M1 T26 marked "Experimental"

[echo1]

The lady definitely needs to read this article and this thread. It's humped. PAX

[slick44]

Originally Posted by 2761377

circling back to the origin of the receiver, which may help the lady come to terms with reality.

under the wood line, on the right hand side, I predict we would see numbers indicating actual manufacturer and approximate vintage.

D28291-** would indicate WW2 Springfield Armory manufacture. this is the drawing number, with revisions between 1 and 35. some SA receivers from Fall 1940 to spring 1942 are suffixed with SA.

D28291-2 indicate Winchester manufacture. Some early examples are suffixed WRA. Very late Winchesters are suffixed WIN-13.

The drawing number for post war Springfield receivers will be D or F 6528291, with a heat lot. HRA and IHC used 6528291

SA receivers were also marked with a heat lot. These are alpha-numeric and distinctive. Winchester did not mark heat lots.

Many of these faux "Tankers" were built from demilled receivers, the infamous "re-welds". Examination of the left side of the receiver, again below the wood line could betray a welded receiver. But the drawing number and heat lot have been used for years to verify the front half belongs to the rear half.

Let's see some pics!

Okay she's supposed to come back in next week and I'll take some more pictures...thank you for your info on all that!

[slick44]

Originally Posted by sofbak

Send your pics to these guys...

https://thegca.org/contact-us/

I will thank you...see what they say!

[Mustang]

Originally Posted by slick44

Okay she's supposed to come back in next week and I'll take some more pictures...thank you for your info on all that!

Looking forward to any more pictures.

[slick44]

Originally Posted by Yuki

I apologize if I missed this but have you sent pictures to the Springfield Museum? It would be interesting to hear what their initial thoughts would be.

Also when are getting pictures of her 1911?

I emailed the Springfield Museum and the NRA Museum with pictures and neither one has replied...

I'll ask her to bring the 1911 in and I'll take pictures of it too...she said it's a Colt 1937 1911 with original box...that's what she said...we'll see what it actually is. What "The rest of the story" is with it Lol

[slick44]

Originally Posted by Mustang

Looking forward to any more pictures.

Thank you for the link to the American Rifleman article also I am much obliged for that...I'll see if she's interested in reading it.

The rifle is intriguing to say the least...if anything I'm dying to know where or who built it fake or not...I had to take a break from researching it...it was consuming my work days...but with a lot of help from this forum when she brings it back in I know a lot more of what to look for!

Thanks again! 👍

[FLIGHT762]

A Gunsmith friend of mine had a M1-A receiver made up for him by one of the big M1-A receiver makers with markings of one of the experimental M-14's. He had fun with it showing it to people, got everyone scratching their head. I remember seeing it, but can't remember exactly what the markings were.

If I were to guess, the PWB Rifle was made from a new cast receiver.

If it was real, it would have been fired and handled a lot, showing more than a bit of wear and it would have been made with an existing receiver.

O/P, I'm sure you'll find someone who will know about this PWB marked fake.

Whoever originally did this probably did a few of them.

I feel sorry for the Widow, thinking she is sitting on a gold mine.

How many of Hitler's "Personal Walther PPK's" are out there?

[slick44]

Originally Posted by FLIGHT762

A Gunsmith friend of mine had a M1-A receiver made up for him by one of the big M1-A receiver makers with markings of one of the experimental M-14's. He had fun with it showing it to people, got everyone scratching their head. I remember seeing it, but can't remember exactly what the markings were.

If I were to guess, the PWB Rifle was made from a new cast receiver.

If it was real, it would have been fired and handled a lot, showing more than a bit of wear and it would have been made with an existing receiver.

O/P, I'm sure you'll find someone who will know about this PWB marked fake.

Whoever originally did this probably did a few of them.

I feel sorry for the Widow, thinking she is sitting on a gold mine.

How many of Hitler's "Personal Walther PPK's" are out there?

Yeah I do too...I think part of her is holding onto her husband through the rifle...but I think another part knows the truth...she's done a lot of research on her own...I asked her why she brought into me? She said because I had a lot of kind reviews on yp.com so that's another reason I don't mind helping help...I hope people are willing to help me when I'm 92 right?

[slick44]

Okay I sent an email with the first 3 picture to the Garand Collectors Association that was linked to me above...see what or if they say anything?

[223556]

[Jeremy2171]

It's a fake....you could have stopped at the 6 groove barrel.


With likely no barrel markings on it

[kendog4570]

Originally Posted by Jeremy2171

It's a fake....you could have stopped at the 6 groove barrel…..

