Garand historical guardianship

[timshufflin]

I saw someone post about how converting a Garand to a BM type rifle is savagery. I hear this argument all the time and it reminds me of the non humans who run peta.

peta argues that you should never eat, test, or wear animals. The funny thing is that you will see supporters of peta wearing leather shoes and belts, wearing cosmetics, taking polio vaccinations. You get the idea, they're hypocrites.

In the area of martial arms, you have the same crowd who sticks its ugly head out from time to time. They argue that parkerizing is destroying American History, any conversion to a martial arm is sacrilege. If I cared about worshiping machines, I would agree with them BUT;
- If we say that changing the metal on a martial arm is destroying it, we've established that all such changes are destruction and now can just argue about time to destruction.
- If you parkerize your military arm you are removing about an 1/8th the thickness of human hair and you are destroying it.
- If you convert a military arm to be a carbine or sporter you are destroying it.
- If you SHOOT your military arm you are wearing every part on the rifle and destroying it.
- If you choose to live in a more humid environment, you are destroying your military firearm and should take extreme caution.
- If you oil your stock you are destroying the DNA from our American heroes who carried it.
- If you oil your metal you are destroying it, if you don't you are destroying it.


Once you establish that SOME use of a military firearm is okay, you've set a precedent that usage is okay. It's now a matter of how much usage is allowable. That is to say, we all are destroying this stuff, just some faster than others. If usage of one type is no good, usage of any type is no good. Enjoy sitting there and staring at your firearm under glass.
$swords$

Oh, one more thing, I have a very tough time worshiping anything. I have a very tough time being Catholic and keeping my faith in God but I really do try, I sure as hell don't have any human heroes to worship. This all being said, I cannot even imagine being a member of a cult that would worship metal, machines, memories/history, food, or models of fat dudes.



Sticking to the 10 commandments is hard enough and commandments 1 and 2 clearly say;
1 “I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. You shall have no other gods before Me."
2 “You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them nor serve them. For I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me, but showing mercy to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My Commandments."

Sooooooo, let's keep it real and remember that these are JUST rifles. These guns are not your first born, your Messiah, your wife, or your world. If you believe otherwise, you could go to hell :)

[Rick B]

I will say that I cry when I hear about an original rifle being redone. I have refused to redo stocks on a few super early rifles just like a museum would unless it was in total disrepair and needed to be saved. Knowing the difference in a original and a put together is key for me in this area and I don't mind otherwise.

There were over 6 million made, saving the rare ones is a must and destroying or redoing many of the others is perfectly fine. Rick B

[Schriv]

"Sooooooo, let's keep it real and remember that these are JUST rifles. These guns are not your first born, your Messiah, your wife, or your world. If you believe otherwise, you could go to hell "

Whoah...time out. This is in direct conflict with the accepted truths about steel. So you are saying the gods DID NOT leave steel on the battlefield for men to find and worship????
I'm gonna have to have some time to process this.

http://th02.deviantart.net/fs70/PRE/f/2010/228/3/2/The_Riddle_of_Steel_by_urban_barbarian.jpg

[timshufflin]

I will say that I cry when I hear about an original rifle being redone. I have refused to redo stocks on a few super early rifles just like a museum would unless it was in total disrepair and needed to be saved. Knowing the difference in a original and a put together is key for me in this area and I don't mind otherwise.

There were over 6 million made, saving the rare ones is a must and destroying or redoing many of the others is perfectly fine. Rick B

Rick, for the sake or argument, would you EVER fire an original and correct Garand?

[Rick B]

Rick, for the sake or argument, would you EVER fire an original and correct Garand?

Not if it has very expensive and hard to find parts. My American Eagle for instance, why fire it when I have more Lugers to shoot. Having to fire every weapon I collect is nothing more than having to think I need to be with every woman and none are to be left alone. I have had many weapons in my possession that I have never fire and have no urge too.

I am a firm believer that each thing in this world has its own purpose and to feel everyone has to do as all others do is something to think about.

Now answer me this..... If you have 5 Garands and 3 are super rare and worth $15,000 like the 3 digit WRA sold in my kitchen 3 months ago to a regular guy, do you feel he needs to shoot it or would you shoot it when you have others to shoot? If so can you honestly tell me why other than to take a chance you would fire it :) Rick B

[musketjon]

[ If you believe otherwise, you could go to hell]

Brother Tim,
I'll save you a seat.
Jon

[Prince Humperdink]

Rick, for the sake or argument, would you EVER fire an original and correct Garand?

Not Rick,but....ABSOLUTELY!

[Roadkingtrax]

Are we focusing too much on the object, or is the rifle a tie in to the real problem at hand?

I, by my nature am a packrat. I believe this is a disorder when unchecked can put your life, liberty and property in danger (aka. Hoarders). M1's draw these types of people together and it can feed off each other. Collecting by its nature is to me a very OCD activity. Always looking for the next great thing, when you have 4 examples of that sitting in your safe...why the need to keep searching? There must be another aspect of your life that is lacking attention, filling it with another rifle will not do it...nor will the next rifle. A viscous cycle.

Every rifle is not historically significant. Not every solider is a hero. The representation is what drives people to preserve them, not necessarily the actual physical rifle. I think the recent rifles being sold in close to new condition in many cases are helping to feed this obsession of preservation. The rifle lasted 60 years nearly untouched, shooting it now would be sacrilegious mindset. I'm shocked to hear people say, "I bought 2 correct grades and stuck them in the safe to not shoot them." My thought is, as a post war common rifle...with a nice collection of near new GI parts...those are the rifles that should be shot and appreciated.

I think there is a bigger underlying issue that is driving the need to spend money on an unused item. I've come to terms with my desire to buy more of the same. In a sense I've matured to the point where shooting them is more fun.

I am confident for every one of my rifles there are 100 sitting in a dark safe...not worth much more.

[Rick B]

Roadkingtrax,
I at one time owned well over 20 Garands and over the years have probably owned closer to 50. At this time I own 3 and have moved to other weapons. A nice collection of odds and ends with my best in my old Hunting rifles. I have no obsession as I did years ago. I buy in-part for enjoyment and as much for future profit. I also am smart enough to know to much of a common thing will make you lose money.

