Reising estate are several original pamphlets, catalogs, order forms, and other paper items associated with Eugene Reising's namesake company from the 1920's. As best as I can tell, the Reising Arms Company operated from about 1921 to 1929, with the Reising .22 Pistol as their primary product. Early on, the company was based on Broadway in New York City, very close to several other firearm companies, including Auto-Ordnance, and then the company moved to Hartford, CT. The pistols had some variations, including an engraved, deluxe presentation version. I’ve seen 4 different color grips that were available on the pistol, including an ivory color, 2 shades of brown, and black. Eugene Reising worked with John Browning on the M1911 Pistol, and the Reising .22 bears a resemblance to it, with the addition of a unique break-open action. The motto for the company was "It's a Bear," and this motto and theme was molded into the Reising .22 Pistol grips. The Reising competed against the Colt Woodsman.
More to come on the Reising .22 Pistol...

David Albert
[email protected]

 

[dalbert]

David has already blown bit of conventional wisdom out of the water--that the New York pistols were the later ones (because their SNs have an extra digit or two). They are just such a nifty design and very light--its a shame they are prone to cracking when shot with hotter ammo.

I have a New York model with brown-red grips and surprisingly clean for its age. Can't wait to take it to the range.

Fushigi Ojisan,

I may need to revise my earlier remarks about the sequence of Reising Arms Company locations. Looks like Hartford is probably the earlier location. I'm digging through the documents right now, and am seeing the Hartford address, two different New York addresses, and a reference to "Works" in Chicopee Falls, MA. I know the pistols were marked with a New York, or a Hartford address. Let me make more sense out of the documents, and I'll post what I find. I made an assumption about New York being first, based on something I remembered, and that recollection may have been in error.

David Albert
[email protected]

 

[dalbert]

Fushigi Ojisan,

I may need to revise my earlier remarks about the sequence of Reising Arms Company locations. Looks like Hartford is probably the earlier location. I'm digging through the documents right now, and am seeing the Hartford address, two different New York addresses, and a reference to "Works" in Chicopee Falls, MA. I know the pistols were marked with a New York, or a Hartford address. Let me make more sense out of the documents, and I'll post what I find. I made an assumption about New York being first, based on something I remembered, and that recollection may have been in error.

David Albert
[email protected]

OK, I found where my assumption came from. Among Jeff Reising's paperwork are 2 pages photocopied from an unknown firearm value book, stating, "This model was mfg. in New York, NY from serial number 1001-4000. The Hartford, CT address occurs in the serial range 10,000 -12,000." In looking at the Blue Book, it does not mention specific serial number ranges, and states that Hartford was first, then New York. I believe now that Hartford first is correct.

Among the paperwork is a letter from Reising Arms, dated February, 1921, which lists Hartford, CT as the address. I also found reference to an "Arms and the Man" (Pre-American Rifleman) article from 1912, which stated that Eugene Reising lived in Hartford, CT at that time. All the later Reising Arms publications I have list both the Hartford Address, and a New York office address. The New York Office addresses were 149 Broadway from 1922 to 1924, and 61 Broadway after 1924. A San Francisco office address at 22 Battery Place is also mentioned in a November, 1924 catalog.

I think this subject needs to be further confirmed through serial number research. I have pictures of 3 Reising pistols with the Hartford address, and I can only discern the serial number on one of them, which appears to be "9879." It looks like some pistols had their serial numbers marked on the left side of the frame, and some on the right.

My theory is that the pistols were never manufactured in New York, but were probably made in both Hartford, CT, and Chicopee Falls, MA, perhaps subcontracted to another company with existing manufacturing infrastructure. I know there's a lot more we can learn about these pistols, and I'll do my best to add more to the conversation, and share the associated paper items that I now have in my collection.

David Albert
[email protected]

 

[dalbert]

"Rat Rifle" and Serial Number Assertions for Model 65's and MC-58's

I read through this thread again last night, and noticed one unanswered question that I could answer. I also noticed serial number assertions made in 3 posts, about which I’d like to inquire further. I thought I’d post again, and revive this excellent thread.

There is a posting over on milsup.com under .22 Smallbore rifles about a H&R 65 USMC "Rat-Gun". Posted as a H&R 65 Trainer during WW11 with a silencer on it to shoot rats in the garbage dumps in the South Seas Islands. Anyone ever heard of this?

