Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

My 8-40 Project Went South

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    My 8-40 Project Went South

    My 8-40 project I mentioned awhile back on here done went south in a big way. I looked at the stock I was going to use yesterday, I had bought this 20 something years ago. It has what I had THOUGHT was a legit SA/SPG stamp that had been modified for the butt trap. After comparing it to the pictures in Canfield's book I got concerned. Sent pictures to Rick B. He said it is fake!! Says it is a GAW or NFR. This morning I found the ghost of the little ordinance wheel on bottom of the pistol grip. I know I will NEVER ever find a real SPG so I guess that is the end of my little "PROJECT". Am so mad am ready to chuck the whole thing. Not the first time I have gotten burned, I trusted the guy out in NY who told me it was from the crunch wood. Bad thing is I bought a few others from him back then too, wonder about those now.

    #2
    You can use an early used SA GHS stock, as most found nowdays are without a cartouche. Have Rick B. convert it to no-trap

    I have some photos of a July 1940 rifle on milsurps which shows a SA SPG stock - no trap with two equal sized holes. These late
    SPG no trap stocks were always more difficult to find than the large over small hole stock

    Comment


      #3
      I assume you are referring to a GHS that no longer has the cartouche but would have the scooped clip latch cutout? I have a bunch of unmarked stocks under the bench where I had this fake stored. Will have to look thru my wood I guess. I know Rick is busy as the dickens, he said he was working a bunch of OT and didn't get to my email until 2230 last night. I can relate to that when I was working. If I quit this I know I won't be able to sell things for what I paid so maybe your suggestion might be the way to go. I have most of the parts besides the stock, op rod isn't right but is an earlier curved side unmarked from a few months prior to this. There is what is claimed to be a SPG on GB but no stamps and is really rough, very high starting bid. Thanks for the tip.

      Comment


        #4
        Sorry to hear you got scammed. Good luck on your search for correct stock. Its a shame there are still people that prey on us collectors. With the internet and all the reference books it makes it more difficult for them now. Back in the early days it was a different story. A lot of us got scammed because we didn't know any better. The first M1 Garand I purchased back in 1976 was what I thought was a mint IHC. It turned out to be a two piece welded receiver. One of the best weld and machine jobs I have ever seen. I found out it was a welded receiver when I showed it to a very knowable collector and he pointed out that the drawing numbers did not match.

        Comment


          #5
          Yep, got scammed. It was back in 94 or something, there wasn't near the info available then on these stamps and the SPGs are so rare about all you have to look at are pictures and sometimes those don't have enough detail. Unfortunately not the first time, am worried about a couple others I got from the same guy around this time, those are on rifles in my safe. I picked up a few from Dupage over the years, would think those should be ok. I have gotten it worse I guess, had a so-called friend who sold this stuff years ago who sold me some nice pieces but also sold me some stuff that was put together. Have been getting rid of some of his stuff the last few years. I remember reading in the GCA Journal years ago about the guy who was stamping stocks, the guy who sold this fake SPG to me was also a member. Wonder if he knew?

          Comment


            #6
            Stay motivated Nodak71. It will work out, and I really need to see this. Don’t give up brother!

            Comment


              #7
              I spent some time this afternoon going thru my loose stocks. I have more marked ones than unmarked but found a nice unmarked one that could be fairly early, may use that instead. I had narrowed it down to three but two were so rough I decided not to use them. One rough one looks almost like it may have been modified from a no trap, not sure what to look for. I was going on the rough looking cutting job around the holes, also it almost looks like the edge where the butt plate covers had been recut. I am thinking I have so much in this right now maybe I should try to finish it. I did an Oct 40 some years ago, it took me 7 years to find the type 2 follower rod. Will see what happens I guess.

              Comment


                #8
                Hang in there. I reckon we've all gotten bit. My worst was a gas trap barrel from a supposed gas trap expert who was also one of the early GCA member. It'll take your wind out of your sails and make you want to cry uncle. A hard lesson you've learned for sure. Hopefully the last. I hope you will finish your project and enjoy it. It would be nice to see some pics here for all of us to enjoy . You never know , that stock may come up for sale that you're needing.
                Last edited by Bubba1; 11-17-2017, 12:52 AM.