One other thing to think about. To judge those who do not shoot their toys is no better than those who judge for shooting them. Who is the better of the two? No one is. Rick B

[Roadkingtrax]

One other thing to think about. To judge those who do not shoot their toys is no better than those who judge for shooting them. Who is the better of the two? No one is. Rick B

This is the circular argument. The Ying-to-the-Yang of the whole deal. See both sides, accept both sides and chose what side is right for each gun you own...I'm sure others do the same.

[Orlando]

I have no will power, I would fire it although sparingly

[musketjon]

Why own the toys if you're not gonna' play with them?? ALL of my toys are to be played with.
Jon

[Rick B]

A set of $4,000 to $5,000 springs is a big reason not to fire one of the ones I am speaking of. I can understand someone not buying that type of rifle, but a collector will for its rarity and to say they are wrong for not shooting it really isn't fair. I'm not into allot of things and I do not care how the people who collect those things behave, nor should they on what I collect. Rick B

[Prince Humperdink]

A set of $4,000 to $5,000 springs is a big reason not to fire one of the ones I am speaking of. I can understand someone not buying that type of rifle, but a collector will for its rarity and to say they are wrong for not shooting it really isn't fair. I'm not into allot of things and I do not care how the people who collect those things behave, nor should they on what I collect. Rick B
My solution to this problem would be to have a set of repro springs on hand for shooting,and the originals for lookin'.

[Rick B]

No repo's that work.

[Prince Humperdink]

No repo's that work.

That's it,I'm not buying one! :)

[axemurderer]

I say let those who ride decide! But just as the ultimate sacrilidge, lets see the pictures of the Gastrap G.....That should cause alot of grief!!

Mike

[timshufflin]

Not if it has very expensive and hard to find parts. My American Eagle for instance, why fire it when I have more Lugers to shoot. Having to fire every weapon I collect is nothing more than having to think I need to be with every woman and none are to be left alone. I have had many weapons in my possession that I have never fire and have no urge too.

I am a firm believer that each thing in this world has its own purpose and to feel everyone has to do as all others do is something to think about.

Now answer me this..... If you have 5 Garands and 3 are super rare and worth $15,000 like the 3 digit WRA sold in my kitchen 3 months ago to a regular guy, do you feel he needs to shoot it or would you shoot it when you have others to shoot? If so can you honestly tell me why other than to take a chance you would fire it :) Rick B

I would not fire it Rick. Now, would you fire a 5.8 all correct and original SA?

[timshufflin]

No repo's that work.


Rick, come on man. It would take a dumb arse like me about 30 minutes to make up springs that would work in a trapper.

[13Fox]

I am already going to hell...

I am a history nut. I have a love of things that have historic significance. But significance can be quite difficult to qualify and to quantify. I do believe that military arms have historic significance to one degree or another and therefore are subject to preservation in their "original" state but this cannot be absolute. Let me further elaborate...

I am an architect that does a good deal of historic preservation. One of the things about historic preservation is that not all things that are "old" are historic and so not all "old" buildings are of value to preserve. This is something that is quite difficult to wrestle with from a preservation standpoint as well as emotionally. Most people out there that want to work with preservation specialists are vested emotionally in their property and think it is very special and that everyone else should appreciate it. But from a historic preservation standpoint, if an old building is just an old building and doesn't illustrate a living history tied to it, why is it "special" and worthy of preservation?

The same applies to anything and everything that has the potential of historic significance tied to it. Identifying that significance is paramount. Therefore, are all M1's historically significant? The emotional part of me screams yes. The rational part of me knows better.

People are a funny breed. They think everyone should think like them. Now, why does the collector's position of preserving that significant part of history aggravate the shooter who wants to shoot everything they own? I don't think anyone can really answer that, the same as we can't answer the question of why do we need to shoot every firearm that we own? Is it wrong to shoot the guns we have? No; but maybe yes! But you can also say yes; but maybe no! What a conundrum we all put ourselves in!

So, my position is that we preserve the significant specimens. If they cannot be determined to be significant, do whatever the hell you want with them!

[Prince Humperdink]

13Fox,You make some excellent points.

[The Garand Guy]

Rick, what is a 3-digit WRA? I have never heard that term.

[Rick B]

Tony,
The triplets you have are 3 digits. Yes Winchester started at 100001 the first Winchester made and is called #1. This is another argument I have heard. Most of the time those who have never owned an early WRA call them 6 digits and so own but the collectors I have dealt with call them by the number built instead of designated serial number.

Tim,
I would like to see you heat treat a set of springs properly so that they work. I am asking for double springs now and they should be square as the original or Keystone shaped. I have seen many people try and no one has succeeded. My understanding is Scott Duff has the original plans with full details on how to make them.

Would I fired an unissued 5.8 mil ?? There are allot of them around or at least in nice condition but would have to own one to see. I would not have the urge to if that is what you are asking. I honestly do not have the urge to shoot ever single weapon I own and do not think i am a conqueror by doing so. There are people who feel they are part of the history when shooting rarities. Rick B

[timshufflin]

Tony,
The triplets you have are 3 digits. Yes Winchester started at 100001 the first Winchester made and is called #1. This is another argument I have heard. Most of the time those who have never owned an early WRA call them 6 digits and so own but the collectors I have dealt with call them by the number built instead of designated serial number.

Tim,
I would like to see you heat treat a set of springs properly so that they work. I am asking for double springs now and they should be square as the original or Keystone shaped. I have seen many people try and no one has succeeded. My understanding is Scott Duff has the original plans with full details on how to make them.

Would I fired an unissued 5.8 mil ?? There are allot of them around or at least in nice condition but would have to own one to see. I would not have the urge to if that is what you are asking. I honestly do not have the urge to shoot ever single weapon I own and do not think i am a conqueror by doing so. There are people who feel they are part of the history when shooting rarities. Rick B


Rick my friend, I believe we were talking about springs that would WORK, not springs that look correct and work. I think the spirit of the spring thing was that someone would fire the WRA and not worry about the real springs because they'd use another spring. I could care two pieces of dung what the springs look like, I'm saying even a potzer like me could come up with a spring set that will work. We're not putting a man on the moon here, it's just a simple spring system for a simple gun.

So, on the WRA, someone could come up with a different follower rod and spring system all together JUST to fire it. Pretty simple.

