M1A1 Paratrooper. The Real McCoy? (Pic heavy)

S

Sledge

New member
Got this from a good friend of my wife who is moving to California. They can't have it there apparently and offered it to me for an insanely low price. I didn't realize what was sitting on the table in front of me. I've only owned modern firearms to this point. They are good people so I didn't even examine the gun, just wrote a check to help them with the move.

Grab a cold one and get comfortable. Lots of pics and I can only include 6 per post. Opinions/observations welcome.

100_6795.jpg
100_6796.jpg
100_6797.jpg

100_6798.jpg

100_6802.jpg

100_6822.jpg
 
"Rust on the buttplate spring, Pvt. BS . . . pass revoked!" :D

Looks nice, "almost too nice" says the guy who's been reading for years about the hobby of stripping parts from complete guns and replacing everything with "correct" parts stripped from other guns.
Provenance?
 
Working on the history but the effect of time passed is a problem.

So far what I know: My wife's friend said her husband is the second owner that she knows of, he got it from his brother (now deceased) in the 1950's, who got it sometime in the 1940's. The owner has alzheimer's and also had a stroke so can't fill in any details unfortunately. The wife and daughter are asking other family members for more details. His best friend and his wife both said he never shot it.

According to the wife the gun sat in her husband's closet since the 1950's and was only taken out to oil it a bit every other year or so. I could tell I was the first to field strip it in decades. Without considering the obvious markings, which seem to validate it (so far), the inside of the action is all similar wear, dust, old yellow grease, etc. The stock wood looks aged the same with wear marks crossing over from one piece to the next. If it was a rebuild why leave the hairline cracked stock on it?

Considering the time frames and that one family owned it I don't think there has been any parts swapping going on but I am no expert on these. Learning fast though.

I'll post any info I can find out since I am very interested in the history of the gun.

Thanks for the input and if it was my gun prior to Wednesday there would be no rust on it. :)

ps. Since the stock is getting a bit dry what would be your suggestion for its' preservation? Raw linseed oil was the original approved finish correct? Should I rub a bit on the stock and let it dry?
 
The term "provenance" means little when it comes to the M1 carbine, if by that is meant a history of the item. All those contract carbines were issued, many were repaired, modified, or had parts replaced through the years of service and many more later.

All that can be said is that the M1A1 stock looks correct and could have been original. Or put on yesterday. I don't see the cartouche, but it often gets obliterated over the years; its absence would mean a stock replaced at some point, something very common but also done in the field.

The only part in real doubt is the safety. I have never seen a safety with that marking; a push button type would have been correct for the carbine at the time it was made, but the head would have been either checkered or plain, not with an "o".

Barring information from a more thorough study, I would say the carbine is a good one.

As a side issue, best check out the handcuffs; they are illegal to own in some states, so please don't get in trouble over them.

Jim
 
I took a closer look at the safety button. It's not stamped with a letter it looks like a machining mark. I'll try to take some good pics and post them.
 
It's Inland, it's in one of the correct serial number ranges, it got the original sight on it. The only issue is the condition, it looks "too good to be true" for something that didn't go through an arsenal refinish (where they'd changed the sight). But then, it might have spend the war in someone's desk in the states who only carried it on parade.
 
The family is talking to relatives to get more detail. Hopefully I will find out more soon. I have confirmed it was owned by 2 brothers from mid to late 1940's to present. Not a lot to go on. I was told the uncle of the owner was a physician in WWII not a paratrooper. Still digging.

ps. It has some damage on the grip, a chunk out and a bit of gouging but nothing serious. The stock also has some dings and scrapes but nothing big except the crack starting at the corner where the recoil plate and cap are. This one has the short channel handguard and thin wall on one side barrel channel. I read where they changed that from lack of strength, probably why the stocks cracked a lot prior to the change. Also the grip screw is the shorter one which could cause the grip to split. I can see why they wanted to refurb when they got the chance. From what I have learned there were more than a few improvements that were needed. Some of the problems could apparently get a soldier killed, like the mag release feeling like the safety.

Very interesting transformation and I can see why there are so few originals. Hopefully this is one but not done investigating yet.
 
Last edited:
FWIW, they later changed the safety to a rotating one to keep users from pushing the magazine release when they intended to release the safety.

My concern on that carbine is the lack of markings on the stock; that usually indicates stocks issued for replacement or to make up M1A1 carbines in the field rather than ones originally installed at the factory. Not a big deal, but dollarwise it does make a difference.

Jim
 
Thanks James. You mean the markings on the handguard? There are no marking in the channel but there is a very faint OI on the rail. I can't make it show up in pics. The stock has the OI at the end of the channel but it is a lot clearer. I almost missed the circle P at the back since it only shows up with side light and a flash. What else should I look for on the stock? Appreciate the input.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top