M1 T26 marked "Experimental"

[glassparman]

I'm no expert at all but what I see looks like the area where the information is stamped seems like it was machined off to remove old data.

I remember I think it was Santa Fe Arms took a bunch of Garands and cut the receivers down to M14 size and made them psuedo M1A rifles with surplus M14 parts. They did the same thing and machined off the Garand identification stuff and just left a serial number.

Just a dumb guy observation.

[slick44]

Okay so finally got off the phone with her, so the story is not quite like she first stated but she has done considerable research on it years ago including Scott Duff and the Springfield museum...

So her husband was in WW2 but didn't come across the rifle until 1990 at a gun show in Reno NV where he bought it for $600 back then, story was that the gentleman selling the rifle was the son and the rifle was his fathers, his dad had passed away a couple years earlier and he was selling off some of his dads firearms. The woman's husband that bought the thought it might have been valuable so at that time he took it to a gunsmith in Livermore named Bruce Morgan, Bruce thought all the same things that we've all been bouncing around, so Bruce took it to a friend that worked at Lawrence Livermore Laboratories and they checked it and mic'd it and they said there was no way that any original markings had been ground off and it remarked...that the markings were in fact original but they had no way to date it. Bruce then told him it needed to be put into a military museum. It was shortly after that her husband passed away in 1993. A few years later she put it up for auction on Butterfield & Butterfield an auction site out of San Francisco, there it attracted a lot of attention but without it being authenticated no one would buy it...one person told her if she it was authenticated he would give her $70K for it. That's when she started trying to get it authenticated, but she is completely unwilling to let it leave her possession, she contacted Springfield National museum and they told they would love to see it and check it out, she was welcome to bring it there herself or ship it to them, she says she doesn't have the money to go herself and refuses to ship it...next she contacted Scott Duff in either 1995 or 1996 she's not positive which year but hes the one that told her there was a 3rd T26 prototypes made that no one knows what happened to...he asked her to ship it to him, she refused, she said he was welcome to come out to her place and see it, she said that's when Scott got kinda snippy with her and told her that it was fake and she didn't have anything, he never seen it or any pictures. She's been stewing on all that since then...until yesterday when she brought into me...she is 91 years old. I told her I wasn't sure what she wanted me to do since the only way to truly authenticate it is basically the Springfield Museum and their archives. She is frustrated but won't budge...she may very well have the third one...either way I'm not sure what I can do for her from here?

[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.

[Quiet]

AFAIK...

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.

The T26 and PWB M1 have physical differences, most visible is the PWB M1 has a shorten front handguard secured with a M1903 barrel band and the T26 did not have a front handguard.

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.

[slick44]

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.

Yeah I'm coming to the same conclusion - it's gotta be a reproduction, that would also explain no serials on other parts like the sights and such, they're after market knock offs...thing is she'll never know unless she goes to the Springfield Museum and they tell her, because she sure didn't want to hear it from me either...oh well, if she wants to hang on to that idea that's her choice...

Thank you all for all your input and thoughts and wisdom...that was fun!

[Spyder]

If it's functional and safe to shoot, I still think it would be very fun to have. Same as a home-roll-marked Mattell AR lower!

[sofbak]

Lots of disconnects, holes, and inaccuracies in the collective "story" of this rifle. Maybe the result of age-induced memory deterioration, fraility of human interpretation, both or other factors.

For starters, the questionable appearance of the markings on the receiver heel can answer a lot, under the discerning exam (10-20x magnification). If it is a roll stamp, this would be apparent by the depth of the "groove".

Note the receiver heel where these markings are installed is a RADIUSED surface. If the markings were installed with a roll stamp, the depth of these markings will be uniform in depth both overall AND from one side of the marking "channel" to the opposite side of the same channel......

If machined, I seriously doubt that both the milling machine AND the programmer/operator would have taken into account the radiused and assymetric nature of the surface depth these markings were installed in.....

Put it under 10-20x mag and look intensely at the depth of the markings as described above. This is the first step of authentication....

If it passes this inspection, next step would be direct contact with Springfield Armory Museum and the Garand Collectors Association... Contact info for both can be readily found on the interweb.....

[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?

[slick44]

Originally Posted by sofbak

Lots of disconnects, holes, and inaccuracies in the collective "story" of this rifle. Maybe the result of age-induced memory deterioration, fraility of human interpretation, both or other factors.

