View Full Version : Opinoins on M1 carbine early Winchester
I am trying to find out if this is all original carbine before I buy it and luckily found this website. So here are the pics. Any opinions?
Thanks
Don't believe anybody who claims a carbine is 'all original'. Usually made that way by somebody with lots of time and money. None of the manufacturers made all the parts either.
99.99% of all carbines went through an arsenal rebuild after W.W. II.
Real 'all original' carbines command 4 figure prices. Very few of 'em exist.
That one is in great condition though. If the price is right, for you, buy it.
yes, the price is in four figures- if it was in three figures I would not even bother yo guys with questions!
Thanks,
belkin
Would WRA have allowed such an early example of their new carbine out of inspection with such a messy looking receiver?
I know their work was rough, but thats pretty rough..JMHO.
The pic in reference is on gun boards post about this WRA.
Andy
http://forums.gunboards.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=267282&d=1262496370
Well, it is a rough job- this is not a reparked after pitting receiver:
I am not sure about the cartouche. But, I would have one of the other board members that are more experienced with stocks look at it like Rick B.
"I" cut, circled "P", dated barrel are all right.
I had one like it, temporarily, until an astute eye here caught the welding of a rear sight staking repair, by a faker.
Other than the sloppy workmanship, this one looks very nice.
I would want it, but the pitted look would bother me, original, or not.
The finish is so important.
I know WRA M1 rifles can have a rough, un polished, finish on parts, to be expected. Not this dramatic though??!!
Andy
Newscotlander
01-03-2010, 07:29
The rough forging doesn't bother me but the rear sight does. Is there a picture of the left side of the rear sight showing the square S marking?
I have a early WRA that I bought from CMP on a auction and it has a finish alot like this one! I do not see alot of pitting? looks to me to be just a warn fimish that one might expect a 60+ year gun to have, probably never been reparked. Just my opinion
rear sight and front sight-look OK to me:
Newscotlander
01-03-2010, 07:56
I looked at some of my photos of real early WRA carbines and they have the blued finish on the front sight so that is O.K.
I'm still not sure about the rear sight. The marking seems OK, but the corners seem too rounded. The best thing to do is compare with known originals.
I looked at some of my photos of real early WRA carbines and they have the blued finish on the front sight so that is O.K.
I'm still not sure about the rear sight. The marking seems OK, but the corners seem too rounded. The best thing to do is compare with known originals.
OK, can you,please, post pictures of yours original Win rear sights?
I looked at some of my photos of real early WRA carbines and they have the blued finish on the front sight so that is O.K.
I'm still not sure about the rear sight. The marking seems OK, but the corners seem too rounded. The best thing to do is compare with known originals.
I have a early WRA that I bought from CMP on a auction and it has a finish alot like this one! I do not see alot of pitting? looks to me to be just a warn fimish that one might expect a 60+ year gun to have, probably never been reparked. Just my opinion
billsm,
how much did you pay for your Win on CMP auction, if yoou don't mind telling?
thank you
http://i313.photobucket.com/albums/ll373/AndrewG1957/WRA1108196/WRA1108196013.jpg?t=1262535946
All I can see on this picture is the same type rear sight, just unusual is that there is too much wear on it and no wear on receiver.
Newscotlander
01-03-2010, 08:33
top two photos from 1007463. bottom photo from a Std. Pro.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v116/TheFox/squaresflip.jpg
top two photos from 1007463. bottom photo from a Std. Pro.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v116/TheFox/squaresflip.jpg
IMHO, I would say both Win and Std Prod look suspicious to me: on winchester - weird looking letter S; on Std Prod- it looks like sight has been removed and then pushed back-see damaged corners of the base?
Newscotlander
01-03-2010, 09:06
Ohhhh...Kay... You must be expert then. If so, why did you bother coming onto this forum and ask for others opinions?
I love it when people do that....... Not.
Ohhhh...Kay... You must be expert then. If so, why did you bother coming onto this forum and ask for others opinions?
I love it when people do that....... Not.
Sorry, I am not an expert, just looking for answers to my questions. I have never own that early Winchester and that's why I am on this forum. I was a member of old Culver Forums for many years, actually, but switched into collecting Axis items and forgot about this forum, so you can welcome me back!