On the 5.8, I ask because if one would fire the 5.8 that is absolutely NO different than cutting one up. If you would fire a correct and original 5.8 then one has decided it is okay to destroy history, it's now just a matter of quibbling about how long it should take to make the destruction complete. Be it a chop saw or a bullet down the barrel, the thing is being used up, it's just a matter of time till the thing is gone.

[Rick B]

So you are saying you can make the two springs needed for a Gas Trap or early Winchester and they will function? Folks building the reproduction guns are always looking for these but they would like the flat look to them. Anyone can cut up a working spring to work but no one wants that in-case this is what you are talking about?? Which is it?? Tony G even knows there are no good repo springs out there and I can bet he can make you some good money if you can make them like the originals.

Were talking the difference in having a 67 convertible corvette here and you can't just throw a tarp over it with velcro and call it the same. Rick

[The Garand Guy]

I have sets of repro keystone springs for $100, + $5 shipping. If you try one & are not satisfied, I will refund your money. It's worth a shot.

If you want to make a spring, you must go to a spring manufacturer. They usually want a minimum of 300 pieces, so it runs into money, and you will have all those springs left over.

[timshufflin]

Rick, I'm saying I could make a spring that will WORK and NOT springs that look right and work.

[timshufflin]

I have sets of repro keystone springs for $100, + $5 shipping. If you try one & are not satisfied, I will refund your money. It's worth a shot.


See, G man already has it covered.

[Rick B]

I have bought Tony's and they do not work that I know of unless he has found a solution?????? Rick B

[Orlando]

The German could make them

[Fogtripper]

This argument is plain silly. The idea that a well meaning collector could damage a rifle like one of you hacks is laughable. Someone who shoots his rifle properly, as a well meaninged custodian should, should in no way be compared to a common shooter like one of you. I have no idea how the CMP even justifies anyone in one of your common pay grades to even own one of these artifacts.

It is no surprise that Tony Giacobbe's spring doesn't work. If someone wants something made with class and qualifying as elite status, go to Orion 7 and tell them Fogtripper sent you.

[KnickKnack]

1. Perhaps a few M1 Rifle Cal. .30's were made to be saved for historical purposes. The rest were built to go to War and kill people. No one building them expected them to have any other historical value.

2. Each of us has a limited amount of time on Earth. As much as 85 years +/- if you are one of the lucky ones. During that time you may obtain hundreds of items that you use every day and never think of them as "Historical". Some future generation may, but you won't. While you are here, it's your stuff to use, abuse, love, or hate. Enjoy it while you can.

3. At some point in time, no one knows exactly when, the point will be mute because some major natural disastor will finally wipe out the Earth, along with everyone and everything on it. There will be no one left to appreciate the "Historical Value" of anything. Nor will there be any monotary value to anything either. The definitions of both historical and monotary values are man-made inventions and arbitrary at best.

Go outside tonight in the pitch black and look up at the stars for awhile. Recognize your insignificant existance compared to the vastness of the Universe. Then come back inside, have a beer and appreciate what you have while you have it.

Now stop your whining and complaining and live your life! Babies!

[Schriv]

"I have no idea how the CMP even justifies anyone in one of your common pay grades to even own one of these artifacts."

LOL. Last time I looked, the CMP was a quasi-governmental entity that was tasked with selling surplus government weapons. Oh yeah, and to make a show at supporting civilian marksmanship while doing it. I don't recall seeing anything on their website about improving or supporting the historical collections of anyone. They seem to have no problems confusing a military firearm with an actual historical 'artifact'. And they sure don't have any problems with selling them to anyone with the cash to buy them.

[Roadkingtrax]

This argument is plain silly. The idea that a well meaning collector could damage a rifle like one of you hacks is laughable. Someone who shoots his rifle properly, as a well meaninged custodian should, should in no way be compared to a common shooter like one of you. I have no idea how the CMP even justifies anyone in one of your common pay grades to even own one of these artifacts.

It is no surprise that Tony Giacobbe's spring doesn't work. If someone wants something made with class and qualifying as elite status, go to Orion 7 and tell them Fogtripper sent you.

So pedestrian...

[sandsnow]

It's my rifle.

I bought it. I can do what I want with it. I can even break the law with it, but I will pay the price.

If you think I shouldn't have it, then offer me 3 times what is worth and I might sell it to you. Or I just might break it front of your eyes to piss you off.

I think in todays nanny state mentality the concept ownership is an endangered species.

[Punch The Clown]

The German could make them

Yup. Herr Wehrle can do anything.

[KnickKnack]

It's my rifle.

I bought it. I can do what I want with it. I can even break the law with it, but I will pay the price.

If you think I shouldn't have it, then offer me 3 times what is worth and I might sell it to you. Or I just might break it front of your eyes to piss you off.

I think in todays nanny state mentality the concept ownership is an endangered species.

I read a story once from a dealer of toy trains. He was selling at a toy train show one time and some guy kept coming up to his table all day, offering him $10 for 4 lead figures of train people, that he clearly had marked $30. Finally, at the end of the day, the guy came back one last time, with the same offer. The dealer stared at him for a minute, placed the figures on the floor and ground them in with the heal of his shoe. Then he told the guy, "Now I'll take $10 for them!". Classic! :)

[Rick B]

Shame you think that is classic. I will never ruin my stuff to prove that point. I do not let anyone upset me during a buy and guess it is maturity from learning how to deal with people. Rick B

[Rick B]

You made me think of how at just about every show in Ohio I go to there is a handful of sellers who will always ask to see what I have and then hand it back. Most of the times with some comments to make my 20.00 bill only worth 10 bucks if you get my drift. I finally decided to tell them when they would try to call me over,,, Naw that's ok, you have looked at everything I have ever brought to the shows and never bought one thing along with degrade my items. Would you believe all of them have treated me allot better and even bought some of my stuff the last year. I was even apologized to by two of them. That is the honest to Gods truth. Rick B

[jak]

I have no idea how the CMP even justifies anyone in one of your common pay grades to even own one of these artifacts.

