View Full Version : Bought a complete set up National Match "Everything" Rare
A good friend sold me his original National Match that he bought right before I was born by one month. Everything is here and I mean everything. Rick B
http://imageshack.com/a/img845/3929/vo3f.jpg
http://imageshack.com/a/img835/9278/smav.jpg
http://imageshack.com/a/img845/6918/pxr4.jpg
http://imageshack.com/a/img836/11/qyxx.jpg
http://imageshack.com/a/img837/9251/ozff.jpg
http://imageshack.com/a/img842/6061/5aqfl.jpg
http://imageshack.com/a/img836/9172/v0cz.jpg
http://imageshack.com/a/img839/4820/j6ji.jpg
http://imageshack.com/a/img837/7359/6pob.jpg
http://imageshack.com/a/img843/3593/estry.jpg
Embalmer
05-12-2014, 01:40
Drool ...
Dave Waits
05-12-2014, 02:33
Okay.....i'm officially Jealous!
Woudl it hurt more If I paid $2,000 ? :) Rick B
Outstanding acquisition. The price you paid is important today only if you bought it to flip it.
Bought it for me not to resell. It has a 1.5 muzzle but a te of 4.5. Still not an issue I feel
You must be living right my friend :eek:
You must be living right my friend :eek:
:) I'm trying. Below is was last months toy I picked up and yes it shoots. Rick B
http://imageshack.com/a/img842/6836/joi6.jpg
http://imageshack.com/a/img845/6182/3adp.jpg
http://imageshack.com/a/img834/8205/m5to.jpg
nice....
i like the gas trap better than i do the NM...
VERY NICE NM....................
Have you shot the trap yet ? How do you like those springs ?
Bubba
Nice NM Rick. See it has the HEART stamp in the date area of barrel. The meaning of this heart marking is unknown. Also you might want to correct the table showing the number of NM rifles newly built and the number rebuilt. You will notice that the 1954 and 1957 figures are identical. Dave McClain turned up documentation proving that the 1954 figures were in error and should read "1954 - new 1700, rebuilt 800, Total 2500". See article by Bob Seijas in the Spring 2006 GCA Journal. As your rifle was purchased in 1964 I would think it would be either a 1962 or 1963 version. Are there any other markings in the barrel date area such as a 5 pointed star and possibly NM ? If it shows no date/acceptance code then my guess it was originally built in 1958 as a Type 1 and then rebuilt by SA in 1963 to latest NM standards but keeping it's original barrel from the 1958 build. Bob Seijas could tell you for sure. He might also be interested in the "HEART" marking as it could be one more piece of that puzzle. All that being said, nice rifle at a steal of a price.
Cosine26
05-12-2014, 07:51
Hi Rick B.
That is a beautiful rifle you have. All of the paper work is like the paper work I have on my 1962 NMM1 which I ordered from the Major Item Supply Management Agency at Chambersburg, Pa in May of 1962-inckding the "blue" bill of sale. I have all of the paperwork and in addition, I still have the canister containing the Oiler and thong assembly with grease, the cleaning rod, the bore brush. It also came with a web sling. My packing material and box are long gone. I would suspect that your rifle has the "NM/2A" rear sight base authorized in 1963 rather than the "NM/2" as on my rifle. The heart stamped on your barrel interests me, as I thought those markings were discontinued. Your barrel is dated 8-54 as is mine. I believe it came from a lot of barrels found in Schenectady in circa 1958. They were service barrels that met the gauging required for NM bore diameter and straightness.
There are some on this forum who will tell you that it is not authentic without a letter of authenticity from the CMP. I have been ordering from the army through the DCM since 1946 and your documentation is all it takes to convince me. I paid a little less for mine-maybe not if adjusted for inflation since 1962.
FWIW
PhillipM
05-12-2014, 08:12
green with envy! Congrats!
Cosine26
05-12-2014, 09:35
Hi Rick B
There is one other thing that puzzles me a bit. Your barrel is marked "NM" on the left side, as I would expect; however, so is your front sight. All of the NM front sights that I have seen were marked " NM over 062" on the right side. At first I thought that your sight might be on backward, but in some of your pictures I can see the hex head of the front sight screw and it is to the rear. All of the "NM over 062" marks that I have seen were very crisp and the NM marking is centered over the 062 marking. . On your sight this is not so. Just wondering.
