The Carbine Collectors Club

Click on the image above to learn more about the M1 Carbine


Forum Home Forum Home > The Club > General Discussion > Parts Markings
  New Posts New Posts
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login


Stock Markings - possible Julian date or otherwise

 Post Reply Post Reply
Author
Message
NewScotlander View Drop Down
Grunt
Grunt

Advanced Collector

Joined: Jan 02 2016
Location: New York
Status: Offline
Points: 682
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote NewScotlander Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Stock Markings - possible Julian date or otherwise
    Posted: Jan 08 2017 at 10:00am
Just carrying the discussion of the ink stamps in the slide well of the stock over to a new topic. The stamps were probably put there by the manufacturer of the stock and not the prime contactor. I can think of three different types of marks:

1. The ink markings in the slide well of the Overton Stocks is pretty straight forward. That is, the first number, be it one, two or three digits is the day of the year and the second number is the last digit of the year (i.e. 3 equals 1943, 4 equals 1944).

2. The ink stamp in the slide well of the RSG stocks is a bit more perplexing. What has been seen is either a five or six digit number with first digit being a 2 or 3 and the last digit usually a zero.

3. There is also a stamp under the butt plate of some of the Sprague Carleton stocks used by IBM. There is usually a number above the screw hole and one below. The stamp could be a form of Julian date or something else.






Back to Top
m1a1fan View Drop Down
Hard Corps
Hard Corps
Avatar
Got Para?

Joined: Jan 01 2016
Location: Virginia
Status: Offline
Points: 1736
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote m1a1fan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Jan 08 2017 at 10:09am
An attempt to gather information about the SN's and stamps as previously discussed. Others, please crud as necessary. Guessing the stamp wasn't something usually included on datasheets.

SG 3291554 27110
SG 3328006 26620

PINGCMP 27318

Gene or Oregon S'G' 11670?
S'G' 15440?

Norwich93?
Back to Top
NewScotlander View Drop Down
Grunt
Grunt

Advanced Collector

Joined: Jan 02 2016
Location: New York
Status: Offline
Points: 682
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote NewScotlander Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Jan 08 2017 at 10:25am
For the Sprague Carleton stocks (SCB), I have these numbers.

18 over 4
25 over 3
21 over 3
48 over 3
4 over 4
5 over 4

Back to Top
David Albert View Drop Down
Hard Corps
Hard Corps
Avatar
Status Quo Challenger

Joined: Dec 27 2015
Location: Ohio
Status: Offline
Points: 1003
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote David Albert Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Jan 08 2017 at 3:46pm
I can't add anything conclusive about these types of Carbine stock markings. However, I can add that in other firearm collecting fields, similar numbers are assembly numbers, with no relation to the serial number of the firearm, or the date the item was produced. My advice is to think about this from a manufacturing process standpoint. Member Ron Brock mentioned in another post that everything done in manufacturing must add value, and that is so true, and important to keep in mind. The markings were made for a reason, either because they were called out as a contractual issue, or, more likely, they helped complete the manufacturing operation more efficiently. If any hand fitting whatsoever was necessary, as is common with stocks and buttplates, that may be the reason they were marked.

A couple of quick examples I can point to are Colt Thompsons, and WWII manufactured Thompsons, as well as H&R Reising Model 65 .22 rifles as adopted by the Marine Corps, and afterwards during civilian manufacture. In these instances, there were two parts with the same, random assembly number that were separated during the manufacturing process, and were rejoined later in the process.

Another possibility involves integration of different suppliers and lots into manufacturing. This is less likely if all manufacturing processes occurred in-house, but could also be a shift and date differentiator. Again, it had to add value to the overall operation, unless it was a contractual obligation.

David Albert
dalbert@sturmgewehr.com
NRA Life Member
Past Pres., The American Thompson Association
Amer. Society of Arms Collectors
OGCA/TCA/Carbine Club/GCA/IAA
SAR Writer
Author - The Many Firearm Designs of Eugene Reising
Eagle Scout
Back to Top
New2brass View Drop Down
Moderator Group
Moderator Group
Avatar
Dan Pinto, Photo Editor

Joined: Nov 29 2015
Location: CT
Status: Offline
Points: 4627
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote New2brass Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Jan 08 2017 at 8:12pm
I am sure you well know what happened to the Reising once it was "Arsenalised"
for those who don't they wound up in the drink. they were hand fitted from the factory and when parts swapped and not fitted they would not function reliably.
 