I guess you can't own any either

[timshufflin]

I read a story once from a dealer of toy trains. He was selling at a toy train show one time and some guy kept coming up to his table all day, offering him $10 for 4 lead figures of train people, that he clearly had marked $30. Finally, at the end of the day, the guy came back one last time, with the same offer. The dealer stared at him for a minute, placed the figures on the floor and ground them in with the heal of his shoe. Then he told the guy, "Now I'll take $10 for them!". Classic! :)


LMAO! I think it's darn funny if a guy has $20 to burn, why NOT!

[jak]

I read a story once from a dealer of toy trains. He was selling at a toy train show one time and some guy kept coming up to his table all day, offering him $10 for 4 lead figures of train people, that he clearly had marked $30. Finally, at the end of the day, the guy came back one last time, with the same offer. The dealer stared at him for a minute, placed the figures on the floor and ground them in with the heal of his shoe. Then he told the guy, "Now I'll take $10 for them!". Classic! :)

One of my friends is a Lionel train dealer. I usually help him watch his tables at the train shows. My friend wanted to do exactly the same thing. (but he never did). Maybe it's something that only affects train collectors. It can be frustrating dealing with the general public at times.

[canes7]

You made me think of how at just about every show in Ohio I go to there is a handful of sellers who will always ask to see what I have and then hand it back. Most of the times with some comments to make my 20.00 bill only worth 10 bucks if you get my drift. I finally decided to tell them when they would try to call me over,,, Naw that's ok, you have looked at everything I have ever brought to the shows and never bought one thing along with degrade my items. Would you believe all of them have treated me allot better and even bought some of my stuff the last year. I was even apologized to by two of them. That is the honest to Gods truth. Rick B

Last show I went to with something to sell Every dealer tht asked to see what I had was told "No.. I know I'll get better offers from the aisle walkers". Most chuckled and agreed. If they still wanted to see what I have then they are really intersted.

As for the historical thing, if a Garand is original as it came from SA or where ever then preserve it. Maybe sell it to someone who has an appreciation for that sort of thing, then get a racker to play with. If you don't feel like selling the item them do with it as you wish, it is yours!

[sandsnow]

I read a story once from a dealer of toy trains. He was selling at a toy train show one time and some guy kept coming up to his table all day, offering him $10 for 4 lead figures of train people, that he clearly had marked $30. Finally, at the end of the day, the guy came back one last time, with the same offer. The dealer stared at him for a minute, placed the figures on the floor and ground them in with the heal of his shoe. Then he told the guy, "Now I'll take $10 for them!". Classic! :)

Not exactly the point I was trying to make, but funny.

To put it another way:

If you don't like how I am treating one of my possessions, then I will do exactly what you don't think I should do with it just to prove I can. It's mine.

Whether it's a rifle or a classic car, I can chop it to my hearts content.

A lot of you guys here are hunters. Hunting is just not my thing.

I would never campaign against you hunting just because I don't like it.

In fact I would defend your ability to hunt.

[sandsnow]

Shame you think that is classic. I will never ruin my stuff to prove that point. I do not let anyone upset me during a buy and guess it is maturity from learning how to deal with people. Rick B

That's really the point. It's your stuff to do with as you please.

[The Garand Guy]

A quote from Robert Morris, 19th. century British artist & designer applies here: "These old artifacts do not belong to us only; they belong to our forefathers and they will belong to our descendants unless we play them false. They are not in any sense our own property to do what we want with them. We are only trustees for those who come after us."

[KnickKnack]

A quote from Robert Morris, 19th. century British artist & designer applies here: "These old artifacts do not belong to us only; they belong to our forefathers and they will belong to our descendants unless we play them false. They are not in any sense our own property to do what we want with them. We are only trustees for those who come after us."

I've also seen this quote and I understand it. However, my point was that it all can be gone in seconds, so why get that involved in it? I've seen hundreds of "valuable" items destroyed by fires and other disasters in my lifetime. I've seen people that poured their heart and soul into collecting, only to have their collections divided up and sold after they died, and for a very small percentage of what they invested in money. I've seen family businesses that went through generations for years completely destroyed in minutes and gone forever. I've seen the bodies of some of these families pulled from the rubble because they tried to save some "valuable" object. Literally, none of us knows what the next minute will bring. I've had a lot of things that I thought were valuable to me and kept good care of them. Lots of them are gone now, and you know what? I don't really miss them all that much. If someone else is enjoying them, good for them. If they've been destroyed, there is nothing that I can do about it. Who's to say what the next generation will think of these items? Already I see things that I once thought were valuable in my life mean nothing to the youth of today. You can only do so much to perserve what you have and educate those that will come after you. In the end, it will be they, or nature, that will decide the final fate.

[timshufflin]

A quote from Robert Morris, 19th. century British artist & designer applies here: "These old artifacts do not belong to us only; they belong to our forefathers and they will belong to our descendants unless we play them false. They are not in any sense our own property to do what we want with them. We are only trustees for those who come after us."


I have a few quotes which, in my opinion, trump the emotion of collecting with the objectivity of private property.

A culture without property, or in which creators can't get paid, is anarchy, not freedom.
Lawrence Lessig


A lawyer's dream of heaven: every man reclaimed his property at the resurrection, and each tried to recover it from all his forefathers.
Samuel Butler

Among the natural rights of the colonists are these: First a right to life, secondly to liberty, and thirdly to property; together with the right to defend them in the best manner they can.
Samuel Adams



Some would argue that just because you "own it" doesn't mean you should destroy or use your property. My point is that EVERY time you handle a collectible, you are destroying it, if not just a little. Once you can admit that, we're simply arguing over how much time is acceptable to destroy something.

[Roadkingtrax]

Some would argue that just because you "own it" doesn't mean you should destroy or use your property. My point is that EVERY time you handle a collectible, you are destroying it, if not just a little. Once you can admit that, we're simply arguing over how much time is acceptable to destroy something.

I have a personal example of this. I purchased a correct grade rifle from a private party, I being the THIRD owner...I don't know what might have happened to the rifle in previous ownership. This I know, the rifle was shot and not cleaned, used and not cared for. The rifle receiver had been allowed to rust and a few other places where more rust had been carelessly buffed off with scotch brite showing bare metal.

The previous owner had every right to treat the rifle in this manner, when I purchased it...I have every right to keep it clean, shoot it and maintain it to stop rust from once again attacking the metal. I'm not the previous owner.

[13Fox]

My point is that EVERY time you handle a collectible, you are destroying it, if not just a little. Once you can admit that, we're simply arguing over how much time is acceptable to destroy something.

