Interesting new M1 (Pics)


May 18, 2006, 07:08 PM
Interesting new M1 (Pics)

Followed me home from gun show in Allenton, PA last weekend

30-06 M1 Garand Springfield Armory,
Sept 1944 Receiver, Serial # 312xxxx
1964 Barrel,
All USGI Parts,
Fiberglass Stock,
Never Fired.
Only 1 of 12 ever assembled for the PA National Guard 28th. Division Color Guard,
or so the story goes.

any comments / insights?

If you enjoyed reading about "Interesting new M1 (Pics)" here in archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join today for the full version!
May 18, 2006, 07:56 PM
I kinda like that camo'd fiberglass stock. You see that on M14s/M1As all the time, but not Garands. It looks pretty cool.

Just curious, what makes you believe that's a PA NG rifle?

Best of luck with it. The Garand is a fine rifle.

May 18, 2006, 08:05 PM
Just curious, what makes you believe that's a PA NG rifle

Probably the "Bloody bucket" (the red keystone) painted on the stock, that is the emblem of the 28th Infantry Div. PA National guard.

May 18, 2006, 08:17 PM
and thats the story I was told by the seller. All else I was told turned out to be true so dont have a reason to doubt this. Posted for comments from more experts than me.

May 18, 2006, 08:22 PM
Don't know about the "never fired' part. Maybe that means a round never went through the 1964 barrel.

May 18, 2006, 08:31 PM
Yeah, I don't know about that '44 receiver and '64 barrel being "never fired."

Be kinda neat if it were true. :cool:

May 18, 2006, 08:31 PM
maybe.... all I can say is that all parts "appear" brand new. However I would also have to think that at least some rounds were shot at some point. Again, Never Fired was what I was told.

May 18, 2006, 09:38 PM
Color Guard using a camo'd fiberglass stock. Hmmm... :rolleyes:

Good story.

May 18, 2006, 10:42 PM
Maybe it was refinished if it was for color guard use. Seems doubtful a '44 receiver was never used and a camo stock on a color guard rifle does seem odd but certainly possible.

Car Knocker
May 18, 2006, 10:51 PM
Enlighten me, please. When did the military put fiberglass stocks on Garands?

May 18, 2006, 10:59 PM
I've got a couple fiberglass stocks and handguards for the 1903A3 Springfield, formerly from a military academy. It appears that military academies and private military schools used them for color guard practice, to save wear and tear on good wood (presentation grade) stocks. I'd wager a ratty old 1903A3 with a fiberglass stock was a good thing to have when practicing rifle tossing, spinning, and other fancy maneuvers, especially when (not if) the things went clattering to the ground. ;)

May 18, 2006, 11:20 PM
That makes sense and probably explains it. They were probably aftermarket stocks that were bought just for practice use since the Army never used fiberglass stocks on Garands.

May 19, 2006, 07:12 AM
since the Army never used fiberglass stocks on Garands.


If that camo'd stock is fiberglass, it ain't a GI product.

Also.... a camo'd stock for a color guard????? :scrutiny:

This surely looks like a fine rifle, but to me it goes back to the old saw, "Buy the rifle, not the story".

It appears to be a fine example of what most M1's are, well used during the period of '44 to early 60's, and then rebuilt for service (albeit presently with a non GI stock, PROBABLY added after it left the service).

Philly d2, you say it's, "all GI" parts. Have you ID'd all the parts for revision numbers and maker?? This will tell the story on likely rebuilds along the way from 1944 to 1964+, a some possible time frames.

Are there any electro pencil markings on the receiver legs???

Just my thoughts,

Garands forever

owner Swampworks Inc. / JLK Bullets

May 19, 2006, 12:48 PM
That is very very nice. I was wanting a grand, anyone know the best places to look. Just gun shows? Also, how much did you pay for it?


Carl N. Brown
May 19, 2006, 01:12 PM
I was going to play grammer police, but, hey, you are right:
Garands are grand!

May 19, 2006, 01:28 PM
Duneblade, here's the best place to start:

Steve in PA
May 19, 2006, 01:56 PM
Nice rifle, but I wouldn't put too much stock into the stroy that goes along with it.

Speaking of stocks, I've never, ever seen a camo'ed stock for a color guard unit.

May 19, 2006, 03:44 PM
about the unfired part......could be true. I received a select grade from the CMP, 3-44 receiver/67 barrel, that looked unfired, barrel and bolt face. Rifle looks brand new with the exception of a few handling dings in the stock.....chris3

May 19, 2006, 04:06 PM
about the unfired part......could be true. I received a select grade from the CMP, 3-44 receiver/67 barrel, that looked unfired, barrel and bolt face. Rifle looks brand new with the exception of a few handling dings in the stock.....chris3

Sorry, but I gotta' come back in here....

