No announcement yet.

Well, it got some respect.

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Well, it got some respect.

    Even with the wrong stock (a really cool wrong stock, but wrong nonetheless, ...) it got some respect at 3 grand (a deal IMHO). It looks to be quite a good piece with a nice 10-40 barrel and some other pretty cool parts.

    Neat - they made -2 oprods for only about 2 months.

    Congrats to the buyer on finding something pretty special in one of the toughest areas out there - you could wait a long time to find one to beat this.

    AMHO Best all.

    Whats your opinion on this rifle? How did a sight with screw seal get on a wide base gas cylinder?


      That EMcF stock would be perfect on my 11-42 SA. I agree with your opinion, Orlando about the gas cylinder.


        My opinion? Let's spin it up this way. I think the gas cylinder is neat, obviously replaced but neat. No idea on any story behind this so I am just going on what I see for my impressions.

        Given the cylinder replacement and the EMcF large wheel (killer), and then rest of the rifle being pretty solid (and in pictures at least looks fairly consistent), I think one of the easiest ways to explain it is that it hit some lower echelon facility for a mild going over somewhere early in the war when it was having a problem (maybe short stroking or something like that). This would have been before sight seals were completely fazed out and gone from the system. It also appears from the finish to be the earlier GC lock still. To me that is even more of a suggestion that they were tying to fix one specific problem and just replaced the part they thought might have caused it. Then maybe saw a much nicer stock sitting there with a nice tight fit so they snapped it on. This would have been early on while the rifle was still in the service (and where do you find one of those stocks today?).

        Think about it for a second, there are replacement sight seals still in the wrap ('41 dated I think, that someone out east turned up years ago). They have been available for a long time for restorers, so though possible I would call it a rather unlikely mistake for someone to make today trying to improve this rifle. Honestly, I would say it is more likely that one of those replacement sight seals actually got used on this back in the day. They swapped a newer cylinder on and they thought they still needed to put the sight seal back on after servicing. By later in the war that would become less likely (and early or not, I know I would not put that stock on this to restore it).

        Now, counterpoint. To really tell, I would need to handle it and really just get a good feel for it. It always helps to bat something like this back and forth with another good set of eyes, too (like my buddy Pete who saw this before I did). There are a few things that bother me, anywhere from a little to a lot, that suggest this analysis is not necessarily the full case. See if you can find them. Stock is replaced so the front stock ferrel doesn't really count. (Side note; early rifles used to show up in relatively original but used condition, sometimes well used, and they would frequently have 2 non-original parts - stock with a trap door plate for a cleaning kit and a lockbar. In the field these were two super upgrades that guys wanted when they saw them - guys who depended on these rifles for their lives - if they had rifles with the old stuff still, these were quick and easy upgrades to do even in the field. I will say I was a little surprised and would have almost expected to see a lockbar on this one.)

        I think it could be a relatively original early rifle that got some period replacement parts put on it somewhere early to mid WWII. I think the cartouche on the stock gets me thinking in this direction but it is really only one part (and begs the question of why on earth would anyone put that on today). But then whoever found it today tried to 'help' it a little bit - there are other parts that suggest this. What do you guy see?

        I liked it, kind of a lot, and would love to have handled it (and still would). It is pretty cool. How's that.

        AMHO Best all
        Last edited by Bodyman; 04-02-2020, 09:44 AM.


          I thought it was an interesting rifle with a lot of interesting parts. I thought maybe the stock was just a normal field replacement. I also thought the gas cylinder might have been an attempt by someone to restore or make the rifle look better years ago before most of the current data had been published. I was thinking the gas cylinder was probably in the white from fading or use and he wanted a nicer looking cylinder and replaced it with the first one he could get. He knew the original had a seal so he bought a seal (they were available) and stuck one on it so it would look like the original. I considered bidding on it, but with the issues that surround us now I thought I would sit this one out. I think the buyer got an interesting rifle with some cool parts.


            While it could have been possible to have a S_A 10-40 barrel, all the data sheets that I have seen (from this period) indicated a later barrel or one from the same month of manufacture. Besides normal production, the gas trap direct conversions were taking place which put an extra demand on these barrels. The correct SA GHS stock, gas cylinder and round body follower rod would look better on this restoration. Early 1941 dated barrels are very difficult to locate.
            Last edited by RCS; 04-03-2020, 07:43 AM.


              OK, these guys are pretty good already but it never hurts to work thru these - what I was more shooting for is to have guys to do their own analysis. The follower rod doesn't bother me at all – it can go either way (but yes, a type 2 is always cool). The barrel date is one of those things that can bother you a little or a lot especially in this early era. That date is possible but you have to look at everything else around it to support it. I wanted folks to look at all of it and then pick it apart – does it say 'yes', or does it say 'no'. Ultimately you would have to have a hands on to really feel good about conclusions of original (and even then, sometimes they are difficult), but the more you do it, the better you'll feel when you are doing it with your own dollars at stake.

