Marshall 357
Member
I saw a M-1 Garand it was made by H&R I thought Springfield was the only one who made them? What can you tell be about it.
M-1 Garand Question
- Thread starter Marshall 357
- Start date
Register to hide this ad
calmex
Member
I used to know a lot about Garands. But, 20 years in a country that won't let me have one have helped a lot of stuff I knew sort of float away into the mist.
Winchester made Garands, I believe. So did H&R and Springfield. Maybe somebody else too? I think mine was a Winchester but it might have been an H&R. Everyone I knew had one and as I said, my memory about some details is sorta foggy now. Great rifle.
Winchester made Garands, I believe. So did H&R and Springfield. Maybe somebody else too? I think mine was a Winchester but it might have been an H&R. Everyone I knew had one and as I said, my memory about some details is sorta foggy now. Great rifle.
Hi:
Manufactures of M1 Garands:
Springfield (WW II)
Winchester (WW II)
International Harvester
Harrington & Richardson (Korean War)
Jimmy
Manufactures of M1 Garands:
Springfield (WW II)
Winchester (WW II)
International Harvester
Harrington & Richardson (Korean War)
Jimmy
J. Galt
US Veteran
Don't forget International Harvester!
m1gunner
US Veteran
H&R turned out the nicest Garands of all the makers as far as true to the blueprints and overall machining. The Winchesters were the worst (but the winnies seem to be the favorite of collectors).
The tooling was sold to several European firms, and there are Beretta, Breda, and one or two more european Garands, including models that take removable magazines.
If you are considering buying, check muzzle wear and throat wear as a minimum inspection. Always good to check headspace before firing a strange military rifle.
The CMP site has good step by step directions for detail strip and reassemble of the Garands.
The tooling was sold to several European firms, and there are Beretta, Breda, and one or two more european Garands, including models that take removable magazines.
If you are considering buying, check muzzle wear and throat wear as a minimum inspection. Always good to check headspace before firing a strange military rifle.
The CMP site has good step by step directions for detail strip and reassemble of the Garands.
rcnixon
Member
Goodness I actually have something to contribute. Maybe it won't kill the thread!
Do a web search for Scott Duff. He has links for finding nearly anything you would want to know about M1s. If you get a chance to buy that H&R, do so. I got my H&R from the Civilian Marksmanship program for $500 and it's probably worth $900 to $1000 right now. Springfields are the most common followed by (if I remember correctly) Winchester, H&R and IH. Duff's books have lists of S/Ns and approximate shipping dates, drawing numbers used during what dates and a whole lot of other stuff. I have a 1945 SA and a 1955/56 H&R and they are among my most prized possesions. I exercise them regularly, along with their daddy, the 1918 M1903.
Russ
Do a web search for Scott Duff. He has links for finding nearly anything you would want to know about M1s. If you get a chance to buy that H&R, do so. I got my H&R from the Civilian Marksmanship program for $500 and it's probably worth $900 to $1000 right now. Springfields are the most common followed by (if I remember correctly) Winchester, H&R and IH. Duff's books have lists of S/Ns and approximate shipping dates, drawing numbers used during what dates and a whole lot of other stuff. I have a 1945 SA and a 1955/56 H&R and they are among my most prized possesions. I exercise them regularly, along with their daddy, the 1918 M1903.
Russ
NFrameFred
Member
Depends on the production cycle as I've seen beautiful and not -so-great specimens from most all makers.
One of the reasons that the collectors love the Winchesters is that of the six-and-a-half million or so produced, less than 500,000 were Winchesters according to NRA articles I've seen.
Got my Winchester from the CMP and wouldn't take a small farm for it.
straightshooter1
US Veteran
The Int'l Harvesters were the least accurate. I forget exactly what the problem was but Canfield authored a piece in American Rifleman (IIRC) or maybe Man at Arms about the problems.
I sorta think it was that the receivers and barrels were made by different companies and just didn't work well together.
Those H&Rs shot well and I always tried to get one of them when I was shooting. Always just a bit more than the Springfields. Of course, I'd shoot them a while, then get something I hoped was even better by trading the H&R.
I always came out on the short end of those trades as far as accuracy.
I have never seen an IH used as the basis of a highpower-type rifle. Perhaps there were/are some, and I just didn't see one.
Bob
I sorta think it was that the receivers and barrels were made by different companies and just didn't work well together.
Those H&Rs shot well and I always tried to get one of them when I was shooting. Always just a bit more than the Springfields. Of course, I'd shoot them a while, then get something I hoped was even better by trading the H&R.
I always came out on the short end of those trades as far as accuracy.
I have never seen an IH used as the basis of a highpower-type rifle. Perhaps there were/are some, and I just didn't see one.
Bob
I have a DCM (pre-CMP)Winchester made in June 1941 and a Springfield made in 1954. Both are nicely made and shoot very well. I would not want to be wearing a coal bucket helmet, carrying a rising sun flag or wearing a red star on my hat and have a GI aiming any make of Garand at me.
Look on the CMP website for lots of Garand info. Also check out the CMP forum under the Garand section. Surplusrifle.com is another good place to learn.
If you get a Garand there is a disease almost as bad as SmithWessonitis its called Garanditis and many times that leads to Carbineitis.
Look on the CMP website for lots of Garand info. Also check out the CMP forum under the Garand section. Surplusrifle.com is another good place to learn.
If you get a Garand there is a disease almost as bad as SmithWessonitis its called Garanditis and many times that leads to Carbineitis.
I thought the barrels on IH made by LMR were the best. My M-1 is a SA Dec44 mixmaster purchased during the 80's(BlueSky)that I had rebarreled by Springfield ArmoryOriginally posted by straightshooter1:
The Int'l Harvesters were the least accurate. I forget exactly what the problem was but Canfield authored a piece in American Rifleman (IIRC) or maybe Man at Arms about the problems.
