Correct stock set for an early SA M1 Garand

[jad0110]

Recently, I picked up a Springfield Armory M1 Garand. I was about to go through CMP (I might for another one down the road), but this early example came up and I couldn't resist. Sadly, I haven't had a chance to shoot it, but I plan on doing something about that soon (just got a National Match Turner Sling for it, very nice). This is a pre-war M1, the S/N and drawing number on the receiver put it's mfg date at January 1941. It has a Springfield Armory barrel dated October 1940, so it may be original to the gun. The barrel is in decent shape (avg TE and ME measurements, can't locate the exact numbers now), with a fairly typical dark bore and some pitting. In fact, everything on the rifle is original (or at least correct to the period) for a 17xxxx SA M1, except the rear sight windage adjustment knob, operating rod catch, maybe the odd spring or three and most obviously the stock.

This stock appears to be a commercial post war example, but I could be wrong. It has no markings of any time. Comments/opinions?

I've been trying to track down an original SA stock from this period. According to this website (http://www.trfindley.com/pgsnstmpsm1.html), a correct stock should have S.A./G.H.S. cartouche (Springfield Armory / Gilbert H. Stewart, Commanding Officer) and should also include a circled 'P' proof mark (with serifs) on the pistol grip, and the Ordnance Wheel with Crossed Cannons.

From what I can tell, vintage stocks are understandably difficult to find. Anyone got any good sources? Either that, or does anyone produce new reproduction stocks using all the correct proof marks, wood and finishing?

This may be a better question to ask the CMP forum, or other such sites, but I thought I'd try here at my favorite message board first. Thank you.

She shows some finish wear, but I actually prefer it like that. Gives the rifle more character, IMHO.

 

[Tim the student]

Are you absolutely sure there are no markings on it? Sometimes the cartouche can be hard to see, but usually on stocks a bit more beat up than that one appears to be. Unless yours was refinished, and sanded down a fair amount, which I suppose is a possibility.

IDK if that GHS stock would be correct or not. I'd have to check a book that I don't have next to me. I'll do it later, should I think of it.

Were I in your shoes, I'd post some WTBs around, as well as keeping a sharp lookout on the classifieds. I'd look mainly on the CMP forums, Jouster, some of the milsurp forums.

You can get new stocks stamped, but they will (thankfully, IMO) stamp "repro" in the barrel channel so future buyers don't get scammed.

ETA: Maybe they all don't stamp "repro".

 

[jad0110]

Thank you for the very informative post. I'll have to check the stock over once more for any kind of markings, but I don't think I'll find any. It is in very good shape, I just know it is not the correct vintage. If the gun didn't have so many original parts (or at least historically accurate), I wouldn't care so much.

If I do end up with a repro stock, I'll personally carve "repro" inside the stock myself if it isn't already identified as such, though I have no plans to sell it. I agree with you on the practice of marking it.

I had forgotten about Jouster, I'll have to check into that, thanks.

I'd appreciate any info you may be able to provide on the correct markings.

 

[30Cal]

There are gobs of fakes out there. I've yet to see a "repro" that was marked as such. Find someone who with a Phd in M1s before you fork out the $300+.