M1 Garand Springfield #87374....which battles what theaters?

[Matt_X]

On 12/5/2025 at 4:47 PM, techkiller80 said:

Barrel         | S-A-6-45           | June 1945        | Rebuild Anchor.

Lets see this anchor.  I'm not familiar with that. 

[techkiller80]

11 minutes ago, Matt_X said:

Its really nice of @cplnorton to share the closest snip from SRS Books. I think you're really stretching to make the evidence fit your narrative.  That's not to take away from what you bought - which seems to be a  very nice example - I'm not judge of originality on these.

 

873,741 was produced in Sept of 1942 and probably completed that month or next.  When finished the stock was stamped indicated final approval and it shipped out in a box with 10 others.  Depending on how Springfield's flow process worked (and someone probably knows), the others in the box probably had close serial numbers.   That box of 10 went somewhere. 

 

874,818 probably left shortly thereafter and late in March 1950 was turned in by the Pennsylvania National Guard.

 

There's no way from this information to connect an 873,xxx rifle to a shipment to Fleet Marine by skipping over 1000s of rifles in between which then show up in 1946 - 51.  In fact we know a bit about how the USMC issued M1 rifles over the period of adoption.

 

Look at some of the serial numbers that have grouped together at known locations and time periods.  For example the 50 or so pulled from the 38th Inf Div turn ins for service used in the I948 Air Gage test (google it).  Or the ones shown in the ship's log. here 1957

 

 

Thanks for the detailed breakdown on the shipping crates. That makes sense about the crate batches—I realize now that a 1,000-number gap represents too many potential shipments to claim a definitive Marine connection, so I’ll concede that point.

 

However, the forensic evidence on the rifle itself confirms that this is a legitimate military Arsenal Rebuild—specifically a late-war/post-VE Day overhaul—and not a commercial 'put-together.' Here is why:

 

The June 1945 'Time Capsule' Date: The receiver is Oct 1942, but the barrel is dated 6-45 (June 1945). Crucially, every other part on the rifle predates June 1945. If this were a commercial parts gun put together years later, you would statistically expect to see a 1950s bolt, a post-war operating rod, or other anachronistic parts mixed in. The fact that the entire rifle adheres to a strict 'Mid-1945' cutoff strongly suggests it was rebuilt by an Arsenal immediately after VE Day (likely in preparation for the invasion of Japan) and stayed that way.

 

The Depot Markings: The stock features the 'D' stamp on the pistol grip alongside the standard factory 'Circle P'. This sub-inspector mark is consistent with a rifle that went through a formal Depot-level inspection line rather than a field repair.

 

The Uniformity of Finish: The parkerization is consistent across the receiver (Drawing D 28291-17), the 1945 barrel, and the gas cylinder. It has the uniform finish of a weapon that was professionally dipped or refinished together at a government facility.  These dips or chemical finishes were not done in the field.

So while I can't pin down the 1942 shipping crate, the June '45 barrel combined with the complete lack of post-1945 parts confirms this is a genuine Arsenal overhaul from the end of the war. That history is exactly what I was looking for.

One can never be certain as 99% of these rifles don't have a paper trail but with this evidence I think one can say with confidence this is the closest evidence to an arsenal rebuild that you can get.

[techkiller80]

44 minutes ago, Matt_X said:

Lets see this anchor.  I'm not familiar with that. 

My apologies for the confusion there—that was a formatting error on my part when I copied my notes over. 'Rebuild Anchor' was my own shorthand note in the column meaning that the 6-45 barrel date is the 'anchor' (or key evidence) that dates the rebuild to mid-1945.

There is no actual anchor symbol stamped on the barrel. It is just marked S-A-6-45

[thorin6]

The only thing you can infer from a rifle SN not being on the SRS list, is that it did not go with the other numbered rifles.  If it had, it should be on the list with the other rifles.

