1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Winchester M-1 Garand

Discussion in 'Rifle Country' started by giggitygiggity, Nov 1, 2010.

  1. giggitygiggity

    giggitygiggity Well-Known Member

    What is the deal with the Winchester M-1 Garands? I am looking at getting an M-1 and I can't help but wonder why the Winchesters are $200 more than the Springfields and H&R's. Is it just a name thing. Do Winchesters function better? Just curious as to whether I will get a better rifle with a Winchester or not. Thanks.
  2. HKGuns

    HKGuns Well-Known Member

    There were fewer made, therefore there are fewer available and they command a higher price. A newer H&R would be a better rifle in a lot of ways....However, it all depends on what you are looking for....

    My Winchester will be worth more than your H&R in 30 years......
  3. giggitygiggity

    giggitygiggity Well-Known Member

    Why would a H&R be better? Also, how do the Springfields stack up? Is there any difference in function between those three major brands or are they all the same with a different manufacturer stamped on them?
  4. P-32

    P-32 Well-Known Member

    Winchester M-1 Garands were the worse of the 4 manf's with IHC the best.

    Springfield made the most and are the standard.

    H&R made a good rifle but are not as collectable as a IHC.

    However, for some reaon the Winchester name along with the number of them made do demand a higher price. I have a Winchester M-1 for the same reason everyone else wants one, it's a Winchester.
  5. Wildbillz

    Wildbillz Well-Known Member

    Only reson for the extra money is the name. IHC made the least numbers wise as I recall (all so had the most difficulty in MFG, there were many production difficultys and they used a lot of SAs stuff to make there guns) all of them made to goverment standard. The best looking ones that I have seen were the H&Rs and the late SAs. They were built with out the issue of wartime pressure and in the case of SA had years of experance making them. H&R had made rifles for year and knew what they were doing. IHC was a tractor company that was selected due in part to there location. The Goverment didn't want all the rifle coming out of the same state in case there was a catastrophy and they would lose total production capabilitys. H&R was the next least I think and then Win and SA. Now all the Wins are WWII rifles as they didn't make them much after the war. They were rebuilt and stored then brought out for Korea (thats why there are so few matching ones)

    There are several sub sets that the collectors get into. If you want to read for days on it go over to Jouster.com and hit there M1 page. There are a lot of knowlegeable guy on them over there.

  6. UKWildcats

    UKWildcats Well-Known Member


    H&R were all made in the mid 50's -- with all the improvements that came from the history of the design. Mine and probably most never needed to be rebuilt and generally have all H&R parts.

    Winchester -- generally they are only receivers with a mix of other parts due to have to be rebuilt from use. They used corrosive ammo and did not clean -- little tough to clean when you are being shot at. All the guns from these two mfg I see rarely have other parts from them -- Springfield probably made all the replacement parts required. Winchester and IHC are the most rare -- therefore demand the most from collectors -- Does not mean they are better mfg or more accurate.

    Springfield -- War years were rebuilt guns, post war (like the H&R) are considered the best due to all the design improvments and lack of pressure to get mfg up.

    If you are going to build a Camp Perry (shooting/accuracy) gun you want to use 50's era rifle.
    Last edited: Nov 2, 2010
  7. Wildbillz

    Wildbillz Well-Known Member

    I wasn't suggesting that the H&Rs were mostly rebuilt guns (Thought there are some that are I am sure) What I ment was that the Springfields and Winchesters from WWII went through a rebuild program at the end of the war. Even then not all of them were redone. There is the ocasional orignal WWII gun.

    I concure both the IHC and the H&Rs were built in the 50s. No wartime pressuer to get them out the door. The IHC (I don't think) ever had an IHC marked barrel. Most had either a SA or LMR on them as I recall? Still the H&Rs and the late (50s era) SAs are some of the better looking guns fit and finnish wise in my oppion.


  8. foghornl

    foghornl Well-Known Member

    I have an International Harvester made M1, becuase my late dad was one of the guys working for IH in the 50's in Evansville, IN that made them....
  9. HKGuns

    HKGuns Well-Known Member

    All rifles that saw service went through a rebuild process and hence, they will mostly all have a mix of parts. There are very few rifles, not already in the hands of collectors that are correct grade. It simply isn't true that Winchester's will have more of a parts mix.

    My WW2 Springer had a mix of newer parts that were not accurate to the original assembly. More, in point of fact, than my Winchester. Depot rebuilds did not care who manufactured the part when they put it back in the gun they simply re-assembled them after cleaning and inspection.

    The HRA rifles are post war production, hence newer and have a lower number of stray parts from the depot.
  10. USSR

    USSR Well-Known Member

    When getting a Winchester from the CMP, expect nothing more than a Winchester receiver. Occasionally you will get one with a Winchester trigger housing or trigger guard, but the rest of the rifle will be made by the other manufacturers. Here's a nice one from December of '42.


  11. iamkris

    iamkris Well-Known Member


    I just got my Winny Service Grade from the latest batch from the CMP. It is an early receiver (111,xxx from June '41) with a good number of SA parts. The stock, while having nice figure, is a CMP replacement, though.

  12. HKGuns

    HKGuns Well-Known Member

    ^^Nice Rifles^^
  13. rodregier

    rodregier Well-Known Member

    No post-WWII Winchester Garands because the machinery was shipped to Italy so they could mfgr there. Beretta and Breda Garands.
  14. skipbo32

    skipbo32 Well-Known Member

    nice M1s boys! love the tiger. yeah, i think winchesters are popular because of when they were made.
  15. HKGuns

    HKGuns Well-Known Member

    I guess I need to show mine off.

  16. az_imuth

    az_imuth Well-Known Member

    The $200 premium for the Winchester is just for the name, and the receiver is likely to be the only WRA part that you get if ordering one through CMP. A lot of folks just happen to like Winchesters. Personally, I happen to like them all. ;)

  17. giggitygiggity

    giggitygiggity Well-Known Member

    So when I get an M-1, what make/year should I try to buy? What I mean is whether the Springfield from 1942 is better or worse than a Springfield from 1953 or what not. I just used Springfield as an example. I am interested in whatever makes and years you have to offer. Thanks.
  18. Orlando

    Orlando Well-Known Member

    A Garand is a Garand is a Garand. In like condition there is no maker that is any better than another as far as function. Cosmetics yes, function, accuracy, no

    FMJMIKE Well-Known Member

    I have a six digit Winchester from the last batch of Service Grades the CMP sold. Pretty nice rifle...............:D
  20. Wildbillz

    Wildbillz Well-Known Member

    Get yourself a Service grade from the CMP. Hard to go wrong that way. If it were me and my money I would order a H&R. Just personal preferance. Read there discriptions and that should give you a good idea on what each one is.


    Every thing I have ever gotten from the CMP has been a deal.



    Wild Bill

Share This Page