It would seem to me that this simplification is overly absolute or at least, a matter of symantics.

While I suppose I could agree that the root of what you are saying is not false from a pure scientific point, it would be a leap of faith to blindly jump on this bandwagon and agree with the oversimplification.

To what degree of "handling" is intended by the statement? I would interprete the statement to be intended as absolute and therefore infer that the mere physical handling (touching with my hands) to be destructive, even more so by the act of firing. But, in a reality that does not have the burden of symantics, when does the handling produce measurable destruction? If this destruction is not measurable, how can it be professed to be a horrendous act of erosion? If by simply picking up a "brand new" collectible specimen into my hands somehow truely destroys it, then nothing can ever be "brand new" or "collectible" as it would experience some level of handling prior to it ever even becoming a completed assembly. Further, how can a material as soft as human skin apprecibly (measurably) wear something as hard as steel? Even the act of firing high velocity ammunition thru a firearm produces wear that is not measurable until the act is repeated numerous times until you can actually perceive a measurement. Yes, there may be a visual perception of finish wear to parts that move against each other, but how can it be a quantified "destruction?"

Further, does it really have to be as black and white as this?

[timshufflin]

It would seem to me that this simplification is overly absolute or at least, a matter of symantics.

While I suppose I could agree that the root of what you are saying is not false from a pure scientific point, it would be a leap of faith to blindly jump on this bandwagon and agree with the oversimplification.

To what degree of "handling" is intended by the statement? I would interprete the statement to be intended as absolute and therefore infer that the mere physical handling (touching with my hands) to be destructive, even more so by the act of firing. But, in a reality that does not have the burden of symantics, when does the handling produce measurable destruction? If this destruction is not measurable, how can it be professed to be a horrendous act of erosion? If by simply picking up a "brand new" collectible specimen into my hands somehow truely destroys it, then nothing can ever be "brand new" or "collectible" as it would experience some level of handling prior to it ever even becoming a completed assembly. Further, how can a material as soft as human skin apprecibly (measurably) wear something as hard as steel? Even the act of firing high velocity ammunition thru a firearm produces wear that is not measurable until the act is repeated numerous times until you can actually perceive a measurement. Yes, there may be a visual perception of finish wear to parts that move against each other, but how can it be a quantified "destruction?"

Further, does it really have to be as black and white as this?


Line up every Chinaman in China, line them up shoulder to shoulder and do this;
Take a brand new M1 Garand in collector condition
Have each Chinaman hand it to the person to their right
After the 2 billion hand offs have been completed you will NOT have a new gun.

Those 2 billion hands will have destroyed steel, have destroyed wood. The mere act of handling will have taken that collector grade and turned it into a heap.

[13Fox]

Those 2 billion hands will have destroyed steel, have destroyed wood. The mere act of handling will have taken that collector grade and turned it into a heap.

Yes, you are correct and further illustrated my point.

[The Garand Guy]

It would seem to me that this simplification is overly absolute or at least, a matter of symantics.

While I suppose I could agree that the root of what you are saying is not false from a pure scientific point, it would be a leap of faith to blindly jump on this bandwagon and agree with the oversimplification.

To what degree of "handling" is intended by the statement? I would interprete the statement to be intended as absolute and therefore infer that the mere physical handling (touching with my hands) to be destructive, even more so by the act of firing. But, in a reality that does not have the burden of symantics, when does the handling produce measurable destruction? If this destruction is not measurable, how can it be professed to be a horrendous act of erosion? If by simply picking up a "brand new" collectible specimen into my hands somehow truely destroys it, then nothing can ever be "brand new" or "collectible" as it would experience some level of handling prior to it ever even becoming a completed assembly. Further, how can a material as soft as human skin apprecibly (measurably) wear something as hard as steel? Even the act of firing high velocity ammunition thru a firearm produces wear that is not measurable until the act is repeated numerous times until you can actually perceive a measurement. Yes, there may be a visual perception of finish wear to parts that move against each other, but how can it be a quantified "destruction?"

Further, does it really have to be as black and white as this?

[timshufflin]

Yes, you are correct and further illustrated my point.

Sir, I only know one way to argue, science. The mere physical handling of any artifact will destroy it, the defense rests.

[13Fox]

Tim,

I think we essentially agree on everything except your world of black and white and my embrace of the grey.

While the arguement between science and religion has been with us for 600 years, science is in many ways like religion. Don't allow the facts to debunk the "real world." In other words, see the forest, not just the trees.

Be well,
John

[timshufflin]

Yes John, I am a very black and white kind of guy. Just remember something, you can count on that sort of person :)

[The Garand Guy]

HELP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I WENT TO POST A REPLY TO 13fOX'S POST, & THE COMPUTER TOOK HIS MESSAGE AWAY AND GAVE IT TO ME! MODERATOR: PLEASE REMOVE THE POST FROM MY NAME & GIVE IT BACK TO 13fOX!

[timshufflin]

HELP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I WENT TO POST A REPLY TO 13fOX'S POST, & THE COMPUTER TOOK HIS MESSAGE AWAY AND GAVE IT TO ME! MODERATOR: PLEASE REMOVE THE POST FROM MY NAME & GIVE IT BACK TO 13fOX!


You are a moderator LOL! That's how you were able to make the change to this post. What I don't know is HOW you did it. You have a gift Tony LOLOLOL

[Rick B]

The thing I find funniest is those trying to defend doing as they please with the rifle only to no allow others what they feel is ok. Now that there is some funny sh&t.

Reminds me of those against guns but think drugs are fine cause they say so. Key is most things are fine in moderation but to go full tilt usually ends up badly. Rick B

[Fogtripper]

It would seem to me that this simplification is overly absolute or at least, a matter of symantics.

While I suppose I could agree that the root of what you are saying is not false from a pure scientific point, it would be a leap of faith to blindly jump on this bandwagon and agree with the oversimplification.