For starters, the questionable appearance of the markings on the receiver heel can answer a lot, under the discerning exam (10-20x magnification). If it is a roll stamp, this would be apparent by the depth of the "groove".

Note the receiver heel where these markings are installed is a RADIUSED surface. If the markings were installed with a roll stamp, the depth of these markings will be uniform in depth both overall AND from one side of the marking "channel" to the opposite side of the same channel......

If machined, I seriously doubt that both the milling machine AND the programmer/operator would have taken into account the radiused and assymetric nature of the surface depth these markings were installed in.....

Put it under 10-20x mag and look intensely at the depth of the markings as described above. This is the first step of authentication....

If it passes this inspection, next step would be direct contact with Springfield Armory Museum and the Garand Collectors Association... Contact info for both can be readily found on the interweb.....

Very good point...but the owner of the rifle a 92 yr old lady stands on what her deceased husband was told from the gunsmith he originally took it to and in turn took it to Lawrence Labaratories of Livermore and they supposedly checked it and told the markings were original...which could be true even if it was a reproduction....I'm trying to get the admin of our local Military Museum to meet her at my shop to check it out and see what him and his gunsmith thinks...the admin is a Korean War Marine and a pretty sharp cookie...they're gunsmith is one of the best in our area...

[sofbak]

Well, ok.
Bear in mind, gunsmiths know guns-i. e. Hardware.

Historians know history, provenance and details...

Again, contact GCA and SA Armory some time in the process.

[kendog4570]

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?

Really?? Amazing!! Hadn't noticed..

[SkyHawk]

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?

Yes I also noticed what looked like start/stop marks after I zoomed in on it

[2761377]

as of 1993 Scott Duff said there was one Springfield Armory T26 manufactured. It was produced after Springfield received two Pacific War Board modified rifles for evaluation.
It was damaged in testing at Aberdeen and it's location is unknown. One of the modified rifles, s/n 2437139 was also tested at Aberdeen; it's fate is also unknown.

these tests were done in July 1945 but the field modified rifles were completed in the fall of 1944. In time for the jump on Corregidor.

S/n 2291873 is the rifle at the museum.

A Springfield Armory new production rifle would be marked Springfield Armory, not Pac War Bd.

The receiver pictured is missing the decimal in front of 30 cal. And where would the Pacific War Board get a green receiver and how did they heat treat it? WW2 Garand receivers were serialized before heat treatment.

the opinion of the gunsmith in the early '90's is wrong.

this is definitely fake.

[SVT-40]

Buy the rifle, not the story...

It's a interesting piece, but the story is all second hand at best.

OP if you get the chance take the action out of the stock look for any markings...

That will tell the real tale!

I've looked at literally thousands of surplus firearms and been told some real whoppers about some of them. It's real easy to get sucked into the story and not follow the actual evidence.

I'm sure the lady is nice, but the story could all be just fantasy...

[slick44]

Originally Posted by SVT-40

Buy the rifle, not the story...

It's a interesting piece, but the story is all second hand at best.

OP if you get the chance take the action out of the stock look for any markings...

That will tell the real tale!

I've looked at literally thousands of surplus firearms and been told some real whoppers about some of them. It's real easy to get sucked into the story and not follow the actual evidence.

I'm sure the lady is nice, but the story could all be just fantasy...

If I get a chance I will for sure and post pictures here...the post above about the green receiver was a great tip...missed that one myself but makes another good point....when I was first giving it the once over and checking it all out my first instinct was "there's no way this was made in 1945" but then the first story about her husband and WW2 blablabla and I thought "okay what the hell...I'll check into it...after all there were questions I couldn't answer...I would buy it because it is cool and basically brand new but she's stuck on it being the real deal! So if I get a moment I'll contact SA and ask about it just for the sake of curiosity. The Admin of our local military historical and museum is pretty sharp and was a friend of my Father who is also a Korean War Marine but my dad passed away 3 years ago but I still handle the firearms part of the fund raisers for the museum and work together with the Admin...he should get back to me by next week...see what he says about it too...I've enjoyed everyone's input...valuable source of combined knowledge that's for sure...much obliged gentlemen! Whatever I find out I'll post it here.

[G-forceJunkie]

No serial number could simply be a pre 1968 fake/homage made by some random gunsmith. Were aftermarket recievers available then? Of course, not too hard to sand off or weld up and sand down rollmarks off surplus recievers.