The carbine was the first mass produced firearm to be completely interchangeable from manufacturer to manufacturer. This is why we see all those wonderful marks. There had to be a way to back track a faulty or out of spec part. There was to be no hand fitting.
 
Now the stock may have been an exception, but doubt it. Hand guard did not necessarily match the stock in color. If they were fitted together I do not know.
 
We do know, As Newscotlander stated, that Overton dates make sense of day/year
The Sprague Carleton seems to be following that pattern but may be week/year
 
This is why reporting is important.  if a S&C stock showed up with a different bottom number other than a 3 or 4 we would have to rethink it. same if the top number was above 52.
 
The RSG is the one that is out of the norm. if we do not see one with first 3 above 365 we are good. if we get more reporting on last two we can make an educated guess.
As stated in another thread it may be a shift number or machine number.
 
So why go through all of this? First off the use of Julian numbers was no uncommon in manufacturing back then.
If something was not right with part it was a simple task to look at the Julian mark and cross it to the operator that was working that day/shift.
 
With that here is a link that had discussion on S&C
 
pic from that thread, look at one on right. So much for quality control
 
 
 
 
Back to Top
NewScotlander View Drop Down
Grunt
Grunt

Advanced Collector

Joined: Jan 02 2016
Location: New York
Status: Offline
Points: 682
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote NewScotlander Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Jan 09 2017 at 4:18pm
The Sprague Carleton seems to be following that pattern but may be week/year

I've thought about the week/year idea. It doesn't seem to work out. 18 over 4 would be in May, 1944. That seems a bit late. 21 over 3 would be May, 1943 which seems too early.
Back to Top
David Albert View Drop Down
Hard Corps
Hard Corps
Avatar
Status Quo Challenger

Joined: Dec 27 2015
Location: Ohio
Status: Offline
Points: 1003
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote David Albert Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Jan 10 2017 at 7:30pm
Originally posted by New2brass New2brass wrote:


I am sure you well know what happened to the Reising once it was "Arsenalised"
for those who don't they wound up in the drink. they were hand fitted from the factory and when parts swapped and not fitted they would not function reliably.


I don't want to hijack the thread, but I do want to clarify the circumstances around the H&R Reising Model 50, and its (in my opinion) undeserved reputation to which is often alluded, and is mentioned here. The main failure with the Reising was communication within USMC ranks. The USMC could not get many Thompsons in 1941, because Savage production went to Britain and the U.S. Army, primarily. The Auto-Ordnance factory in Bridgeport, CT did not come online producing Thompsons until late 1941. Therefore, the USMC sought a different submachine gun that they could procure themselves. They found H&R's Reising Model 50, which began production in early 1941, with most guns going to police departments at the time. The Russians also tested the weapon, and purchased an unknown quantity early in production. The USMC decided to ask H&R to produce the Reising as their newly adopted submachine gun.

Now here's where the communication issues began within the USMC. Because the USMC did not want to delay availability of their newly adopted weapon, they did not require H&R to manufacture parts that were 100% interchangeable. Several parts were hand fitted. The guns had excellent test results at the factory, both by H&R, and by the Russians. At adoption, the interchangeability issue was not effectively communicated throughout the Marine Corps. When the weapon saw its first combat action at Guadalcanal, that's where some fatal mistakes occurred. Marines communally cleaned their Reisings, mixing up parts, and then many didn't function reliably thereafter. Realizing the mistake, and without the arsenal support necessary to fix the guns, and knowing that additional, new Reisings were on the way to him, the Colonel in charge of the operation gave an order to dump the Reisings in a river. This, along with the fact that the USMC accepted blued Reisings from H&R, resulted in the bad reputation the weapon developed at Guadalcanal that was difficult to overcome as Marines talked to one another. The finish rusted quickly in the jungle conditions, and the guns didn't function because the parts were mixed. The USMC brought the problem on themselves...They attempted to fix its internal reputation, and continued to purchase additional Reisings to the tune of about 120K total production.

Originally posted by New2brass New2brass wrote:


 
pic from that thread, look at one on right. So much for quality control
 
 
 
 




Is the backwards numerical marking on the stock on the right the quality control issue to which you refer, or am I missing a different defect in the photo above?

David Albert
dalbert@sturmgewehr.com
NRA Life Member
Past Pres., The American Thompson Association
Amer. Society of Arms Collectors
OGCA/TCA/Carbine Club/GCA/IAA
SAR Writer
Author - The Many Firearm Designs of Eugene Reising
Eagle Scout
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.01
Copyright ©2001-2018 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.141 seconds.