Ted Brown
05-13-2014, 10:29
Interesting to see a NM front sight marked on the left side. All I have ever seen were marked on the right. It's not all that odd however. Stranger things have come up. I have a NM rear sight base marked NM on the right side and NM/2 marked on the left side. Only one I've seen marked that way. Usually they just added the /2 on the right side. It's a beautiful NM rifle. It appears that it may be glass bedded. However the bedding looks to be done possibly after the owner received it from the DCM. Could have been a type I as originally shipped?
Cosine26
05-13-2014, 12:53
Hi Ted,
I have about a half a dozen NM front sights, some still mounted on NM gas cylinders and none are marked NM on the left. All are crisply marked on the right front.
I believe that the Rear sight bases with the "NM/2" marking on the left and the "NM" marking on the right are reworked originals. I have a couple of the original (uncut for the hood) basses and they are marked "NM" on the right. There is not enough room to add the "/2" on the right side in either case. I have a couple, of what I believed are "reworked"/ undercut bases. They have the "NM" on the right and the "NM/2" on the left. One is on my armorer built Winchester Match M1. By electing to stamp the "NM/2" on the left side of the base, it is not necessary to fabricate a "/2"stamp. My 1962 NM M1 has a base that is marked "NM/2" on the right side. I believe that it was originally manufactured for the hooded aperture. I believe that the original NM marked bases were reworked and used as spares; though they could have been used on rebuilt NM's. As far as the government is concerned "parts are parts" and the reworked original would have the same part number as those originally built as NM2/'s..
FWIW.
Hi Rick B
There is one other thing that puzzles me a bit. Your barrel is marked "NM" on the left side, as I would expect; however, so is your front sight. All of the NM front sights that I have seen were marked " NM over 062" on the right side. At first I thought that your sight might be on backward, but in some of your pictures I can see the hex head of the front sight screw and it is to the rear. All of the "NM over 062" marks that I have seen were very crisp and the NM marking is centered over the 062 marking. . On your sight this is not so. Just wondering.
The NM markings on the front sight got my attention also but I didn't even notice it was marked on the left side. It was the kind of sloppy manner in which it was marked that I noticed. The ones I have seen were also "very crisp" and centered as in the attached picture.
Do you know anything about the Heart marking ? There has been speculation but nothing concrete as far as I know. Thanks, Joe
http://i43.photobucket.com/albums/e372/joewill421/National%20Match%20M1%20%203166857/FrontSightNM062marked.jpg
The gun is 100% correct and as he bought it from Camp Perry. Rick B
It also has very wide ears on the front sight compared to most I have seen.
http://imageshack.com/a/img834/5462/yq6dv.jpg
http://imageshack.com/a/img835/7458/47dd0.jpg
Rick, I suppose its a grade A rifle?
On your list of number of NM rifles ,the year 1954 and 4184 rifles is a misprint. I cant rememeber but I beleive it was closer to 800 rifles?
Cosine26
05-13-2014, 03:54
Other than the size and shape of the front sight blade, there are no significant differences between the issue front sight and the NM front sight, It would require a minimum of set up to rework an issue FS into a NM FS.I believe that both Winchester and IHC front sights had wider “wings” than did SA or HRA sights. All issue front sights would have the same part number. If a number of issue sights were to be withdrawn and converted to NM configuration, I would expect that there would be a mix of manufacturers; consequently I would not be surprised to see wide wing NM FS’s-particularly in the later NM M1’s.
JMO
Ted Brown
05-13-2014, 04:28
I was only concerned about the bedding because the picture that shows the heal appears to have some orangish colored material that looks like bedding material. If the stock was bedded at SA the glass would be white or slightly yellow and done very neatly where it wouldn't show outside of the receiver. My thought is that it could have been done later if it was originally a Type I NM. Ask your friend if he may have had that done. It's no biggy as it's still a very nice rifle. At the time it was purchased, anything would have been possible.
in the 60's the armor at Perry for a shoot laid it on there. The original is there under it and I have thought of taking it off to show it. Not everything is as it should be all the time. Robots didn't build these and things were hand stamped or forgotten at time. Rick
http://imageshack.com/a/img842/2310/iyy1t.jpg
http://imageshack.com/a/img838/6818/xsk0.jpg
Rick, I suppose its a grade A rifle?
On your list of number of NM rifles ,the year 1954 and 4184 rifles is a misprint. I cant rememeber but I beleive it was closer to 800 rifles?
--- From my reply on page 2 ----
Also you might want to correct the table showing the number of NM rifles newly built and the number rebuilt. You will notice that the 1954 and 1957 figures are identical. Dave McClain turned up documentation proving that the 1954 figures were in error and should read "1954 - new 1700, rebuilt 800, Total 2500". See article by Bob Seijas in the Spring 2006 GCA Journal.