You cannot verify that the barrel was or was not changed by a civilian, nor that having all original parts is proof that it is as it came out of a rebuild.  People have been changing barrels and installing original parts for the past 60 years or so on M1 Garands.  CMP has been doing that for many years, swapping stocks, pulling worn parts off and replacing them, and other repairs to ensure the rifle was safe to shoot.  Somewhere on this board is a statement by a service member that in training it was not unusual to change out barrels every six-eight weeks because of overcleaning of the rifle.

The only way to prove a rifle came out of a factory or rebuild is a chain of custody showing who had it when, unbroken up until it was purchased the last time.  This rifle most likely went through a rebuild at one time, as most WW2 era M1 Garands did.  It may or may not have seen service during the Korean War, and it may have stayed in the US in storage.  There is no way to tell.

My CMP Springfield M1 is totally correct for WW2, with a 43 receiver and a 44 barrel, lock bar sight, SA over GAW stock, Springfield uncut oprod, etc.  However, it didn't come that way out of the CMP, and the original stock, oprod, and rear sight are stored safely away, should I ever decide to sell it.

Just because the rifles individual history cannot be verified doesn't make it less historical.  Believe what you want to for your M1 and enjoy the history (or shooting) of this rifle.

[firstflabn]

On 12/6/2025 at 3:31 PM, Matt_X said:

I didn't say that!

I made some suggestions on how to pick up bits of the paper trail, and pointed out that there was no rebuild program during the war.  There are various places one can pick up clues as to when parts were manufactured.  If one is experienced I'm sure there are wear patterns and finish clues as well.   DCM and CMP's main focus was initially to build marksmanship.  

 

Curious that its missing its stacking swivel.

You went from '[no] major rebuild' during the war in an earlier reply to 'no rebuild program' in this one. Which do you now prefer, and, if the latter, how did you arrive at that? Unequivocal claims require a factual basis and none still means zero, right? If the former, how would you define 'major' in this context?

[Rhscott]

Nice rifle BTW.  In the end, your rifle and your story.  Do you just want the rest of us to agree with your Hypothesis?  Is your guess of this rifle being a combat rifle correct?… could be… or it could have been used at Ft Jackson SC till it was rendered unserviceable by trainees and then rebuilt.  Will you ever know?  Doubtful.  Everyone wants a grand history for their military weapons and sometimes there is and sometimes not.

I got a near mint German occupation made Browning HP pistol from a vets family member and thought there was a BIG story to it.  Research showed he never made it to Europe and served in the Panama zone.  Most likely got it in a poker game with the original bring back guy but ill never know.

Dont get too vested in what you can’t prove. It is what it is, however it got that way.

[Matt_X]

9 hours ago, firstflabn said:

'[no] major rebuild' during the war in an earlier reply to 'no rebuild program' in this one. Which do you now prefer,

In this context, one and the same. Specifically a 'program' for rebuilding large quantities such as the one arranged with FN.  That is the theory proposed by techkiller80; that this rifle was returned to SA in June of 1945 for complete overhaul, packed away, and eventually shipped to CMP.

[techkiller80]

16 hours ago, thorin6 said:

The only thing you can infer from a rifle SN not being on the SRS list, is that it did not go with the other numbered rifles.  If it had, it should be on the list with the other rifles.

You cannot verify that the barrel was or was not changed by a civilian, nor that having all original parts is proof that it is as it came out of a rebuild.  People have been changing barrels and installing original parts for the past 60 years or so on M1 Garands.  CMP has been doing that for many years, swapping stocks, pulling worn parts off and replacing them, and other repairs to ensure the rifle was safe to shoot.  Somewhere on this board is a statement by a service member that in training it was not unusual to change out barrels every six-eight weeks because of overcleaning of the rifle.

The only way to prove a rifle came out of a factory or rebuild is a chain of custody showing who had it when, unbroken up until it was purchased the last time.  This rifle most likely went through a rebuild at one time, as most WW2 era M1 Garands did.  It may or may not have seen service during the Korean War, and it may have stayed in the US in storage.  There is no way to tell.