Good catch! All of us “experts”missed that!

[MeatyMac]

Back in the 1960's and 1970's Numrich sold new 6-groove 24" GI contour M1 Garand barrels and 18" T26 GI contour M1 Garand barrels, they advertised these barrels as Made in the USA but never divulged who the manufacture was, they were all chambered in .30-06. I have a 24" 6-groove Numrich barrel in my Garand parts stash, here are two pics.

The only 2 marks on the entire barrel is a l (above the u in Numrich) on the right side flat and a = about 3/4" back from where the flat ends on the right


Note the flat outer cut at the muzzle, its not a round outer radius like GI barrels

[slick44]

Originally Posted by Jeremy2171

It's a fake....you could have stopped at the 6 groove barrel.


With likely no barrel markings on it

Could've used that info a week ago Lol...I think we've all come to the conclusion it's a reproduction...I'd still like to know who produced it just for my own curiosity...

[slick44]

Originally Posted by Jeremy2171

It's a fake....you could have stopped at the 6 groove barrel.


With likely no barrel markings on it

And that was the purpose of posting the picture rifling....I just couldn't remember if it was supposed to be 5 or 6 grooves from the factory.

[kendog4570]

Originally Posted by slick44

And that was the purpose of posting the picture rifling....I just couldn't remember if it was supposed to be 5 or 6 grooves from the factory.

All US service rifle barrels for the M1 were 4 groove, including NM barrels.

[slick44]

Originally Posted by kendog4570

All US service rifle barrels for the M1 were 4 groove, including NM barrels.

Awesome...now I know thank you.

[The Gleam]

Originally Posted by Jeremy2171

It's a fake....you could have stopped at the 6 groove barrel. With likely no barrel markings on it

First thing that stood out for me besides the 'rollmark's' phrasing.

I thought that photo was of something different. I didn't know about the Numrich reproduction barrels, but makes sense and that's the likely source. So possibly looking at something constructed in the 1960s-1970s.

Originally Posted by stevie

Looking at Canfields book, the 2 rifles mentioned were reworked SA which carried SA serial numbers. The original request was for 150 but it is unknown how many were actually created. It did mention that when the program was cancelled most likely they rebuilt to regular rifles.

Also said many fakes were created some having Pacific Warfare Board marking on the reciever.

Originally Posted by Quiet

The Pacific War Board created the shorten M1 from existing M1 Garands.

Two of those were sent to Springfield Armory, which they used to make their own version, which they designated the T26. ///

Per the Springfield Armory National Historical Museum, the receiver for the T26 did not have any special markings & it was marked like a standard M1 rifle, because they used an existing receiver they had on hand, and no authentic PWB M1 rifle was marked/remarked with any special markings & they were all made in 1944 & field/combat tested by the 503rd Parachute Infantry Regiment in the New Guinea campaign (07-02-44 through 08-31-44).

Fake/reproduction PWB M1 rifles started appearing in the early-1960s.

Originally Posted by Mustang

There is this article from the American Rifleman...

https://www.americanrifleman.org/con...he-real-story/

Agree.

I heard of these fakes, just never have come across one. I'm sure this is a fake, regardless of how the 'rollmarks' were created. So much about the expression of it itself, and the genesis of it arriving on the scene from a gun-show purchase story merely solidifies my view of that without much doubt.


I have a good number of Garands, many variants, and a couple as 'unissued' (i.e., foil wrap) so were never refurbished.

Those roll marks are incredibly crisp, perfectly aligned, and weirdly purposeful for what would otherwise be a war-time experimental assembly. Whether done on an older scrolling machine, by hand, or early CNC, or at "Things Remembered" makes little difference - they look fabricated due to their consistency, odd formatting, and application.

And I doubt they would have actually marked the select guns as "PAC. WAR. BD." - in most cases, specially constructed guns were simply built on receivers from existing supply, and extra time was not taken to mark them in such a unique way, especially during war-time.

From the photos/indications Quiet posted, it would seem those guns meant as PWB guns simply used Springfield receivers with common serial numbers, which would bis in line with what I'm suggesting.

You'll see prototype monikers more often outside of war-time when private companies are indeed experimenting and creating prototypes and have more time to make a pretty product from handcrafted one-off parts, and of course, with replica/tribute guns. Experimental guns during war0time built on existing platforms often just use existing parts and some modified, often crudely done bespoke parts simply to get the job done.

Additionally, experimental guns during war-time often look the part too; rough, beat-up, little attention to finish or care, and then are usually even beat-up worse during the repeated testing phase.