              Build from scratch? Of course it can be done but it is more than just a little odd for someone to have assembled a bunch of nice original early parts into a whole rifle, and many of these parts are tremendously rare, like that nice 10-40 barrel and an unmodified -2 rod or an EMcF large wheel stock. That alone points us towards some level of original (though even just as a pile of parts it still got some respect), and the inclination for many of us is to want this to be some level of a real original. Honestly that is what I was wanting myself, for it to be somewhat or even substantially original, but is it? We already know it isn't 100% original but could it be partly? The pro's of all those early parts are almost blinding, and you can make up a story to make it some level of original – I did for parts of it and we all have done it – but is it? You have to stop yourself and ask what argues against them. I gave some hints to pull that apart, but you will have to argue these in your own head.

              What else are you seeing?

              (Aside from which, it is just really a neat rifle with a bunch of neat parts, so this is fun no matter what).


                I believe it is a restoration that fell short - with that nice SA EMcF stock, a later barrel and lock bar rear sight, it would look better. We still don't know if that rear sight pinion and flush nut are original,
                they should be for the 3k price !



                  I really like it as well. I am one of the bidders and bid it up as high as I was comfortable going. I however tapped out around $2600.

                  In the interest of learning, here are my thoughts.
                  I like seeing an original rifle with one or 2 parts earlier "surprise" if the 10-40 barrel on this 204k receiver been the only issue, this piece is something that would have gotten my excitement stirred.
                  Having said that, this rifle has too many parts that seem to be all over the place. I quit thinking about originality after I spotted the following:
                  --barrel date
                  --stock (although very cool and something I really wanted for my original 727k rifle that someone added an odd finish to the original large wheel EMcF stock)
                  --rear sight...I don't like the knurled knob on this piece especially with a flush nut. Had the rifle had a type 1 bar, I could maybe buy it was changed in mid 42, but I can't see an armorer leaving the flush nut after replacing the original checkered knob. I also don't think the sight cover is original. From my experience, the flat cover is too early for a February/March 41 rifle. The short pinion looks a little odd to me as most I have seen are a little dimpled on the end, so I would have been tearing into it immediately hoping it is not a cutdown long pinion. The wear patterns on the knobs/sight give me pause as well.....but I have already said I think parts were changed out, so I don't guess that is a surprise.
                  --changed gas cylinder

                  One thing I do like is to see a follower with the "bald" spot on the bottom. That too seems a little early for this rifle but I'm not sure I have seen one on an a completely original SA, so my opinion may not matter on that.

                  My intent should I have won the auction was to bust it up. I have a 3-41 barrel I would have put on the receiver to build out a nice rifle and I really had my eye on the stock. The rest I probably would have sold off to recoup some of my money.

                  At the end of the day, I think it is a nice collection of parts with very little originality. I do agree that it is much easier to tell originality with the rifle in hand and I would have studied it for a few weeks before I did anything.
                  I look forward to reading your final thoughts.......

                  Thanks, Kevin


                    I think you nailed it Kevin. I think I wanted it to be more original than it can be and it was sent to me by someone who I think felt the same (but then we both got sidetracked by the current events hitting a little too close to home). This place was pretty quiet so I figured it could be a fun diversion.

                    The parts are lots of nice rare originals so when you first look at it, even though you might know they are wrong, you find yourself saying 'wow', or 'super nice' and you can get kind of blinded by it. I just put it on the watch list at that point and didn't really think about it again until it sold. I thought it got good value especially if there was any part of it that was at all original.

                    As I looked at it again though, I began arguing it to myself to try to excuse it and figured you guys would argue with me instead. I thought it would be more fun but the dates of the parts on this are kind of a shotgun effect both earlier and later around the serial number - great parts but all over the place. The barrel is a stretch but possible. I wanted the barreled receiver and possibly some of the top half to be an original combo and sure, it is possible for some of it, but that is about all you can say and it needs support from everything else. Yet with each problem it just becomes more and more unlikely and unfortunately, as you really start to go thru it, it just isn't supported by the rest of what is seen. You have a bunch of parts that look pretty good and with some nice finishes, but by the time you take away all the problems and consider what doesn't fit, there is really no way to say much of anything. Even with a hands on you feel like you are going to be trying to explain that barrel and resurrect it to some level.

                    The rear sight is what I thought everyone would find easier to jump on - its a real stretch to find a way for those parts to have gotten together. But rear sights got upgraded in service and then guys try to change them back, so we often shrug our shoulders at them. But this one really makes no sense - what part could be original and what got changed - flat sight covers and grooved knobs are equally wrong but in the opposite directions. Then, the pinion is a likely cut down long which means the flushnut is suspect too and you start to see more of that parts pile, ... and regardless of what else you see that looks good, you can't get past it (and even a plain old SA lockbar set would have been better).

                    Still, there is a lot of good on this rifle and at least it can be considered a bonanza of really good and fairly rare early parts with some nice finishes and conditions. I think it got strong value for what you can see but I think it needed a lot more good stuff to be 'right' before we could say much more or make any leaps. I was happy to see it got some respect and I did like it - many guys have never handled some of those parts which makes it neat regardless (and still, congrats to the buyer) - cool early parts are always fun but we'll have to see if we can find a better subject rifle next time.

                    AMHO Best all.