Yes. A board member here, and also on one of my boards has a Model 65 “Rat Rifle.” The front sight is set back further than a normal Model 65, and a portion of the barrel is threaded. It also has a thread cover to protect the threads when not in use. It was designed to use a .22 Maxim Silencer, and saw use by Marines in the Pacific in WWII for shooting rats. It was apparently also intended for small game hunting. The person who sent me photos of his Model 65 “Rat Rifle” indicated that a WWII USMC Pacific veteran saw him carrying it at a gun show, and told him some stories of using one during the war.

My next comments are in regards to the following three assertions made in this thread about serial numbers:

Assertion #1

You H&R 65 was probably made at the end of WW11. The H&R 65 was a training rifle for USMC. Somewhere it was written about serial number 17,000 is thought to be the cut off serial number for military guns. There are no records known. So yours could be and it could not be military. In 1945 H&R started selling remaining Models 65 to civilians.

Assertion #2:

boyt44:

Nice rifle. By the serial number that was definitely one of the WWII USMC rifles.
Cass

Assertion #3:

Hello Scott:

From the serial number it would have been made for the USMC during WWII.
Cass

Does anyone have documentation to support any particular Model 65 serial number range being acquired by the Marine Corps? Has any contractual information been researched? I would be very interested to see any documentation that exists.

I have one theory that could support how the assertion came about. I’ve seen individuals on the internet say that approximately the first 6000 Model 65’s were Marine Corps rifles. I wonder whether the 6000 figure may originate from a misperception that the later MC-58 serial numbers were an extension of the Model 65 serial number range. From the data I’ve collected, I do not believe this to be the case, nor would it make much sense. My records indicate that Model 65 serial numbers probably ran from 1 to over 18000. (The highest Model 65 serial number I have documented is 18489) My documentation includes several Model 65 serial numbers from within the serial number range of observed MC-58’s, which are in the approximate range of 6000 to 9500, give or take a few hundred.

Another, more likely theory is that the misperception about the first 6000 rifles going to the Marine Corps originates from the Thomas D. Batha book, “U.S. Martial .22 RF Rifles.” He estimates that Model 65 production was limited to 6000 units, and indicates that MC-58 production began at serial number 6000, implying that it followed the serial number range of the Model 65. We know this to simply not be true, based on the many examples in existence well beyond his stated Model 65 serial number range, and also within the same serial number range for MC-58’s.

I believe this error by Batha is the reason Cass asked ‘type-14” in his 2/10/12 post to confirm whether serial number 7818 was a Model 65, and not an MC-58 in the post quoted below.

Dale:

Thanks. Is that definitely a Mod 65 and not an MC-58?

The bolt hold open parts are the toughest to find because they broke most easily. He'll just have to get lucky to find them.

Thanks,
Cass

The Batha book is a good guide, but it has several inaccuracies in the Model 65 chapter.

On the subject of H&R WWII serial numbers, my observations are as follows:

Starting serial numbers over for new models was consistent with H&R practices during the WWII period from what I have observed for their Reising family of firearms.

• Serial numbers appear to have started at 1 for Reising Model 50 Submachine Guns (although the Paratrooper variant Model 55's were produced within the Model 50 serial number range)
• Serial numbers appear to have started at 1 for Reising Model 60 Semi-Automatic Carbines
• Serial numbers appear to have started at 1 for Model 65 .22 Rifles
• Serial numbers appear to have started at 1 for Model 165 “Leatherneck” Rifles

I don’t know if this practice was changed by H&R after WWII, since MC-58 production began 13 years later. From MC-58 rifles observed to date, they appear to have started later in a serial number range, unless there were more produced than is known by anyone so far. I doubt this, so I think we’re dealing with an anomaly or process change in regards to MC-58 serialization when compared to WWII practices. Batha indicates production was limited to 3450 MC-58’s, and I believe that to be an accurate figure, probably based on researched contractual information. He indicates MC-58 serialization began at 6000, which is consistent with observed examples.

My own theory about distribution of the Model 65 during WWII was that the War Production Board allowed Model 65’s to be produced and sold by H&R beginning in 1943, and that the full serial number range may have supported both military and civilian sales. This is supported by a change made to the Reising Model 50 Submachine Gun manual that was advertised and distributed for free during WWII. This was the subject of my first article for Small Arms Review magazine in 2005. H&R was forward focused to sales after the war, while supporting the war effort. They only produced one pistol for civilian use during the war, and then added the Model 65 rifle in 1943. The Model 65 was advertised in the Model 50 SMG manual edition of 1943. Model 65 sales transitioned to the Model 165 “Leatherneck” in May, 1945. I have an H&R letter and flyer that documents the Model 165 changeover.