To what degree of "handling" is intended by the statement? I would interprete the statement to be intended as absolute and therefore infer that the mere physical handling (touching with my hands) to be destructive, even more so by the act of firing. But, in a reality that does not have the burden of symantics, when does the handling produce measurable destruction? If this destruction is not measurable, how can it be professed to be a horrendous act of erosion? If by simply picking up a "brand new" collectible specimen into my hands somehow truely destroys it, then nothing can ever be "brand new" or "collectible" as it would experience some level of handling prior to it ever even becoming a completed assembly. Further, how can a material as soft as human skin apprecibly (measurably) wear something as hard as steel? Even the act of firing high velocity ammunition thru a firearm produces wear that is not measurable until the act is repeated numerous times until you can actually perceive a measurement. Yes, there may be a visual perception of finish wear to parts that move against each other, but how can it be a quantified "destruction?"

Further, does it really have to be as black and white as this?


Very much this.

[Fogtripper]

The thing I find funniest is those trying to defend doing as they please with the rifle only to no allow others what they feel is ok. Now that there is some funny sh&t.

Reminds me of those against guns but think drugs are fine cause they say so. Key is most things are fine in moderation but to go full tilt usually ends up badly. Rick B


Not this.:(

[KnickKnack]

It would seem to me that this simplification is overly absolute or at least, a matter of symantics.

While I suppose I could agree that the root of what you are saying is not false from a pure scientific point, it would be a leap of faith to blindly jump on this bandwagon and agree with the oversimplification.

To what degree of "handling" is intended by the statement? I would interprete the statement to be intended as absolute and therefore infer that the mere physical handling (touching with my hands) to be destructive, even more so by the act of firing. But, in a reality that does not have the burden of symantics, when does the handling produce measurable destruction? If this destruction is not measurable, how can it be professed to be a horrendous act of erosion? If by simply picking up a "brand new" collectible specimen into my hands somehow truely destroys it, then nothing can ever be "brand new" or "collectible" as it would experience some level of handling prior to it ever even becoming a completed assembly. Further, how can a material as soft as human skin apprecibly (measurably) wear something as hard as steel? Even the act of firing high velocity ammunition thru a firearm produces wear that is not measurable until the act is repeated numerous times until you can actually perceive a measurement. Yes, there may be a visual perception of finish wear to parts that move against each other, but how can it be a quantified "destruction?"

Further, does it really have to be as black and white as this?

Just curious. If I'm reading you correctly, you are saying the mere handling of a rifle is not a destructive action. Why then do museum curators wear white cloth gloves when handling artifacts?

[13Fox]

I cannot answer this question with any authority as I am not in the museum business.

My thoughts are that the white gloves are to protect the artifact from the oils and other contaminants of the hands. Again, my thoughts are that handling objects do not produce a quantifiable destruction. Yes, handling an object two billion times will destroy an object from originality. My point is to be realistic, not overdramatic.

I may be wrong.

[cuppednlocked]

These "things" (be them rifles, jewels, hand-me-downs) have an intrinsic value to the owner. Intrinsic value varies from person to person. Some are driven by extrinsic motives. To say one is right and one is wrong is impossible since the value of an object is so different.

Almost everything degrades over time. Hell, I have fossils that are ~10 million years old... they're rocks plain and simple but I place a high value on them since I found them.

The only thing you can do to preserve an item is limit the speed of degradation, not stop it.

[timshufflin]

Another example of destroying by touching, and my favorite, playing cards LOL.

Anyways, I do know for a fact that touching an object degrades it, albeit SLOWLY. My original point is, if we can all agree that we all degrade these rifles, then who are any of us to tell another that the way they degrade is more savage or more noble then the next guy?

I'll admit I'm taking this to the extreme by using handling BUT I am not taking this to the extreme talking about people shooting their Garand or other military rifle. Each shot is a detriment to the rifle and could be the shot that cracks the receiver heel or does other damage. Forget casual wear which simply wears out the barrel, bolt, oprod, receiver, sights...

[axemurderer]

OK so riddle me this We are having this heated discussion about destroying historicle artifacts. Specificly Garands, To believe that every single one is somehow a treasure beyond measure is silly. Is a completely mismatched arsenal rebuild incorrect. Who can say if there were any CORRECT rifles ever. I also understand that some might see a Mimi-G as an abomanation. However I give this example: A few yers ago I purchased a National Match Garand The 1957 DCM papaer and all. Well sometime around 1963 the guy had a Griffin and Howe scope mount installed. To me this is still a fine example of an early NM rifle. However the local self appointed garand expert railed against how the previous owner had destroyed a valuable collector rifle, but before he saw the scope mount, he very much tried to low ball me to sell it. So I guess my question is did he destroy a valuable historical relic( remember it is still a documented NM) or simply do with his rifle what he wanted and needed his rifle to be?

We can also speak of all those evil people who sportarised 03s, mausers, P17s, ECT......these people did not see historical relics, they saw rifles that were a whole lot cheaper the Model 70s and the like. I would sugest that we think before we judge others by our personal version of right and wrong.

Just my opinion I could be wrong.

Mike

[herrmann]

I have collector grades from the CMP auction, yet my favorite is a WIN2 with a SA52 barrel and SA52 stamped on the receiver heel.

[canes7]

Let's use a pristine condition gas-trap Garand for example. It's in my possession and I own it. I want to build a JCG rifle and plan on modifying the Garand I have for this project. That would mean changing the stock, sights, barrel and gas cylinder in the least. maybe I want to do a nice repark because I prefer zinc over manganeese... whatever. So now you get wind of my plans and think it's an abomanation and demand I stop. Here is what I am going to tell you: Buy it from me or shut the hell up. I'll take the $ you purchase my rifle with and buy another to modify. If preserving these rifles mean that much to you put your $$ where your mouth is and preserve it for yourself. I have enough respect for these items to at least do that. If you can't then you're SOL, and so is the rifle I guess.

[13Fox]

You are absolutely right! It is your place to decide what you do with your property. I know that if it were possible for me to own an original gas trap, I would. Frankly, for me it isn't that simple, though I wish I was able.

One thing I have learned over the years of designing 2-10 million dollar homes is that just because you have money, doesn’t mean you are smart. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt that you are just trying to piss us off and don’t really intend to butcher your investment!:D

[Rick B]

To me I don’t care either way and you are free to do as you want but there is no reason to flaunt it for the simple purpose of irritating others. Honestly I would laugh my butt of at someone who would destroy a rare Gas Trap. I know for a fact they would regret it when the reality sinks in. You can argue till your blue in the face but it will bother you sooner of later. Also the more gone the more expensive those left are going to be.