Rick, if it were my rifle I would leave it as is. When the rifle was original built it was built for shooting not collecting. Not unusual for a NM rifle that was used as intended to have some work done on it at the various matches. Armorers vans were at the matches for that purpose. That extra bedding is just a part of the rifles history and I don't see it as a detraction at all. I would guess that someone like Bob Seijas, Dave McClain or Scott Duff, who have seen hundreds of NM rifles from a collectors eye, would have a good answer in regards to the front sight questions. Others, like myself, who have not seen a great number of NM rifles just have never came across a front sight marked as yours. Not to say it is not 100% correct, just that we have not seen one before. Great looking rifle at a greater price. If you ever want to make a quick $ 500.00 on it just let me know. LOL
That looks like IHC ears on that front sight. Highpower Service Rifle shooters of the era favored IHC front sights. Could be a Service armorer re-marked it at Camp Perry.
One thing that is cleared up is that the rifle originally was a 1960 build upgraded in 1963 with the new NM/2A base. A picture of the barrel posted on MilSurp shows the 1960 code (diamond w/ flattened points) on the barrel.
I have not seen a sight marked like that, but I guess an armorer could have done it. The profile looks sort of like the wide sights (7/8"?) found on some of the 4.2/3m rifles and 5.9SA's as documented by Duff in his green book and post war book. Don't have them handy. Rick, both rifles are very nice. I can see the old NM inletted compound under the later glass in your picture. It is what it is and I don't think anything should be changed on it.
Regards,
CC
http://imageshack.com/a/img834/5338/c001r.jpg
http://imageshack.com/a/img845/8885/hew0.jpg
http://imageshack.com/a/img843/6742/b4zpa.jpg
http://imageshack.com/a/img845/9838/7wkb.jpg
Roadkingtrax
05-15-2014, 07:08
HRA M14 Hammer?
And here I thought the NM/2 I recently acquired was the cat's meow. I am envious. But to more important things: Rick, I find your photos excellent and crisp. Are you using a tripod and lens/tube extenders for those closeups?
Congratulations on picking up both rifles Rick, ya done good kid.
Thanks guys and Chaz, I use Macro on a Cannon S3IS Powershot that is about 6 years old. No tripod on these just steady hands today. Rick B
Cosine26
05-20-2014, 12:00
Rick B.
I raised the question about the Front Sight being marked “NM over .062” on the left side. Now that I have Canfield’s book, THE M1 GARAND RIFLE, I see a picture of similarly marked front sight on page 562. I never saw one but it seems to be authentic. The marking in the picture looks like the marking on your front sight.
FWIW
Rick B.
I raised the question about the Front Sight being marked “NM over .062” on the left side. Now that I have Canfield’s book, THE M1 GARAND RIFLE, I see a picture of similarly marked front sight on page 562. I never saw one but it seems to be authentic. The marking in the picture looks like the marking on your front sight.
FWIW
I had never seen a front sight marked like that either. The one pictured in Canfields book is a bit different in that the stamping is much crisper. On Ricks the tops of the N & M appear rounded and no decimal point before 062. I suppose it is just a different contractor. Guess I just have not seen enough SA built NM rifles.
John Rippert
05-21-2014, 02:23
That NM is Be-you-ti-full!
The gas trap ain't bad either.:1948:
Cosine26
05-22-2014, 03:25
Just as a matter interest,, what is unusual about the HRA hammer?
Other than it is for an M14, nothing. It works just as well with the M1 but I doubt SA would have installed it on a NM rifle in 1962. An armorer at Perry or someplace, at a latter date, may have when doing some trigger work.
Cosine26
05-22-2014, 09:49
Hi 2111
How do you identify that as an M14 Hammer? Just curious.
I have a NM M1 Trigger group that came off a 1962 or 1963 NM M1 that has a HR hammer. It is the TG that I asked about in another post.
The big difference that I see is how it is annotated.
On the NM TG it is marked :
HRA 5546008
The spare M1 hammers that I have are marked:
5546008 HR A or G
In the first case the HRA is before the part number and in the second case the HR follows the part number with either an "A" or "G"
FWIW
Based on everything I have read HRA produced two hammers for the M1 Garand that were used in regular production. HRA 5546008 which is the most common and 5546008 HRA N usually found on late HRA rifles along with the HRA 5546008.
Those marked HR A or G were made after M1 production had ended and were used by HRA in the M14's they produced. I would suppose that HRA also had a contract for spare parts, hammers included, but I don't know that for a fact.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.