I sorta think it was that the receivers and barrels were made by different companies and just didn't work well together.
Those H&Rs shot well and I always tried to get one of them when I was shooting. Always just a bit more than the Springfields. Of course, I'd shoot them a while, then get something I hoped was even better by trading the H&R.
I always came out on the short end of those trades as far as accuracy.
I have never seen an IH used as the basis of a highpower-type rifle. Perhaps there were/are some, and I just didn't see one.
Bob
straightshooter1
US Veteran
I don't recall, but I do remember the article about the problems with accuracy.
Sadly, when I moved from St. Pete to Seminole, all that stuff was either sold or trashed so I won't be able to find it.
I know a guy on another forum who is big into the shooting I used to do and very knowledgeable and I will ask him.
Bob
Sadly, when I moved from St. Pete to Seminole, all that stuff was either sold or trashed so I won't be able to find it.
I know a guy on another forum who is big into the shooting I used to do and very knowledgeable and I will ask him.
Bob
straightshooter1
US Veteran
Boy I hate this
, but it looks like my memory is defective.
I found an article, not the one I was thinking about and it said IHCs were good. There were problems with the company getting the receivers made and Springfield and H&R made some for them with IH markings.
Apparently, when IHC first began making the receivers, the guns would not feed and the entire production was shut down for three months. Springfield could not find the problem, but H&R (HRA) examined the guns and determined the problem was with the springs provided by Springfield. After replacement, the guns worked.
Maybe that's what my faulty memory was recalling. I know the barrels were always great, but I still seem to recall some other problem. Oh well,....
I really hate being wrong.
Hate admitting it worse.
Bob
I found an article, not the one I was thinking about and it said IHCs were good. There were problems with the company getting the receivers made and Springfield and H&R made some for them with IH markings.
Apparently, when IHC first began making the receivers, the guns would not feed and the entire production was shut down for three months. Springfield could not find the problem, but H&R (HRA) examined the guns and determined the problem was with the springs provided by Springfield. After replacement, the guns worked.
Maybe that's what my faulty memory was recalling. I know the barrels were always great, but I still seem to recall some other problem. Oh well,....
I really hate being wrong.
Hate admitting it worse.
Bob
ACP230
Member
I did rifle drill in JROTC in high school with a Garand made by International Harvester.
I own a Blue Sky Springfield and it shootsvery well.
I always wished I'd been able to find an IH.
That old rifle was one of the only things I liked about high school.
I own a Blue Sky Springfield and it shootsvery well.
I always wished I'd been able to find an IH.
That old rifle was one of the only things I liked about high school.
reddogge
Member
You will find more cosmetically pleasing examples of the H&R due to the fact they were not used in two wars like the SAs and Winchesters. However they don't have quite the panache of the WW2 Garands in my opinion. After all a WW2 era rifle COULD have been at the Battle of the Bulge or D-Day and that speaks volumes for some of us. Others go for the minty stocks and prisine conditions of the post war rifles like the H&Rs.
OP
Marshall 357
Member
Thanks for the info.I did not know some many companies made them. Since the H&R has a clean barrel ,numbers matching and in great shape I put her in Lay-a-way. It may not be a Springfield or been in any wars,but I think having a H&R is better than having no M-1 at all.Do you think I did the right thing??
straightshooter1
US Veteran
I know the barrels were fine. I can't find the original article on the 'net so maybe my memory is just faulty.
Our local high power guru would not convert (or work on for serious competition) the IHCs, though he would buy and sell the barrels and stocks. I don't recall a NM IHC, but there could have been. There a lots of fake NMs in Springfield and others.
My first Garand was an IHC, and I actually took a loss when I sold it because of it being one of those.
I never made it to Camp Perry, always wanted to, but just never did. I think one of our posters here was a competitor there back before the black rifles came into vogue and perhaps he can shed light on this.
Perhaps, since I am talking about the days before Mr. Gore's internet invention, what we (I) thought was, in fact, just an urban legend.
The HRA was a very nicely finished Garand and everyone I shot with thought they were the best for accuracy in their as issued condition.
Bob
Our local high power guru would not convert (or work on for serious competition) the IHCs, though he would buy and sell the barrels and stocks. I don't recall a NM IHC, but there could have been. There a lots of fake NMs in Springfield and others.
My first Garand was an IHC, and I actually took a loss when I sold it because of it being one of those.
I never made it to Camp Perry, always wanted to, but just never did. I think one of our posters here was a competitor there back before the black rifles came into vogue and perhaps he can shed light on this.
Perhaps, since I am talking about the days before Mr. Gore's internet invention, what we (I) thought was, in fact, just an urban legend.
The HRA was a very nicely finished Garand and everyone I shot with thought they were the best for accuracy in their as issued condition.
Bob
I wouldn't say Winchesters were the worst, but they did exhibit more rough machine marks than any other manufacturer. Cosmetically, they are probably the worst of the bunch, but they're still my favorite of all the mfgs. Of course, I like Winchester stuff!
m1gunner
US Veteran
Many Winnies required parts to be hand fitted in order to work properly, much more so than all the other makers put together.
reddogge
Member
Actually the M1 won't have ANY matching numbers. It will have one serial number and the other parts have numbers which are drawing numbers. You would need a book to tell if the drawing numbers are of the correct era and make for serial number range of your rifle. At least the WW2 rifles were that way.
But yes, get it as it will be a nice rifle to own no matter what number it has.
But yes, get it as it will be a nice rifle to own no matter what number it has.
Similar threads
- Locked