Newscotlander
01-03-2010, 09:38
In my opinion these are all original square S flip sights. But then again, my opinion may not be worth a damn. You could always ask Belkin.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v116/TheFox/squareScomp.jpg
In my opinion these are all original square S flip sights. But then again, my opinion may not be worth a damn. You could always ask Belkin.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v116/TheFox/squareScomp.jpg
looks like four of these sights are still waiting for CMP receivers.
macgunner01
01-03-2010, 10:32
imo, almost everything looks right on the rifle, except for that cartouche. the lettering seems a little bit off, the location is a bit weird, and it sure is crisp for 68 years of age.
and the safety has me concerned as well: I don't see the "trademark" Winchester bevel on it.
those two things make me think it could be a minor restoration, but a restoration none-the-less.
the only question I would ask is how the stock has all the dings, scratches and bangs and why the top bumper looks unmarred??????? I can't say whether good or repro but what is missing--always look at the 4 bumpers on a gun and see if wear patterns are the same--buttplate, front sight and end of barrel, top of flipper and bottom of trigger guard-wear patterns should be same if not buy for parts value minus about 20%-this is formula I use when looking at gun-buttplate should be worst condition thing on gun , then top of flipper or front sight, the trigger guard area is more protected, it should show less then other areas
I have a K98K- all matching, but bolt - and there are bumps and dings on wood on every side, but finish on the metal is almost perfect on the top of receiver and barrell and front and rear sights, less on TG and buttplate of course. And, unlike M1 carbine, it is easy to determine that stock and receiver/barrell/TG, buttplate, sights are all matching. How did that happen: difference in wear on wood and metal on K98K? Maybe wood receives more bumps? Anyway, here are the pics of K98K- the same wear pattern as on my M1 carbine, matching wood and metal, different wear patern:
imo, almost everything looks right on the rifle, except for that cartouche. the lettering seems a little bit off, the location is a bit weird, and it sure is crisp for 68 years of age.
and the safety has me concerned as well: I don't see the "trademark" Winchester bevel on it.
those two things make me think it could be a minor restoration, but a restoration none-the-less.
Here are cartouches from M1917 rifle- Winchester- they are in better shape than the ones on M1 carbine and 25 years older.
Also, can you, please post picture of Wincheser safety with bevel?
Thank you,
Belkin
Here is an original Winchester
rrobinson
01-05-2010, 07:38
Did you end up buying the gun? If not I would be interested and would gladly pay you a finders fee. You can contact me via email rrobinson@nelsonhesse.com. Thanks
Did you end up buying the gun? If not I would be interested and would gladly pay you a finders fee. You can contact me via email rrobinson@nelsonhesse.com. Thanks
Robert,
I sent you e-mail.
Thanks,
Belkin
rrobinson
01-06-2010, 07:54
Can you resend it? I never got the email. Sorry for the trouble. Thanks
M1Riflenut
01-15-2010, 09:14
"I" cut, circled "P", dated barrel are all right.
I had one like it, temporarily, until an astute eye here caught the welding of a rear sight staking repair, by a faker.
Other than the sloppy workmanship, this one looks very nice.
I would want it, but the pitted look would bother me, original, or not.
The finish is so important.
I know WRA M1 rifles can have a rough, un polished, finish on parts, to be expected. Not this dramatic though??!!
Andy
Well now don't be too sure about M1's not being rough..........this one is a BRAND NEW never issued M1 right out of the factory packaging. I would'nt call this smooth but I'd still give both nuts to own it.
http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a305/M1Riflenut/gun%20pics/WRA2.jpg?t=1263618515
Carl Gustav
01-25-2010, 04:09
http://www.picturetrail.com/sfx/album/view/20293045
This one came from Century last year and I was really pleased to get it. Of course it's been rearsnealed but I thought getting one with a low serial number and an 11-42 WRA barrel was interesting. Does the parkerizing on the reciever look original? I'm not an expert on these by any stretch of the imagination. It has an excellent bore, too, which was a bonus. Carl
Powered by vBulletin™ Version 4.0.2 Copyright © 2013 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.