M1 Garand reciever line

[Charger426]

Hi all,
new to this forum and M1 's in general.
Not sure if this is the right category but the rifle in question is an April 1944 based on ser.number.
Looking to acquire this particular M1.
Seems to be in decent condition with some drawing numbers appropriate to that year. The barrel is very good/shiny and dated SA 12 - 50.
I'm assuming it was a refurb for the Korean war.
My question is regarding the line on the reciever heel.
Is this of a concern?
Does it affect value?
What would have caused this?
Your thoughts on this are appreciated

[lapriester]

Minor flaws such as that are really not that uncommon. It would not be cause at all for the receiver or rifle to fail proof inspection. I've seen worse, especially on Winchester receivers.

[Charger426]

Good to know,
thanks

[TJT]

The milling cutter has seen better days. As Larry said, it's a non-issue.
Jon

[RCS]

not too many receiver tangs with this flaw, Dave McClain once told me he had seen another years ago. I use to think that maybe the firing pin pocket was cut too deep and the receiver was repaired . there was such a problem in early 1943 (GCA article). Should have the tang x-rayed

[TJT]

The form cutter was not properly aligned with the heel for the finish operation. I've seen a few like this.
Jon

[lapriester]

The form cutter was not properly aligned with the heel for the finish operation. I've seen a few like this.
Jon

Friday or Monday, LOL.

[IRON WORKER]

That line on the heel is the seam between the two arbor driven profile cutters .The early receivers were milled on a horizontal plain mill .The left and right cutter are two separate cutters .
Easier to repair replace than a solid cutter.
What happens is the seam break down from build up edge or slight Variences in mating cutter after resharpen .
later variations including M14 production they switched to single ball nose endmill that rotated the cut around the heel radius.
Heels were belt sanded most of the time removing subtle tool marks .

The mismatched heel outer contour was broached , no doubt chip or something changed fixture position causing offset location.

[Charger426]

So basically a Q.C. issue?

[lapriester]

So basically a Q.C. issue?

Think of it this way. The milling was done on equipment used in the 40's during war time where mass production was the priority and not perfection. OC priority was based on proper function and not finish or milling flaws. Those type of flaws were irrelevant and in no way a cause for rejection of the part. Pretty and perfect had no relevance on a battle rifle as long as it went bang reliably.