Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Original 1943 WRA....Part 2 Pictures

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

  • Original 1943 WRA....Part 2 Pictures


  • #2
    Nice looking Winnie. ORIGINAL or CORRECT? There is a HUGE difference. Do you have verifiable and undisputable provenance to prove originality? Not trying to be a doubting Thomas or smart a$$. Just curious how you know it's original. Remember this--a rifle is only original ONCE--that is the day it leaves the armory.
    Is that a roll pin holding the stacking swivel in place? I have crappy screen resolution and can't get a good focus on it.
    Jon
    Last edited by TJT; 10-11-2019, 10:19 AM.

    Comment


    • #3
      It does indeed have all the attributes of an original rifle (I've handled a few in my days) plus it is a papered CMP Collector Grade. That is a solid roll pin obscured by old grease. A solid example.

      Comment


      • #4
        A screw was used to afix the swivel to the gas cylinder, NOT a roll pin. That alone negates the collector grade. Some one got hosed. Also, the CMP cobbled together a lot of "collector grade" rifles. I totally question its originality.
        Jon
        Last edited by TJT; 10-12-2019, 03:37 AM.

        Comment


        • #5
          That front sight looks a little narrow for an original Winchester front sight.
          .

          Comment


          • #6
            Jon: I had a senior moment when you asked "Is that a roll pin holding the stacking swivel in place?". I've been collecting M1's for so long that my mind jumped to "lower band" as soon as I saw roll pin in your question. Of course, a screw was used to attach the stacking swivel to the GC. So, to be clear. There is a solid pin attaching the lower band to the barrel and, to answer your original question correctly, there is a screw attaching the stacking swivel to the GC. The screw and stacking swivel are just as would be expected for this WRA. (Photo's attached).
            I'm confident, "within a reasonable doubt" , that this is as described in it's auction listing, an original April 1943 WRA Many others share my opinion.
            Thanks for your comments....
            George

            Comment


            • #7
              MILGUNSGUY: It is difficult to tell from the photo I shared, but the sight width is just as would be expected for a WRA. More importantly, the front sight has the tell tale punch mark down by the dovetale connection with the narrow base GC. (Shown in attached photo)....

              Comment


              • #8
                Can you please take a picture of the follower/slide from the side.
                Thanks

                Comment


                • #9
                  I don’t have my Canfield’s book handy, early or mid April? Just thinking about when WRA quit using the sight seal? Early April seems a little early to me but others know better. A MWO wasn’t issued until the end of May to eliminate the seal so based upon my experience i would think the decision wasn’t made much prior to the start of May. Maybe it’s mentioned in Canfield’s Pugsley papers. Nice rifle. It would be interesting to see a data sheet.
                  Last edited by CCyooper; 10-14-2019, 12:00 AM.

                  Comment


                  • gmcassidy
                    gmcassidy commented
                    Editing a comment
                    Mine (1327397) is possibly right at the beginning of the transition from front sight seal to no front sight seal. My receiver has a born on date of 4-1-43, with assembly into a complete rifle some time afterwords (mid April??). The other ones i'm aware of in that general serial number range include:

                    1289121 (Scott Duff's near perfect rifle; serialized Jan 7, 1943) does have the flat face front sight seal
                    1327397 (Receiver serialized 4-1-43) does NOT have the front sight seal.
                    1340094 (Receiver serialized 4-28-43) does NOT have the front sight seal
                    1342807 (Receiver serialized 5-5-43) does NOT have the front sight seal

                    Of course, rifles were not necessarily built in numerical order or a fixed time after the receiver was serialized, but my WAG would be that front sight seal probably "went away" during the Feb-March 1943 time frame.(???) It would be interesting to know what the lag time was between receiver serialization and rifle assembly at WRA.
                    Last edited by gmcassidy; 10-14-2019, 12:52 AM.

                • #10
                  Click image for larger version  Name:	904BAA56-CD22-4F2E-AA22-EDC4BAA8C396.jpeg Views:	0 Size:	27.6 KB ID:	21487 I don’t have my notes available regarding Springfield rifles but I would assume they stopped using the seal before WRA did but you know how assumptions can be. I think the seals were still being used in April of 43 and maybe May into the 1.5m range. I could be wrong on that because I’m doing it from memory and CRS is setting in. I still had this on my phone from a previous request for a friend, you may find it of interest. Not sure why it posted sideways as it previewed correctly. It’s dated in June so based upon the MWO I expect Feb-March would be early but we know that WRA sometimes marched to their own beat.
                  Last edited by CCyooper; 10-14-2019, 09:18 AM.

                  Comment


                  • gmcassidy
                    gmcassidy commented
                    Editing a comment
                    Thank you for the info; I "collect" these bit's and pieces that more experienced collectors generously share. Is there any feel for how long it took for a newly serialized/heat treated receiver to make it to assembly/completion/Ordnance acceptance?. If an April 43 serialized receiver was actually assembled in May or later, then the MWO could have been in effect at the time of actual assembly. Just thinking out loud over morning coffee! Thanks again for interesting replies. George in Dallas

                • #11
                  George,
                  There's no way to know precisely when ANY receiver was built into a complefed rifle. They were NOT built sequentially. Every thing was done in batches and when the parts bins were running low they were refilled. It was a text book case of "first in, last out. Also, it's a known fact that SA held receivers back in reserve in case of material shortages or line stoppages. Did WRA do the same? An April numbered receiver may have been assembled in April. It may have been assembled in May, or June, or December. There's just no way of knowing. Records were kept for when the receivers were numbered but NOT when they were built. Sorry I (we) can't positively answer your question but it is, unfortunately, unanswerable. If you've seen pics of the armory in action, you'd understand.
                  Jon
                  Last edited by TJT; 10-16-2019, 02:12 AM.

                  Comment


                  • #12
                    Beautiful rifle George! (YOUR pal Scott From Scotland!😉

                    Scott

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X