Others here may have different opinions, and that’s why I’m offering this post up for further discussion on the subject. I’m not one to accept the status quo, and I think this subject deserves more discussion and research.

Your thoughts?

David Albert
[email protected]

 

[dalbert]

Let's Compare Observational Notes

Cass,

I agree that these rifles deserve more research. I believe that specific information regarding contracts, etc., exists in the National Archives Washington D.C. location, as that is where much Navy information is deposited. A fellow Thompson aficionado ran across some Reising information there that has not yet been fully reviewed and reported. I’m fairly certain we’ll determine whether it was really 6000 that were ordered, and whether it was one order, or several. For now, published information on the Models 65 and MC-58 remains minimal. I will change that to the extent I can, and hope that others will take interest and further the effort as you have. This thread is good evidence that the subject holds interest.

We should compare our observational notes. I have notes and/or photos of 79 different Model 65’s, 165’s, 150/151’s, and MC-58’s on my list. My Model 65 data runs from a single letter serial number to number 18489. My MC-58 notes cover between serial number 6108 to 9297. We should combine our data, since it’s probably the most thorough observational study performed to date.

Now, here’s some information I can add to the subject. I recently made a new acquisition. I bought the rifle that one could argue started it all. It is the single letter serial number rifle that I referenced earlier…the original 1943 prototype and test rifle for production of the Model 65.

The vintage tag on the rifle is difficult to read in places, but indicates that 80,000 rounds were test fired through it, plus 20,000 at the factory. The tag, dated 1944, indicates that it is the original 1943 test rifle, and property of H&R, and to “Hold for Instructions.” It came from Eugene Reising’s estate, among several other prototype rifles to include a couple of .30 Carbine examples, and others.

Comparing it to a production Model 65, it becomes obvious what this rifle is. All markings are hand stamped. As stated previously, the serial number is a single letter. It does not have the H&R rollmark that production Model 65’s have…only “Reising ..22” hand-stamped on the side. “Safe” and “Fire” are also hand-stamped. The magazine is hand-stamped with “10” on it to indicate capacity, and does not feature the company markings of production magazines. The buttplate is a plain piece of sheet metal, versus the stamped production metal buttplate. The trigger guard appears to have been hand finished, versus the slightly rougher stamping on the production model. The safety knob is spherical, rather than pill shaped with flattened sides on the production models. The barrel has lathe turning marks on it. This is the rifle the Marine Corps used to evaluate the Model 65 design as a .22 trainer for the M1 Garand Rifle, which resulted in the subsequent production of tens of thousands of rifles of the Model 65 design and its descendants.

You may have seen this rifle offered for sale in the past year or so. I felt I needed to add it to the collection.

Here are some photos:

Here's another very cool accessory that I got with the rifle. Two original H&R advertising matchbooks for the H&R :"Reising" .22 Automatic Rifle. A very convenient practice target included.

David Albert
[email protected]

 

[dalbert]

Reising .22 Display at American Society of Arms Collectors

This last weekend, I presented a small display of Reising .22's in Sturbridge, Massachusetts during my induction into the American Society of Arms Collectors. It featured Eugene Reising designed .22's from his own manufacturing companies (Reising Arms Co., and Reising Mfg. Co.), as well as from H&R. It's a pretty simple display of Reising rifles, several manuals and catalogs, and also my Reising .22 matchbooks. People seemed to like it, and I thought it might receive some interest in this thread.

Featured .22's were as follows:

• Reising Mfg. Co. .22 Pistol, circa 1924
• Prototype "Reising .22" Rifle (This was the actual rifle used by the USMC in 1943 to evaluate the Model 65 design, with over 100,000 rounds fired through it)
• H&R Reising Model 65
• H&R Reising Model 65 upgraded to National Match specifications, USMC marked
• H&R Model 165
• H&R Model 150

I'd appreciate any comments or questions you may have regarding the display.

David Albert
[email protected]

 

[dalbert]

I bought a H&R model 65 this past weekend #17xxx and I have noticed that the later 65's do not have the two stock bolts in the forend? My gun does not have the bolts, if not the USMC where did these higher number 65's go to?

paul s,

Please post a photo of your Model 65. I've started researching the characteristics of "sporter" Model 65's, and recently acquired what I beleve to be a sporter model. Therewere probably several changes made to the Model 65 leading up to the introduction of the Model 165 in May, 1945.