The odds against a 1944 rifle with a 60's replacement barrel being an "unfired" rifle are so astronomically huge as to approach true "zero".

Now, having said that, it is possible that this rifle has been unfired SINCE IT'S LAST REBUILD. It is quite obviously a rebuild, having a replacement barrel put on it, since rifles don't get replacement barrels any other way, and given a new parkerizing at the same time. IF, and this is a huge IF, this were a 1944 with it's original finish in such pristine condition, it would still have it's original 1944 barrel. It does not.

As I asked in a previous post...... are there any rebuild electro pencil marks on the legs of the receiver (there may not be but if there are that's a help). If not, then what are the makers, drawing numbers, and revisions marked on parts like the bolt, op-rod, trigger housing, hammer, safety, and rear sight knobs??? These will tell a tale......

A couple of "fer instance's" that can be seen just from the photos:

The rear sight is a post war sight. Would not have been installed until post war.

The op-rod is a flat side. Not original until sometime in early '45 (this is a Sept. '44 rifle)

Both these little details are indicitave of rebuilds and addition of "non-original" parts.

A listing of the other drawings and revisions from parts unseen will also shed light I'm sure.

Best to all,

Garands forever

May 19, 2006, 04:26 PM
You could contact these folks and see if they can help verify anthing of the story with your rifle.

May 19, 2006, 06:20 PM
Thanks for the link. I have sent a message to the Curator today to see if he has any info or insight. I'll post any reply I get.

Mr. Swampy, you post some very valid points that I do not nor can not really disagree with. As said before I am just reporting the story as told to me.

This weekend I will try to find time to strip the rifle and will post what I find.

thanks all for your insights - nice to have such experts to help.

Also 100% agree that I bought it for the rifle, not the story but now that I have it I would like to either confirm or debunk the story, or at least part of it. What is not of doubt is that the Receiver is from Sept 1944 and the Barrel "apprears" brand new as well.

I have a M14 build by LRB with a fiberglass stock but this is the very first M1 I have even heard of with a fiberglass stock.

Being from PA it will stay as is if only for the novelty. Bubba or not, :)

May 20, 2006, 09:28 AM
After a simple field strip here are the numbers:

Trigger Housing 6528290-SA
OP Rod 6535382 SA
Bolt 6528287-SA B-2-0
Hammer SA C5546008
Safety SA 11

Trigger groups looks excellent but not as NIB so it has seen some action. From what I can tell the Hammer is Post WW II manufactured. The Receiver looks brand new (maybe reparked?).

I too have never heard of a M1 Fiberglass stock but it does have a P Stamp and a stamp like shown below. Also has buttstock buttplate cleaning kit door. which I thought interesting. According to CMP "Special Notes: Most M1 Stocks were made of walnut though they are also seen in beech, birch, laminates, fiberglass, and plastic." so now I'm wondering, USGI?

Any additional thoughts?

May 20, 2006, 09:54 AM

With the exception of the safety, all the parts you list are of post WWII manufacture..... very typical of M1 R&R procedures.

What you have appears to be a fine example of a well rebuilt WWII rifle. New barrel, new working parts, new metal finish. Enjoy it for what it is.

Re the stock: The US used ONLY walnut and birch on M1's in new production and for replacement.

Euro Beech was-is common on returns from Denmark and Greece. Laminates are commercial aftermarket replacement items, not GI, as is fiberglass and plastic.

Question..... Are you quite certain that this stock is solid fiberglass and not maybe an epoxy coated or glass cloth coated wood stock???

Check down inside the stock channel, under the front ferrule, and inside the buttplate cleaning kit holes for evidence of wood grain showing through a layer of paint-epoxy.

Best regards,

Garands forever

May 20, 2006, 09:56 AM
I was a Small Arms Repairman based at Fort Bragg North Carolina.
I have seen Arms Rooms in the 18th Airborne Brigade area that contained fiberglass stocked M1 Garand rifles that were as new from rebuild.
That was 26 years ago and as far as I know those rifles are still there if they haven't been logged out and given away to some foreign military as US aid.

Lots and lots of M1 rifles went to south and central America, some to Africa, lots to the far east and everybody was well aware that the wooden stocks would last no more than a year or two in equatorial conditions.
Fibreglass M1 stocks were made and issued that were very similar in construction to the fibreglass M14 stocks.
We don't see many of them here because the majority of fibre stocked rifles went to far away lands never to grace these shores again.
One can only hope that isn't going to be the case but don't hold your breath.
Foreign Armies are way harder on weapons than US GIs.