[SonofWWIIDI]

Originally Posted by SVT-40

Buy the rifle, not the story...

It's a interesting piece, but the story is all second hand at best.

OP if you get the chance take the action out of the stock look for any markings...

That will tell the real tale!

I've looked at literally thousands of surplus firearms and been told some real whoppers about some of them. It's real easy to get sucked into the story and not follow the actual evidence.

I'm sure the lady is nice, but the story could all be just fantasy...

I had a guy tell me the lee enfield he was trying get rid of (at a ridiculous price) that he got it from his grandmother who got it directly from pancho villa.

[Mustang]

Originally Posted by slick44

Very good point...but the owner of the rifle a 92 yr old lady stands on what her deceased husband was told from the gunsmith he originally took it to and in turn took it to Lawrence Labaratories of Livermore and they supposedly checked it and told the markings were original...which could be true even if it was a reproduction....I'm trying to get the admin of our local Military Museum to meet her at my shop to check it out and see what him and his gunsmith thinks...the admin is a Korean War Marine and a pretty sharp cookie...they're gunsmith is one of the best in our area...

It is a very interesting story, but it is a third and fourth hand story, at best. Some of the elements do not make much sense. For instance, what program does the Lawerence Livermore National Laboratory have for authenticating stampings on firearms for privately owned firearms?

I also don't know what to make of her stubborn resistance to sending it out to the only people who could authenticate the weapon.

[kendog4570]

So, let me see....
Two very reputable entities (Springfield and Duff) would do a significant amount of research and inspection but she wont ship it, it was at auction at Butterfields' and it didn't move, more than a few guys here that have more than passing knowledge about all things considered with it's history and manufacture raise a bunch of red flags just based on a few sketchy pictures, ... Hmmm.
I guess she can hold out for the 75K.

[kendog4570]

Originally Posted by Mustang

...what program does the Lawerence Livermore National Laboratory have for authenticating stampings on firearms for privately owned firearms?..

Absolutely none. Having worked around engineers and physicists at Stanford Linear Accelerator, I dont believe the guys at Bombtown are any different. Brilliant in their fields, yes. Anything else?? Watch out!

[stevie]

She thinks she has a gold mine, and no one can tell her different. Not trusting, thinks someone will steal it from her if she sends it out.

[bigbossman]

Originally Posted by stevie

She thinks she has a gold mine, and no one can tell her different. Not trusting, thinks someone will steal it from her if she sends it out.

That being the case, she'll end up dying with it and not realizing one penny.

[slick44]

Originally Posted by stevie

She thinks she has a gold mine, and no one can tell her different. Not trusting, thinks someone will steal it from her if she sends it out.

That's it exactly, she thinks its worth a fortune and she thinks someone will steal it...she's okay with someone coming to her and authenticating it but she won't let it leave her side...I think part of it is she said her husband was very passionate about it so part of her is hanging on to it for him. Which is her choice and that's okay she's allowed that.

I wonder if she'll will it to me??

[sofbak]

Send your pics to these guys...

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

[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!

[Heatseeker]

Originally Posted by Mustang

... what program does the Lawerence Livermore National Laboratory have for authenticating stampings on firearms for privately owned firearms?

I worked at Lawrence Berkley and visited Livermore many times. I am sure that the inspection instruments available at either Lab could expose the intricicies of the markings. But bringing a firearm to Livemore would be suicide if you were found out. I highly doubt someone would risk their job or their life for that reason....

[kendog4570]

Originally Posted by 2761377

...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!

PEDANTIC MISNOMER ALERT!!


If that is a "reweld" (when/where was it welded in the first place to qualify for re-welding??) it is a mighty good one.
Above the wood the left side is flawless. The right side looks a little funky in the op rod track amidships. I dont need Canfield, Duff, or Kuhnhausen to spot one.

More pictures for sure.

[sigstroker]

Originally Posted by SVT-40

Buy the rifle, not the story...

It's a interesting piece, but the story is all second hand at best.

OP if you get the chance take the action out of the stock look for any markings...

That will tell the real tale!

I've looked at literally thousands of surplus firearms and been told some real whoppers about some of them. It's real easy to get sucked into the story and not follow the actual evidence.

I'm sure the lady is nice, but the story could all be just fantasy...

It was bought at a gun show. At times, those guys sitting behind the tables are more creative than any Hollywood screenwriter.