An 'experimental' gun is just that - it goes through copious amounts of experimentation, testing, build and rebuild, tear-down, swapping parts, to get it to work right and see what works right.

So it's hard to believe an 'experimental' rifle during war-time would be so perfect, in such excellent condition, both metal finish and wood. That just screams replica or tribute.

If I had come across this gun at a gun show, the above realities are the things I would have been repeating to myself is applying my skepticism to "the story".

How did it come into being? That's weirdly just as interesting as 'the story'.

Might someone have created/modified this solely for themselves, i.e., no intent on 'manufacturing' more than one? Maybe even a clone or surplus blank, rejected, unfinished or re-welded/machined original receiver they them machined the roll-marks?

Or - maybe someone came across a surplus receiver only, marked in this manner that never got finished into a rifle (thus the lack of maker's marks) and then built a modern reproduction rifle around it?

In the early/mid 1980s, an acquaintance "came across" some nearly complete and finished aluminum Colt semi-auto frames with no markings. We suspected they were stolen from a machine shop contracted to do work for Colt. Some other guy bought them and made guns for himself from them. I suspect this type of thing was much more common prior to 1968-GCA and seemed to be relatively common in the 1980s, and may be similar to how this receiver came about in the first place. Either surplus, or aftermarket receivers that was "re-purposed" by a very talented individual.

If people are out there making fake Collier's, this certainly is not stretch for someone of even 1/5th the talent that requires.

And lastly, her story is vapid - has a lot of holes.

From what she is saying, there is no viability to any of it from where her father bought it (gun show) than any other commonly way counterfeit guns are acquired - sounds like he bought the story, and she did too, and now she is just another grape in the grapevine passing on the original con-artist's story and also being coy about it no different than the original seller, playing willfully ignorant.

She either wants to believe it for the value or wants to believe it out of pride/vanity that won't let her admit her father was made a fool, and she is a victim of that too; likely no malice there, just innocently naive, innocently ignorant, and the threat of embarrassment is preventing revelation of the truth.

She should take it home, mount it on the wall in the den, and live out her few remaining years happily believing the story and fond memory of her father, the most knowledgeable gun aficionado that ever lived.

It makes a great story over tea and cucumber-sandwich socials.

"Damn those Calgunny people on the interwebs, damn them all to hell! What do they know!"

---

[bergmen]

Originally Posted by glassparman

Hard to tell by the pictures but if you look at the letters, some of them like the E, look like they were CNC milled and seem to have start and stop marks from the mill.

Does anyone else see that?

If these letters (and numbers) were CNC milled, the "1" in the "M1" would require a super tiny end mill and would likely break often at that depth, even if the receiver was aluminum (much easier to machine than steel) which it obviously isn't.

I'm talking about the tiny detail at the top of the "1".

Dan

[musketjon]

That rifle is as queer as a 3 doll hair bill. They were NOT marked in any special way.
If you have access to Duff's red book, go to page 101 and read about them. It was I who gave that info to Duff. My late father was in the 503rd PIR in the PTO and was actually a member of the test platoon for the T26 rifle and had one. I remember him telling about it when I was a young boy.
There are only 2 bonafide extant examples of the rifle. One is at Springfield and the other is at West Point. Any others are suspect at best. Someone is hoping to find a sucker for that rifle. Don't be the sucker.

Jon

[slick44]

Originally Posted by musketjon

That rifle is as queer as a 3 doll hair bill. They were NOT marked in any special way.
If you have access to Duff's red book, go to page 101 and read about them. It was I who gave that info to Duff. My late father was in the 503rd PIR in the PTO and was actually a member of the test platoon for the T26 rifle and had one. I remember him telling about it when I was a young boy.
There are only 2 bonafide extant examples of the rifle. One is at Springfield and the other is at West Point. Any others are suspect at best. Someone is hoping to find a sucker for that rifle. Don't be the sucker.

Jon

Hahahaha I've never heard a rifle called queer but I like it! I'll have to remember that one...and thank you for your insights.

[slick44]

Just so everyone knows and I'm not leaving this thread in limbo, after everything discussed with old gal she still thinks it's the missing link and worth a ton of $$ - I told her the only way to settle it in her heart was to take to the Springfield Museum and have them tell her because she just wont listen to anyone else...she said if she can get one of her kids to drive her she'll do that, I thanked her for the interesting conversation but there was nothing else I could do for her...so that's that. Thank you all for your time and insights, if I ever hear back from her I'll post it here but until then I'm done.

Much obliged for all the conversation!!