which Garand stocks are 'slim'?


PDA






1KPerDay
March 12, 2008, 06:09 PM
I know the later models have thicker stocks in certain areas... what was the cutoff for the thinner style?

If you enjoyed reading about "which Garand stocks are 'slim'?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Swampy
March 13, 2008, 09:04 AM
I know the later models have thicker stocks in certain areas... what was the cutoff for the thinner style?

You may be a bit confoozed.... ALL factory M1 rifle stocks were of pretty much the same major contours, excepting very minor details which help to ID the various makers.

The "fat" stocks to which you refer are all the birch arsenal replacement stocks, made mostly by Overton during the late 50's (Note: Overton also made walnut stocks for IHC's original factory production, but not anywhere near as fat as the birch replacements they made later on... different contours).

These birch replacements actually were made in at least two different versions. One is only slightly fatter than GI walnut, though still quite obvious with a casual glance.... The other, and a bit more rare is VERY FAAaaaat. I received one of these in a "grab bag" buy of surplus Korean stocks some years back. Very pretty flame birch grain pattern, but it's almost 1/2" wider at the magazine than a GI walnut stock, and the wrist and back porch are wide enough you could park a jeep on it.

Best regards,
Swampy

Garands forever

1KPerDay
March 13, 2008, 03:43 PM
You sure the Korean War and later ones weren't larger than the WWII ones?

Swampy
March 13, 2008, 03:53 PM
You sure the Korean War and later ones weren't larger than the WWII ones?

Not so that I can tell the difference. The only way I can tell WWII from post war walnut wood is by cartouches and minor contours.

"Fatness" doesn't play into it..... except with Overton birch replacement wood.

If there IS any difference between WWII and post war walnut in width.... it's so minor that you still have to look for the other indicators to determine it's time frame (Assuming no original cartouches are present.).

One thing that MAY be throwing you off is that a much larger percentage of the WWII wood has been arsenal sanded, making it a bit smaller than much of the post war, which being newer, more of has escaped the harsh sanding.

Best,
Swampy

Garands forever

1KPerDay
March 13, 2008, 06:07 PM
One thing that MAY be throwing you off is that a much larger percentage of the WWII wood has been arsenal sanded, making it a bit smaller than much of the post war, which being newer, more of has escaped the harsh sanding.

Maybe that's it. I have a 3 stocks and one seems noticeably slimmer than the others, and it seems to be the oldest. I can't find any cartouches on it though, and it's on a commercial rebuild (blue sky). The aftermarket one on my "tanker" is huge... makes the rifle feel much bulkier than it is. I'd like to get a slimmer one eventually.

Thanks for the info, as always.

Swampy
March 14, 2008, 08:57 AM
The aftermarket one on my "tanker" is huge...

Sounds like a Boyd's...... They are as fat or fatter than the Overton birch replacements.

Best,
Swampy

Garands forever

30Cal
March 14, 2008, 02:13 PM
I'd read on jouster a couple years back that the rifles made under WWII contracts had slimmer profiles. I don't recall who posted it though.

Ty

Gator
March 14, 2008, 10:18 PM
It has been my experience that the original WWII stocks are the slimmest, and the WWII replacement and post war stocks heftier.

If you enjoyed reading about "which Garand stocks are 'slim'?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!