My CMP Springfield M1 is totally correct for WW2, with a 43 receiver and a 44 barrel, lock bar sight, SA over GAW stock, Springfield uncut oprod, etc.  However, it didn't come that way out of the CMP, and the original stock, oprod, and rear sight are stored safely away, should I ever decide to sell it.

Just because the rifles individual history cannot be verified doesn't make it less historical.  Believe what you want to for your M1 and enjoy the history (or shooting) of this rifle.

Ultimately as I've said nobody with a Garand will ever know for sure....very very few of these rifles can ever be traced as to where they were after leaving the factory....I think the evidence I have is compelling and does potentially tell the story of at minimum the rebuild and when it likely happened....Where did it go.....Europe....Pacific....Just used as a training weapon....that is all def speculation.  However I think I can with a large amount of certainty deduce the following.....

It is astronomically unlikely that a civilian collector in 2024 (or 1980) would accidentally assemble a rifle where every single part stops at exactly June 1945, while also matching the finish perfectly.

 

I appreciate the perspective, and I agree that without a chain of custody document, 100% certainty is impossible. However, I believe the 'Civilian Put-Together' theory is statistically unlikely given the forensic evidence on this specific rifle.

 

Here is why I am confident this is a genuine June 1945 Arsenal Rebuild:

 

The 'Time Capsule' Parts Manifest: The barrel is dated 6-45. Crucially, every other part on the rifle (Bolt, Op-Rod, Trigger Group) is WWII-era. If this were a Cold War rebuild or a civilian parts-bin gun, probability dictates I should see at least one post-war part—a T105 sight, a 65-series bolt, or a 1950s op-rod. The fact that the entire rifle cuts off at exactly June 1945 strongly suggests it was assembled then and sat in storage, missing the Korean War update cycles.

 

The Uniform Finish: The parkerization is consistent across the receiver, barrel, and gas cylinder. This indicates the rifle was refinished as a unit, which is characteristic of Arsenal work, not typical civilian barrel swaps which often leave mismatched finish colors.

 

The Depot Markings: The presence of the 'D' inspection stamp on the grip, alongside the factory Circle P, confirms the stock went through a military depot inspection.

 

The Historical Logic: A rebuild date of June 1945 fits the ramp-up for the Invasion of Japan. The fact that it has no wear or later parts suggests it was rebuilt for that invasion, the war ended two months later, and it remained in storage.

 

While I can't prove who held it, the physical evidence points heavily to a rifle that was overhauled at the very end of the war and then preserved, rather than a modern creation."

 

[techkiller80]

Why I think it missed Korea.....

 

1. The Missing "T105" Sights

By the Korean War, the Army had developed improved rear sights (the T105 or Type III sights) because the old WWII "Lockbar" sights were considered harder to adjust and prone to loosening.

The Evidence: When rifles went through Korean War maintenance depots, armorers aggressively swapped WWII sights for the new T105s.

This Rifle: If you still have WWII-style sights (Lockbars) or the standard WWII flush-nut types, that is a strong indicator it missed the major Korean-era upgrades.

 

2. The "Op-Rod" Relief Cut

During the Korean War era, the military discovered that the sharp angle on the operating rod could crack the receiver.

The Evidence: Post-war rebuilds almost always involved swapping the op-rod for a "relief cut" version (or modifying the existing one).

This Rifle: If your Op-Rod is a standard, unmodified WWII version, it strongly suggests the rifle was not being serviced by an armorer in the 1950s.

 

3. The "Parts Migration" Rule

War destroys parts. If this rifle was used in combat in Korea for three years:

It likely would have broken an extractor, a firing pin, or a trigger housing.

The field armorer would have fixed it with whatever part he had in his bin—which in 1952 would likely be a 1950s-dated part (like a generic IHC or HRA part).

Your Rifle: The fact that it has zero parts dated after 1945 is the strongest evidence. To survive a war without needing a single replacement part is incredibly rare.