                Comment


                  #9
                  Originally posted by Bubba1 View Post
                  Hang in there. I reckon we've all gotten bit. My worst was a gas trap barrel from a supposed gas trap expert who was also one of the early GCA member. It'll take your wind out of your sails and make you want to cry uncle. A hard lesson you've learned for sure. Hopefully the last. I hope you will finish your project and enjoy it. It would be nice to see some pics here for all of us to enjoy . You never know , that stock may come up for sale that you're needing.
                  This wasn't the only time I got burned in the last 30 years or so. I would expect the fake gas trap barrel was no doubt worse than this fake stock, at least I didn't give a pile for it. This fake stock is really nice as far as condition and finish, it would make a great unmarked stock to go on any rifle. Just no idea how to remove the fake stamp without making the stock look like crap. The original stocks are few and far between, the big thing would be finding one with the no trap. Might end up being more than a retired guy could afford. Anyway I do have a nice unmarked stock I found which I think is fairly early which I will use for now. Thanks for the encouragement, will get some pictures whenever I get it done.

                  Comment


                    #10
                    I went ahead today and actually assembled the rifle, it looks nice but isn't correct. The unmarked stock looks nice but of course isn't right. I found I don't have a SA early style op rod catch so ended up using a WRA one marked "A". Strange but I have 4 of those and not one SA. The headspace is at the max it appears. The barrel is wore bad, gauges a 7 at the throat but only a little over a 2 at the muzzle, bore is bright. The 2SA bolt closes on the Field gauge but my field test bolt doesn't close. It is at the high end I guess but this is not a shooter. One problem I found is the op rod catch doesn't lock the bolt back. I found when I removed the type 1 follower rod along with the repro square wire operating spring and repro comp spring and substituted a standard follower rod and round wire spring it locks correctly. I will try to get some pictures posted of this rifle which actually doesn't look too bad.

                    Comment


                      #11
                      You do not need the early operating rod catch, you need the later operating rod catch without the lip on the accelerator, should
                      also be without finish in the white. Pyle's book "The Gas Trap Garand" shows both 46097 and 50313 with the late operating rod
                      catch.

                      Comment


                        #12
                        I was going by Duff, he shows the early style catch on rifles all the way up to May 41. I checked my copy of Pyle's book and see what you mean. Both of these rifles are shown as having been used in combat, one in Europe the other in the Pacific. I wonder if it is possible these parts could have been changed as a result of use? Just wondering as Duff is showing the early type until around May 41 and Canfield is showing about the same. Thanks for the info seems there is always something that doesn't match up with what has been thought.

                        Comment


                          #13
                          Duff's book is not correct and certain data had been altered (56745 is an example) for the book. Also note the follower arm in the mid 1940 into 1941 from
                          Duff's data. His information is dated.

                          here some known data

                          serial

                          50107 late/op rod catch, flat face/follower arm
                          50313 late /op rod catch. flat back follower arm
                          59708 late no finish/op rod catch, flat face follower arm
                          63282 late/op rod catch, flat back follower arm
                          95024 late/op rod catch, flat back follower arm
                          167583 late no finish/op rod catch, flat back follower arm

                          Comment


                            #14
                            Ok I have only recently seen reference to the flat back arm, I did find some pictures of these on the CMP Forum last night. Now what constitutes a flat face arm? I have always seen reference ONLY to double bevel, single bevel, and no bevel with the last being the later type at least with SA. Agree Duff's work is old, but Canfield makes no mention either and his book is fairly new but think much of his is simply taking the older work and putting all together. I know there is new info coming out frequently on these rifles, just would like to get all this straight. I looked at my small supply of follower arms and found NOTHING like what was pictured on the other Forum. I need to look at some of my other rifles but everything is locked in the safe at the moment.

                            Comment


                              #15
                              Scott's book was wrote in early 1990's, Billy's in late 1990's. A lot of information has been found since both and other books were published. There are mistakes in any book that is why new revisions are published, to correct mistakes and or to add new information. Even Canfield's new book , which has alot of new information, has some incorrect information. Billy shows serial # 338 to be a real gas trap rebuild when In reality it is a restoration that started as a bare receiver. Scott's book shows the late op rod catch to not have been used until 400k when original rifles have surfaced with this catch around 40k. These catches are always in the white until 1942. Each book has a lot of good information but none are perfect. They are a good guide and each has very good information on history and production. Original datasheets are the best source of information but remember this was production and there are overlaps. I like to use a datasheet from a rifle before and a datasheet on a rifle after the one I'm examining or working on for comparison purposes. Also look at the date and how much production there is at that time . For example; the last half of 1940 doubled production from the first half. That means there could be more overlap on certain parts because there were more rifles being produced. Above all, if you're restoring a rifle then do it how you like it, it's yours not anyonr else's. Enjoy.
                              Last edited by Bubba1; 11-19-2017, 04:45 PM.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X