You might be interested in this thread as background info:

http://www.machinegunboards.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=15470

I'm very interested to see photos of your Model 65.

Thanks!

David Albert
[email protected]

 

[dalbert]

paul s,

Thanks for posting the photo. Nice looking Model 65 without the stock bolts. That's the only difference I can detect from earlier Model 65's.

David Albert
[email protected]

 

[dalbert]

Hi all,
Another M65 in dalbert's Reising database is ser# 184xx. Do we have documentations/ photos of this one?

Thanks,
Mike

Mike,

I don't have photos of the highest serial number M65 in my spreadsheet, but I do have photos of one in the 180XX range. It does not have a crossbolt stock.

The data regarding your father, and his M65 acquisition is a good reference point.

David Albert
[email protected]

 

[dalbert]

Photos of USMC Marking

Hi Cass,
Here are two more for your list. MC58 #9103 as new. I bought it 15 years ago. Its is a papered DMC Rifle.
I Also have MC65 #2783. I have had it for about the same amount of time. It is also like new and gets used often. I know this has been beaten to death but the MC65 is marked USMC PROPERTY at the wood line on the left side of the rifle. I have seen no less than six done the same way in the same font in the same place. Perhaps M.C. marked at the armory. Thanks again for your hard work. ed

edwardc,

If you could, please post a photo of the USMC marking on the Model 65. Thanks!

David Albert
[email protected]

 

[dalbert]

Hi Cass,
I came across mention of a 1946 ad, this may be that. If so, the "General" was a nick name for the new M165,
not the M65. This is what earlier ads announced as a new sporter model to be available when the war ended.
I'll check back thru my notes and post more.
Mike

Mike,

That is incorrect. The Model 165 was called "The Leatherneck." The Model 65 was known as "The General." I believe Cass' ad appeared in a 1944 edition of American Rifleman magazine.

Here is a flyer from my collection that accompanied a May 1945 H&R letter announcing the availability of "The Leatherneck."

David Albert
[email protected]

 

[dalbert]

Hi David,
Sorry for the confusion, what I said was that "IF" this ad was from 1945-1946 it would seem to be describing the M165 which is "Leatherneck".
The rifle pictured in the ad appears to have the wrist cut on it's stock like what started on the M165.
Ever since I started looking for info on these rifles I have seen reference to the name "The General".
I have personally believed that the M65 as sold to civilians near the end of of WW2 was "The General"
I have seen reference to serial numbers 11xxx - 185xx.
All of these rifles have the new features as described in the companies "Special Notice" letter.
Is the date of the first ads which mention "The General" known?
I'm not claiming that what is known now about the history of the M65 is 100% correct.
What I've been posting is for discussion and I look forward to different opinions,
especially ones that prove me wrong.
With the help of many owners of these rifles we will prove that some of the info available so far
about these rifles is false.
Mike

Mike,

Please don't get me wrong, I appreciate and share your enthusiasm for the Reising rifles, and I value diversity of opinion on the subject. I plan to continue studying them, and determine as much as I can about them from a collector and historical standpoint. I really like these rifles. I went to a Thompson shoot in July, and spent more time shooting one of my Model 65's than my Thompson. I still think there is much to learn about them, and I believe we can locate government records that may help us answer lingering questions.

The earliest mention I know of "The General" .22 rifle is an advertisement in the 1943 edition of the H&R Reising Submachine Gun Handbook. Most copies of this manual are dated 1942, and have 47 pages. In 1943, H&R added page 48 with "The General" advertisement. H&R was very forward thinking in their advertising, and distributed the Reising SMG Handbook for free to customers who requested it, as they wanted to keep H&R in the mind of the gun enthusuiast for continued post-war sales while their production was mostly focused on the war effort. My first article in Small Arms Review Magazine covered this subject in July 2005.

David Albert
[email protected]

 

[dalbert]

I believe the reason that "Reising" was removed, and they are blued is that they were for use with a bolt action H&R .22. I recently learned that an H&R bolt action was set up to use Reising magazines. I believe it may have been the Model 451, but I will need to verify the details in an e-mail that another Reising collector sent me.

David Albert
[email protected]

 

[dalbert]

Charlie,

Congratulations on finally locating one of the MC-58 manuals. Yes, they are scarce items.

I don't have any photos of the MC-58 in Marine service, but I do have at least one of the Model 65 in service in Marine Corps training during WWII.

David Albert
[email protected]