 

4. The Condition (Parkerization)

The Korean War was brutal on weapons (extreme cold, mud, ice).

Rifles that came back from Korea were usually thrashed. They were then put through a second massive rebuild program in the mid-1950s (getting 1950s barrels and stocks).

This Rifle: Since it still has the 1945 barrel and uniform finish, it likely didn't get "used up" in Korea and require that second overhaul.


I think all of these points help in my mind paint a picture of what most likely occurred as far as the rebuild with this rifle.

[Matt_X]

Well if you want, there  are clues you can investigate.  For example, as Mr Canfield's article touches on, the second stamp on the grip is indicative of one (or several) rebuild programs and time frames.  You can probably find out which one(s) from one of Mr Canfield or Scott Duff's books, or Garand collector.   Also knowing when your rifle was sold by CMP may lead to discussions about what is known about the batches of rifles DCM or CMP received that was then being sold in that time frame. 

[techkiller80]

23 minutes ago, Matt_X said:

Well if you want, there  are clues you can investigate.  For example, as Mr Canfield's article touches on, the second stamp on the grip is indicative of one (or several) rebuild programs and time frames.  You can probably find out which one(s) from one of Mr Canfield or Scott Duff's books, or Garand collector.   Also knowing when your rifle was sold by CMP may lead to discussions about what is known about the batches of rifles DCM or CMP received that was then being sold in that time frame. 

Matt,

Am I incorrect in assuming that CMP rifles usually had a stamp or mark?  My rifle doesn't have that, which makes me think it was never sold by CMP?

[atb]

Wow! I just read through these looooonnnnng posts. Sometimes we collectors want or need something to be true soooo badly. I know I've been guilty of it several times. Though, it certainly does spur us to very interesting and valuable research efforts. I hope you are able to eventually verify your theory on the rifle's history.

[Matt_X]

37 minutes ago, techkiller80 said:

Am I incorrect in assuming that CMP rifles usually had a stamp or mark? 

I'm not aware of any marks, just paperwork.  My Garand was sold by CMP but I didn't get the paperwork.  I think that is common.  In my case I know it was bought at Camp Perry and was shot in the match that year.  That info is probably unusual from a gun store buy and more typical of a private sale from a competitor or someone you know.  

 

I forgot to mention that a somewhat useful thing to check is the MW and TE.  A lot of times buyers want to know that as an indication of barrel condition - and to some degree accuracy. 

[firstflabn]

7 hours ago, Matt_X said:

In this context, one and the same. Specifically a 'program' for rebuilding large quantities such as the one arranged with FN.  That is the theory proposed by techkiller80; that this rifle was returned to SA in June of 1945 for complete overhaul, packed away, and eventually shipped to CMP.

The OP had multiple problems with his June '45 scenario building, some of which you pointed out before he pulled a switcheroo and changed oceans (but persisted with the same fantasy anyway). Despite your hair splitting, the fact is, OD rebuilt (the criteria is a little vague - so I ask your indulgence to make this point) ordnance throughout the war. They didn't pile it all up and wait for 1946. Had you been aware of a basic volume, Brophy's SA book, transcribing (not vaguely characterizing) original docs, you would have saved yourself from making the bogus 'none' assertion. So no need to perform research into primary docs to see that your 'none' position has been completely unviable since Brophy's SA data was published in 1991. You did more than most by at least citing something resembling a source, albeit a secondary one (which didn't directly address the subject at hand anyway, so half credit for effort).

 

Now that you have hitched your wagon to FN, you need to provide facts on how many Garands were reworked there since you have made that your new  measuring stick. 'Compared to what' is a legit analytical question, but empty words without a factual basis.