But to get upset over someone’s passion is a bit ridiculous also. To try and piss them off more is shear ignorance. I teach my kids to think about what they are doing and if they wouldn't like it then don't do it to others. I see a few here never learned that lesson. I am surely not going to waste my little bit of valuable time left on this earth to try and go out of my way to upset people. :) Rick B

[canes7]

Guys.... I do not own a gas trap and probably never will. It was just an example. I think I'm going to have to work on my communication skills, I've been getting misunderstood a lot!

[Rick B]

Canes7, I understood you didn’t have one so no worry. Biggest issue with internet typing is it can be perceived in many ways. I have tried to open my voice chat room up for evening chats but no one responds. It would be a good way to understand how folks are when they type. I can bet Tim has a different outlook on what I say after talking with me. It makes it easier to understand people most of the time. I can bet some are thinking I am slamming my fist on the table while typing or that I am upset but this is not the case at all. I enjoy bringing things up in order to have others bring up issues I may have not thought of. I was once on the band wagon of no Garand should be harmed but I had an epiphany, :):):):):):):):):):):): Rick B

[cuppednlocked]

Wait, wait, wait... let's not talk gas traps:

The arsenal mix-masters have their own history. "Correcting" them to as-issued configuration is just wrong! Even the CMP built/re-built rifles have history that should not be changed!!!

[canes7]

Wait, wait, wait... let's not talk gas traps:

The arsenal mix-masters have their own history. "Correcting" them to as-issued configuration is just wrong! Even the CMP built/re-built rifles have history that should not be changed!!!

LOL.. I remember that arguement over on the CMP forums from quite a few years ago. Remember the arguement people were having about how one should never remove the lower band pin? IIRC it all started over someone trying to remove their rear handguard.

BTW - Congrats on post 777.. you should go play blackjack somewhere.

[Rick B]

I will stick by the barrel band pin as if the rifle is orignal and you would like to make some money that is a key to knowing if it has not had a barrel change. Nothing worse than an orignal lend Lease with the barrel band pin knocked out. It can be considered a put together at that point.

[KnickKnack]

Guys.... I do not own a gas trap and probably never will. It was just an example. I think I'm going to have to work on my communication skills, I've been getting misunderstood a lot!

No, I understood you perfectly. :)

[KnickKnack]

Here's another hypothetical. The factory is producing M1 rifles in a given serial number range. During production, an employee stumbles upon a box of 100 safeties that fell behind a shelfing unit. He decides to start installing them, even though they are not the same number lot as the current ones he was using. Now, 50 years later, one of this rifles somehow manages to stay "original, as manufactured". The current owner is proud of his prize, but some "expert" examines it and bursts his bubble by saying that his safety is incorrect for the date of manufacture, therefore the whole rifle is suspect.

So who's "correct" now?

[cuppednlocked]

Congrats on post 777.. you should go play blackjack somewhere.

Damn, too late. I should have gotten the lottery ticket before replying!

[Roadkingtrax]

Here's another hypothetical. The factory is producing M1 rifles in a given serial number range. During production, an employee stumbles upon a box of 100 safeties that fell behind a shelfing unit. He decides to start installing them, even though they are not the same number lot as the current ones he was using. Now, 50 years later, one of this rifles somehow manages to stay "original, as manufactured". The current owner is proud of his prize, but some "expert" examines it and bursts his bubble by saying that his safety is incorrect for the date of manufacture, therefore the whole rifle is suspect.

So who's "correct" now?

Simply put, sometimes the experts don't always look at the big picture and will not apply double loop problem solving. Single loop is easy to apply, rifle is made at a certain time, part is not from that time...therefore part is wrong and added later. I work in a manufacturing environment, so I see this type of thing on a constant basis...installing 20 year old NOS parts. 1 part on an otherwise new rifle would qualify for this...a whole trigger group I could not.

Would you shoot this rifle? I would...sparingly. I was going to post it on the CMP boards, but I would most likely be chastised for doing so...ruining someones bid on a public auction. :(

http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.aspx?Item=272353921

[Rick B]

A true collector knows the part can be correct as I and have stressed if you know me. You folks are generalizing everyone which is what i see arguments about.

Its getting like a dog chasing his tail. Rick B

[13Fox]

Would you shoot this rifle? I would...sparingly.

Ditto. Rifle is not pristine but has been subjected to obvious use. Therefore, sparing firing will not deminish its significance or appearance, in my opinion.

[Dave]

I've shot just about everything I own, and the ones I have'nt shot yet is only due to time constraints. Eventually they will all be "used" with the exception of one, my M1861 Amoskeag Musket. The bore on that one is just not good enough for me to take the chance.
I see no problems at all with someone modifying anything they own. I may not like it but it's not mine so who am I to say what someone should or should'nt do with their property. I'm also into antique cars and I can't stand to see people modify them or chop them into street rods. Thats does'nt mean I'm going to go nuts because of it. It is what it is.

"No one can truly own anything. You only have access to it during the dash between the beginning and ending years which will be inscribed upon your tombstone."

[Schriv]

Thats pretty much my rule.
I may have a large collection of firearms, but I am not a firearms 'collector'. Unless the barrel is shot out or the piece is otherwise unsafe for modern ammo, it gets range time. That is assuming that I myself can get range time. Way too many guns and not enough free time or ammo to shoot them all anymore. Being an adult with a full time job tends to interfere with my hobbies.;)

[cannonshooter]

I had an 1896 Krag rifle dated 1897. The muzzle swallowed a 30 cal bullet. Since i did not shoot this rifle anymore and the MCL detachment had an abomination of a Krag carbine hanging on the wall I donated it to the detachment so they would have a real weapon Marines carried. Could I have kept it? Sure but since I shoot everything I own I thought the detachment would be a better place for it.
Mack

[KnickKnack]

A true collector knows the part can be correct as I and have stressed if you know me. You folks are generalizing everyone which is what i see arguments about.

Its getting like a dog chasing his tail. Rick B

Are you saying that a "true collector" will know every single solitary little minute to minute detail of the manufacturing process as it happened? So therefore it is impossible for "true collector" to be wrong? A "true collector" has learned everything that there is know to about the subject and can never learn anything else about it again?