To say the rifle isn't genuine USGI because it has a fibreglass stock is just out and out untrue.

Now the story about the weapon being a 'colorguard rifle' seems a bit unlikely but I can venture to say at some point that weapon was housed in an American Legion Hall or a Veterans of Foreign Wars Hall, I am going to venture a guess that most likely that hall was in Pennsylvania.
That rifle may very well have never been fired once it was sent to wherever it went but I can tell you, with a bit of authority, that no rifle ever left a rebuild facility as a sevicable weapon unless it passed proof and function testing, so that rifle has had a least a minimum number of rounds fired that allowed it to be approved for reissue.

Enjoy what you now own.
Fibrestock M1 rifles just aren't that common stateside.
Rebuild or not I see your rifle as interesting and collectable on its own merit without the colorful colorguard story.

May 20, 2006, 10:49 AM

Very interesting....

Any idea where and by whom these fiber stocks were made???

As for a "proof P", I'd agree that that would be the norm for a rebuild, BUT if this is a fiber stock, and does have a crossed cannon stamp as philly states, then things REALLY get curious.

The crossed cannon acceptance stamp was phased out in the early 50's. What is the earliest possible time frame that a fiberglass stock could have been in existence????

How did they first make fiber stocks for the M14??? Early 60's???? Any other rifle have a fiber stock before that???


Garands forever

May 20, 2006, 02:41 PM
Swampy I just worked on the rifles.
I never could grow an obsession with learning exactly who made what and even to this day when I repair a shootable M1 I have no issue with using the most modern, up to date parts for repair.

Getting an M1 "all correct" just never did anything for me.

I am going to venture a guess that the company that made fibreglass stocks for M14 rifles was the same firm that made fibreglass stocks for M1 and I would also guess that the early 60s is way too early.

I would guess that fibreglass stocks didn't become common issue for replacement of wooden stocks until sometime around 1974.
I had buddies in the Army who were Viet Nam veterans and they couldn't ever recall seeing any M14 rifles with fibreglass stocks in Viet Nam so I am think 1974-75 would be about the time the stocks began showing up for general issue.
I have heard that some M14 rifles were actually built and issued with fibreglass stocks but I have never seen one new in the military contractor issue packaging.
I still feel fibreglass stocks were for rebuild purposes only and they were never put on a brand new rifle at the manufacturer site.

I agree with the assessment of the crossed cannon mark.
I have handled quite a few military rifles with fibreglass stocks and I can't recall seeing a mark of any kind on the stocks.
No circle P, nothing.
The crossed cannon mark may have been put there when the Unit markings were placed.
Remember VFW and AFL halls used to be full of old fogie hard core world war vets who remembered marks like those on their issue weapons.

May 20, 2006, 05:16 PM
Ditto. If it works it's fine enough for me. I've always had an attraction to vintage/classic firearms...but if I have to put in a few new parts it wont kill me. =)
Fine rifle. =D

May 20, 2006, 06:34 PM
Looks like fiberglass though out and can confirm for sure the Proof P & crossed cannon stamp that are both imbedded into the stock.

From what I know even early editions of the M14 were in fact issued with USGI Fiberglass stocks. The one on my M14 looks exactly like this one, minus the war paint, so I would guess earlier than 1974-75 issue dates. According to Bill Ricca's site "M1 Rifle Experimental Fiberglass Stock..were..Tested during the early 1960's" and according to Different's M14's information "Beginning in 1962, fiberglass stocks were installed on M14 rifles".

May 20, 2006, 07:08 PM
According to Bill Ricca's site "M1 Rifle Experimental Fiberglass Stock..were..Tested during the early 1960's" and according to Different's M14's information "Beginning in 1962, fiberglass stocks were installed on M14 rifles".

This still makes the cross cannon stamp very suspect as to origin. Springfield Armory stopped using that particular stamp circa' 1952-1953 in liu of the DAS (Defense Acceptance Stamp), eagle & 3 stars in a box..

Just my thoughts,

Garands forever

June 10, 2006, 10:54 PM
As a update, below is the reply from the Director/Curator of the Pennsylvania National Guard Military Museum.


I went up to Boalsburg yesterday, site of the 28th Division
shrine and memorial park for the annual service. I talked to a number of
people who had at one been in the division headquarters color guard.
None of those guys ever saw anything like your rifle, all used
regular M1's. But that'snot to say that one of the regiments or
battalions had those. Any unit that had a color guard could have had
those made-up. Odd thing is that a color guard only used two rifles at a
time. Anyway - I will continue to ask around.


If you enjoyed reading about "Interesting new M1 (Pics)" here in archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join today for the full version!