[techkiller80]

22 minutes ago, firstflabn said:

The OP had multiple problems with his June '45 scenario building, some of which you pointed out before he pulled a switcheroo and changed oceans (but persisted with the same fantasy anyway). Despite your hair splitting, the fact is, OD rebuilt (the criteria is a little vague - so I ask your indulgence to make this point) ordnance throughout the war. They didn't pile it all up and wait for 1946. Had you been aware of a basic volume, Brophy's SA book, transcribing (not vaguely characterizing) original docs, you would have saved yourself from making the bogus 'none' assertion. So no need to perform research into primary docs to see that your 'none' position has been completely unviable since Brophy's SA data was published in 1991. You did more than most by at least citing something resembling a source, albeit a secondary one (which didn't directly address the subject at hand anyway, so half credit for effort).

 

Now that you have hitched your wagon to FN, you need to provide facts on how many Garands were reworked there since you have made that your new  measuring stick. 'Compared to what' is a legit analytical question, but empty words without a factual basis.

I think there might be some confusion here regarding my previous posts.

Regarding 'FN': I haven't mentioned Fabrique Nationale (FN) at any point in this thread, nor do I believe any parts on this rifle are FN-manufactured. If I missed a post where someone else brought that up, I apologize, but that certainly isn't 'my wagon.'

 

Regarding the 'Switcheroo': When I started this thread, I asked about the USMC possibility based on SRS proximity. When others pointed out that the serial number gap was too large to be statistically significant, I accepted that data and moved on. I don't view that as 'changing my story'—I view that as listening to the experts here and adjusting my assessment based on facts. I'm here to learn, not to blindly stick to a disproven theory.

 

Regarding Wartime Rebuilds: I am fully aware that Ordnance rebuilt rifles throughout the war. I am not claiming that no rebuilds happened before 1945. I am simply stating that this specific rifle carries A BARREL DATED d 6-45. Therefore, the physical evidence dictates that this specific rebuild could not have been completed before June 1945.

 

My point remains simple: The rifle has a 1942 receiver and a June 1945 barrel, with no parts dated later than that. That specific combination points to a mid-1945 overhaul. I'm not claiming it's magic, just that it's a consistent time-capsule of that specific month.

[techkiller80]

This barrel has a MW of less than 1 from what I can see....

 

Look at how much copper is still showing. The bullet does not sink down to the brass casing. There is a healthy gap (looks like 1/8" to 3/16") of copper visible.

 

 

This proves the barrel has been shot very little (and cleaned carefully) since it was installed in June 1945. If this rifle had seen heavy combat in Korea or been used by a target shooter for 50 years, that bullet would have swallowed down to the brass. 

[The Rooster]

https://www.americanrifleman.org/content/m1-garand-rebuilds-history-markings/

[robinb]

Looks like a good shooter. 

[DogDoc]

It’s a nice rifle and you did fine on the price. It’s probably worth more in parts because lots of collectors want to “restore” them to original. 
 

Do yourself a favor and buy the Canfield book and study Garands. Look at as many as you can at gun stores and gun shows. Very simple, arsenal rebuilt guns have arsenal rebuild stamps. CMP guns have no CMP markings, just what I’d on the stock when they pull it from storage. Personal collection rebuilds definitely have no markings. As this is not corrected to the 42 receiver, it sure has a CMP “feel” to it. 
 

I have a lot of WWII stuff and despite my efforts I can prove very little of it was over there. You have a nice gun with all WWII parts. That’s probably all you are going to know as fact. Good luck!

[blitz67]

There is absolutely no way a June 1945 barrel was installed in June 1945. Everything you have stated or tried to convince people of is nothing but pure conjecture.  You have no proof of anything related to your rifle. I was carrying a wwii colt .45 in 1988 as a Coast Guard boarding team member, our gunners mates were still getting wwii produced parts from the stock system then.  And when I left the military in 2014 we were still getting wwii issue survival equipment.  Your theory’s don’t take in to account reality.  I can go on eBay right now and find nos garland parts.   You are asking experts for advice and then discounting everything they tell you.  Your gun is a post war rebuild. Still a nice find but it is what it is.  So they rebuild Sherman tanks in the eto but they can’t remove a grand barrel?   I specifically remember watching a program with MOH winner Walt Eelers telling about how he helped strip out the damaged tanks so they could be rebuilt.   The British helped rebuilt jeeps, trucks and aircraft. There was no shortage of weapons and no reason to rush them to the pacific. The US was not desperate for anything in 1956.  We built hundreds of thousands of aircraft vehicles and weapons, some still in use by militaries today.  Nice gun though but not what you say it is 