I have collected (hoarded) Lionel trains for over 45 years. At least once a year, if not more, some "set in stone" detail about a "collector's item" is proven to be incorrect. Manufacturers are in business for one thing and one thing only. To make a profit. They care not whether something leaving the factory will be considered "correct" by some "collector" 50 years later. They only watch the bottom line and be sure that as many parts as possible are used in the finished product, with as little waste as possible. If they don't, they are quickly out of business.

The daily manufacturing worker cares only that a part was put into the product that functions as it should so that he can keep his job and get his paycheck. Even if those parts are "documented", people make errors and documentatioin can be very, very wrong. When you are trying to meet a product deadline it is inevitable that shortcuts will be taken and something will slip by.

I submit that it is absoulutely impossible for one person to know every single detail of any mass produced product and that there is always room to learn. If you stop learning, then you must be dead.

[13Fox]

I'd say a true collector is one who knows there are no absolutes and is open to evaluating a specimen on a case by case basis to determine what -may- be original.

Note use of the word original and not correct for a true collectible piece.

[Bicyclewrench]

I'm trying to imagine what previous generations would think of us taking a perfectly good tool and not putting it to use because of a perceived historical significance. I'm pretty sure my "Appalachian American" ancestors would find that to be the silliest notion they'd ever heard of. " I know there's no food, but dag nabbit you ain't shootin' that deer with that rifle, it's a collectible!" Makes as much sense as a gold plated shovel. My ancestors had no use for a tool that wasn't to be used, and would not have hesitated to modify an existing tool to fit a purpose.

Maybe it's a sign of the times. We don't use our tools we acquire them and discuss how they're to be used. I see it all the time with bicycles. Some guy with more money than sense drops a few grand on a road bike to look the part. Italian frame, Campy parts etc. A year later the bike comes in for a tune up. Flat tires and dust from sitting. It's his right, but it's a damn shame to see a fine piece of equipment sit.

To me History is about the stories of people and things. I love old things not because they are old, but because of their story. My Garand receiver was manufactured in '45. It's a mixmaster with an importer stamp. It has no "collector value". That does not change it's story. It's been places I'll never go and seen things I'll never see. When I'm done with it someone else will use it and add to it's story. When I have the money saved it will be "Mini'ed" and that too will be part of it's story. To me my rifle has more "historical value" than a rifle that's pristine correct and unused. After all how many stories can an unused rifle tell?

[Prince Humperdink]

Welcome Bicyclewrench!

[Orlando]

Good First Post
Welcome

[herrmann]

None of us were at Springfield when the M1 was being made. How about if an otherwise correct NFR was found to have a short-fork follower rod? This would not be "Correct" according to current wisdom. Yet it could be nothing more than that a box of them was found somewhere. Under a bench ? Lost in Inspection ? Today's assessments are a "Best Guess" and nothing more.

You can tie s/n range to barrel date to cartouche. Beyond that, ?

[Rick B]

I think on the coldest night of the winter each year we should go outside and pee in the barrels and all over the action of our Garands in memory of those who had to do this in order to thaw their rifles. Amen. Rick B

[13Fox]

None of us were at Springfield when the M1 was being made. How about if an otherwise correct NFR was found to have a short-fork follower rod? This would not be "Correct" according to current wisdom. Yet it could be nothing more than that a box of them was found somewhere. Under a bench ? Lost in Inspection ? Today's assessments are a "Best Guess" and nothing more.

You can tie s/n range to barrel date to cartouche. Beyond that, ?

Absolutely correct! Makes the world of collecting somewhat "madenning" at times. This sort of scenario happened and more than once. "Best Guess" is so appropriate. Key is that (from a collecting standpoint) we are not blind to something not matching the book. Nothing is absolute. Just because it doesn't match the books and is not "correct" does not mean it is wrong.

[cuppednlocked]

Can anyone tell me if any other threads (ignore the obvious "nekked women" types) have had this much interest/posts?

It's a good discussion.

[Roadkingtrax]

Can anyone tell me if any other threads (ignore the obvious "nekked women" types) have had this much interest/posts?

It's a good discussion.

I don't know, I would like to point out that often times (CMP Forum and others) cooler heads never prevail and arguments (discussions) get overly emotional at times...this topic included.

It is a good discussion, and when things can bounce around the philosophical and avoid the emotional...never know what twists and turns it can take. :)

[herrmann]

Slightly OT, but the ones I like on the CMP forum are about whether you should sell them or not. (Much less at a profit!)

[dan]

My view.


I have 3 M1s I will not fire. Two "new" post-war rifles, one SA and one HRA and a restored Gas Trap. I would likely shoot the Gas Trap if the gas cylinder was not cracked.

"New" M1s are uncommon and quite frankly not much different than well-worn versions when it comes to firing them so I fail to see the charm in firing an as-new one since it really won't be much different than your garden variety racker. I say leave the new ones new.

On the other hand getting a chance to fire a Gas Trap is a very special treat. I have a second restored rifle with a Gene Barnett barrel and gas cylinder that I shoot fairly often. In fact I'd rather shoot that rifle than any other one in the safe. The only other concessions on that rifle are the firing pin and the op-rod spring. Everything else is correct and original.

[timshufflin]

My view.


I have 3 M1s I will not fire. Two "new" post-war rifles, one SA and one HRA and a restored Gas Trap. I would likely shoot the Gas Trap if the gas cylinder was not cracked.

"New" M1s are uncommon and quite frankly not much different than well-worn versions when it comes to firing them so I fail to see the charm in firing an as-new one since it really won't be much different than your garden variety racker. I say leave the new ones new.

On the other hand getting a chance to fire a Gas Trap is a very special treat. I have a second restored rifle with a Gene Barnett barrel and gas cylinder that I shoot fairly often. In fact I'd rather shoot that rifle than any other one in the safe. The only other concessions on that rifle are the firing pin and the op-rod spring. Everything else is correct and original.


What do you use for an oprod spring?

[Rick B]

A regular spring will work with it. The Dual spring was just reason to fit the style of rod then later realized they didnt need that type of rod or spring. Rick B

[dan]

A regular spring will work with it. The Dual spring was just reason to fit the style of rod then later realized they didnt need that type of rod or spring. Rick B

Correct. I use a standard "late" spring.