[2761377]

Originally Posted by kendog4570

PEDANTIC MISNOMER ALERT!!


If that is a "reweld" (when/where was it welded in the first place to qualify for re-welding??) it is a mighty good one.
Above the wood the left side is flawless. The right side looks a little funky in the op rod track amidships. I dont need Canfield, Duff, or Kuhnhausen to spot one.

More pictures for sure.

Yeah, so I've got your "misnomer" hanging.
That's why it's in quotes.

If you really were knowledgeable about welded Garand receivers you would know the clip latch cutout is normally the best tell.

Are you ukrainian?

[kendog4570]

Originally Posted by 2761377

Yeah, so I've got your "misnomer" hanging.
That's why it's in quotes.

If you really were knowledgeable about welded Garand receivers you would know the clip latch cutout is normally the best tell.

Are you ukrainian?

WTF?? I was the one being pedantic, and I was agreeing with you. Get a sense of humor jackass.

[glassparman]

Settle down now everyone. We all friends here

As for the weld, I do have one of those Sante Fe Arms Garands that were welded down to an M14 length to make it 308.

You can definitely see the weld seam above the stock line.

I know welding is much better now than back when Santa Fe did mine but I would "think" that there would be some sort of tell-tale sign of the weld.

Just my opinion

[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?

[stevie]

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?

Probably Patton's 1911

[Capybara]

Originally Posted by SkyHawk

I was also trying to get a good look at the letters but it is hard to say what is real and what is aliasing added by either the unknown camera and/or the image host or any photo editor that was in the mix.

But you would think if it was CNC then it should have a serial number and makers mark somewhere to be legal, and if the story is true (had it since after ww2) then it could not be cnc.

I don't see cnc here, it looks like it could be rolled but what do I know

Those fonts look awfully "dirty" to possibly to be CNC to me. But what do I know, other than I have had firearms marked and serialized by CNC and laser engraving and neither of those look like what is in this picture to me. But reading now that it was bought at a gun show strikes me as this is def a fake of some kind. Firearms as rare as this one is purported to be rarely show up at gun shows. I agree with the others, too many holes in this story. It's an interesting gun and story but it doesn't ring true. Missing that period in front of "30" isn't helping things for me.

[Mustang]

Originally Posted by Capybara

Those fonts look awfully "dirty" to possibly to be CNC to me. But what do I know, other than I have had firearms marked and serialized by CNC and laser engraving and neither of those look like what is in this picture to me. But reading now that it was bought at a gun show strikes me as this is def a fake of some kind. Firearms as rare as this one is purported to be rarely show up at gun shows. I agree with the others, too many holes in this story. It's an interesting gun and story but it doesn't ring true. Missing that period in front of "30" isn't helping things for me.

Looks flakey to me.

For one thing, why would the word "WAR" have a period after it? "PAC" and "BD" are abbreviations, so sure, maybe a period. But why "WAR"?

[SkyHawk]

Originally Posted by Mustang

Looks flakey to me.

For one thing, why would the word "WAR" have a period after it? "PAC" and "BD" are abbreviations, so sure, maybe a period. But why "WAR"?

it is an abbreviation for warfare. The name of the board was Pacific Warfare Board

[Mustang]

Originally Posted by SkyHawk

it is an abbreviation for warfare. The name of the board was Pacific Warfare Board

Fair enough.

There is this article from the American Rifleman...

There are a number of known fakes around including one with impressive, but totally bogus, “Pacific Warfare Board” markings on the receiver. The odds of one of the PWB rifles surviving and being smuggled home are all but nil.

Nevertheless, hope springs eternal and a number of individuals are certain they have a genuine example. Without some sort of convincing documentation, which almost certainly will not exist because any PWB rifle “on the loose” would be stolen government property, such a claim must be approached with much skepticism. A good rule of thumb to remember is: If it’s not in the Springfield Armory or West Point museums, it’s not a genuine Pacific Warfare Board rifle.

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

[SkyHawk]

Originally Posted by Mustang

Fair enough.

There is this article from the American Rifleman...



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

That is a good article that OP should share with the widow. It seems this rifle is likely a fake or "tribute" rifle.

[smle-man]

Originally Posted by Mustang

Fair enough.

There is this article from the American Rifleman...



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

Looks like the 'impressive fake' surfaced again.

[bigbossman]

Originally Posted by Mustang

Fair enough.

There is this article from the American Rifleman...

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

Impressive detective work