[atb]

19 minutes ago, blitz67 said:

There is absolutely no way a June 1945 barrel was installed in June 1945. Everything you have stated or tried to convince people of is nothing but pure conjecture.  You have no proof of anything related to your rifle. I was carrying a wwii colt .45 in 1988 as a Coast Guard boarding team member, our gunners mates were still getting wwii produced parts from the stock system then.  And when I left the military in 2014 we were still getting wwii issue survival equipment.  Your theory’s don’t take in to account reality.  I can go on eBay right now and find nos garland parts.   You are asking experts for advice and then discounting everything they tell you.  Your gun is a post war rebuild. Still a nice find but it is what it is.  So they rebuild Sherman tanks in the eto but they can’t remove a grand barrel?   I specifically remember watching a program with MOH winner Walt Eelers telling about how he helped strip out the damaged tanks so they could be rebuilt.   The British helped rebuilt jeeps, trucks and aircraft. There was no shortage of weapons and no reason to rush them to the pacific. The US was not desperate for anything in 1956.  We built hundreds of thousands of aircraft vehicles and weapons, some still in use by militaries today.  Nice gun though but not what you say it is 

Also, I've seen images of well staffed and equipped AEF US Army Ordnance maintenance facilities in France from WW1 in which all types of small arms were salvaged and put back into service. The same type of thing would you have happened in WW2.

[The Rooster]

Why would such a rare rifle sell for $1600.00 ?

 

[Matt_X]

16 hours ago, techkiller80 said:

Regarding Wartime Rebuilds: I am fully aware that Ordnance rebuilt rifles throughout the war. I am not claiming that no rebuilds happened before 1945. I am simply stating that this specific rifle carries A BARREL DATED d 6-45. Therefore, the physical evidence dictates that this specific rebuild could not have been completed before June 1945.

Absolutely true.

16 hours ago, techkiller80 said:

My point remains simple: The rifle has a 1942 receiver and a June 1945 barrel, with no parts dated later than that. That specific combination points to a mid-1945 overhaul. I'm not claiming it's magic, just that it's a consistent time-capsule of that specific month.

Possibly.  As others have pointed out, restoring is popular.   From the photos it appears the stock may have been sanded after the second stamp was applied to the grip. 

16 hours ago, firstflabn said:

the fact is, OD rebuilt (the criteria is a little vague - so I ask your indulgence to make this point) ordnance throughout the war.

How about helping the guy out as well as the rest of us.  Do your primary source documents show that Springfield Armory was overhauling Garands in parallel to production June or July 1945?    How about that second stamp on the grip?  What locations and time frames is that consistant with? 

[Matt_X]

23 minutes ago, The Rooster said:

Why would such a rare rifle sell for $1600.00 ?

 

I think its like any collectable.  The seller has to beleive its rare enough to obtain a higher price, and have the patience and knowledge to connect with buyers who are willing to pay that price.  This rifle?  I think we agree it was in the ballpark based on the parts and condition.

[techkiller80]

@Matt_X from what I've read the "D" cartouche is a depot inspection or sub inspector mark.

 

This to me really helps confirm it was a military rebuild as I understand it when an m1 garand left the factory in 1942 the bottom of the grip typically only had the circle p and maybe a small ordinance wheel later when rifles were sent to ordinance depots like Red River letter Kenny or Aniston for repair or overhaul the inspectors would stamp their own code on the grip to certify the work a loan letter like D or sometimes numbers like two A or 12 is the signature of one of these depot inspectors.