To change or not to change

[Jeff Walter]

I have a really nice H&R M1 with the CMP paper work from the early 60s when it was purchased through the CMP. It was reworked at the Letterkenny arsenal and has a variety of different parts mostly H&R and Springfield. My question is do I change out parts to make it an all H&R parts gun or do I leave it as it came from the arsenal and the CMP? Thoughts and opinions welcome. Thanks

[RDS]

I would leave it alone. LEAD rebuilds are collectable. What serial range is your rifle? 4,600,000 range HRAs used SA parts.

[Orlando]

Its impossible to correct a 1960's rebuild. The receiver is etched and rifle has been refinished so no matter what you do it will still be a rebuild. There are more 1960 rebuilds ruined by unknowing owners ,rifle is worth more as is

[Smokey]

There seems to be a fad now to swap out parts on Garands to make them "correct", and it's a bad one. As purchased, your rifle was in a Genuine US military configuration, required to be good enough for issue to a combat infantryman. That meant it had to be safe, reliable and meet a minimum standard of accuracy. Once you start swapping out parts to make it all "correct" you run the risk of making it unsafe (with headspace issues), unreliable with possibly reject parts, and innacurate as well.
Personally, I want no part of a "correct" rifle unless a gunsmith passes it after a detailed checkout. I consider the rebuilt arsenal condition to be far better and worth owning.

[Orlando]

IMO there is absolutely nothing wrong with correcting a rifle, if its a good candidate.(not 1960's rebuilds)
As a Garand owner you should own headspace gages anyway and know how to gage parts. Just because they come from CMP does not mean you shouldn't check parts for wear and headspace

[Smokey]

DONE PROPERLY, a "correct" rifle is OK. The problem comes in where the parts come from. Good parts from a reputable source, with final fitting by a gunsmith (with barrel and/or bolt replacement) will result in a safe, reliable, good-shooting rifle. Sadly, that's often not the case. Personally, I would always prefer a rifle in its "from the military" mixed parts configuration to a "correct" one of unknown providence.

[TJT]

If bought in the 60's, it came from the DCM, NOT the CMP. Just sayin"........
I agree with the others--leave it as it is.
Jon

[Orlando]

Rifles from CMP also need to have headspace checked.

[rob30-06]

I have spent the last few years studying the arsenal rebuilds from the 60's and find them all interesting. In addition to being one of the most common of the rebuilds the Letterkenny rifles have a large following of enthusiastic collectors.
Does yours have the Letterkenny marked stock still on it? These are best if they still have the orange triangle QC stamp on the Heel of the pistol grip and the sans-serif Proof P.

Naturally, I will side with the guys that say to leave it as an original LEAD rebuild.

If you are interested in some information on your rebuild send me a private message with your email and I can send you some.

Rob

[RDS]

Rob Please feel free to share your rebuild info with all of us. As a Pa resident I am partial to LEAD rebuilds.

[Garandman]

There is no telling how long some of the parts have been in a Garand. Only if it happens to be covered in cosmolene when it arrives at the CMP, then it is stripped completely down and given a solvent bath, cleaned, sprayed with a light oil and allowed to dry. Only nice and near new examples are arriving covered in Cosmolene. The vast majority were sent back over dry (especially with the new Philippine Garands)and those are only given a quick surface wipe down and chamber cleaning by the armorer when it is inspected, so it can be test fired after any worn out parts are replaced. Many buyers receiving their Garands are reporting sand still being found under the clip latch, and even sometimes in the trigger group, as well as in other part assemblies. Not all the parts are CMP installed. They only replace the completely worn out parts. Some of those parts would have been swapped around inadvertently by GIs cleaning them out in the field 50 or more years ago. It is a part of a rifles history. I always leave mine as is.

[lapriester]

All this "correcting" rifles is such a waste of time and, especially, a waste of money unless you have unlimited funds a just "have" to do it. The truth be known, not much value is improved after the money is spent if you are honest when you sell it. It will always be a "corrected" rifle with a CMP cert that doesn't match it anymore and is useless to you and the buyer. Plus, you obliterate the history of the rifle. Probably 80-90% of the Garands in existence (probably closer to 95%) have been rebuilt once or multiple times. Only the true originals have any increased value to collectors or in the know buyers. Most all so called original or correct rifles you see sold at auction or Gunshows are nothing more than rifles that have been "corrected" and being sold by dishonest sellers for premiums they don't deserve.

Leave the true history of your Garand alone. Spend all that money you save on ammo.

[Smokey]

I agree with Lapriester. Given a choice between a "from the military rebuild" and a "correct" rifle, I'd take the military configuration every time. The business of correcting a rifle is another fad that's best ignored.

Keep in mind, the rebuilt rifle was to be issued to a combat infantryman. It had to meet minimum requirements for reliability, safety and accuracy.