These polymer, fiber-reinforced stocks are now becoming a little hard to find; Not entirely sure if they have been discontinued, but suspect so.  What they offer is a stable, waterproof base stock, which will save your original wooden stock from dings and scratches.  These stocks, as they come from the factory, are very likely to be a tighter fit with respect to your barreled action and trigger group, and of course, are invulnerable to moisture;  Both of these features very much tend to increase the accuracy of any given rifle, particularly compared to old wooden stocks that no longer lock-up tightly.  They are also easily painted, but good preperation is essential, and possibly using "Fusion" paints especially made for plastics is suggested.  A shade akin to Rust-Oleum red primer is very much like the color of the GI synthetic stocks for the M-14.  These stocks are also lighter than their wooden counterparts.

Genersl Description:
3 piece kit.  Front handguard, Rear Handguard, and Butt Stock.  The buttstock has a screwed-in rubber butt plate, and has a typical screw-in , blued, rear swivel stud.  The area into which it is screwed is heavily reinforced, so scant danger of it pulling out.  You will need to obtain a sling swivel suitable for both the stud and your sling.  There is no front stock ferrule/sling swivel included, so unless you want to use the one on your wooden stock, get one.  The rear Handguard lacks a spring clip, so get one if you wish, or use the one already on your wooden rear handguard.  The front handguard lacks any metal whatsoever, and is molded so that it needs none.

Mods:
Setting aside the somewhat complicated, and usually unnecessary bedding of the barreled action into the RamLine Garand buttstock, the Mods made were simple.
First thing to do was use a sharp-bladed knife to "draw" down the molding seams on all the items, save the rear handguard, which had none.  This leaves some marks, but, if carefully done, and IMHO, is unobjectionable even if unpainted.  These stocks are excellent candidates for bedding, but such might not be necessary.

Removing the buttplate with a small Phillips head screwdriver reveals that the Buttstock is hollow, and comes packed with a wedge of open-cell foam to reduce the "hollow stock" sound.  I plan to install a emergency cleaning kit, some essential tools, lube/borecleaner, and a buttload of cleaning patches (all cerefully baggie-up) into the void previously occupied by the now-useless foam.  Even with this minor weight added, the rifle will weigh less than the GI wooden-stocked rifle, and be better-equipped with modern cleaning gear and more essential spare parts/tools.  These essential spares/tools cannot be lost, since they are always with the rifle.

To accomplish this, the rubber buttpad needs to be easily removed from time to time.  As designed, it was not so.  I removed the Phillips head screws, and substituted appropriate stainless steel screws.  Since the selected screws were also of Phillips head type, I carefully cut a cross-slot straight across the head of the screw, following the existing axis of the Phillips head pattern, with a Dremel cutting-wheel.  Done right, this allows the user to remove the screw with a straight-bladed screwdriver, as well as a Phillips head screwdriver.  Most of us have a straight-bladed screwdriver available in the field; perhaps fewer of us have a Phillips head screwdriver/bit available.

Sealed-up the screwed-on plastic plate at the bottom of the handgrip, also using a SS Phillips head screw (unmodified), using some black, "GE Premium Silicone Gasket and Seal" compound.  HI-temp, oil-resistant goop.  Used the same goop to Glue-on the front stock ferrule, after making some slight indentations on the surface of the stock which mated to the front stock ferrule, in order to provide better "grip" for the gop.  The ferrule won't move now, unless the owner really makes a point of it.

Sealed up a little casting defect inside the rear of the stock which would have allowed water to enter the hollow rear of the buttstock.  Don't want water there, no matter how well the supplies/tools are encapsulated.

So, as things stand, I have a tight-fitting, accuracy-promoting, waterproof, eminently paintable stock, with a cleaning kit installed where it can never be lost, and whose mass serves to dampen a little bit of the rifle's recoil.

Submitted for consideration.

I have never used one myself but never heard anything good said about them by people who have.
If you want to save your USGI stock I would suggest a wood commercial stock. They can be had used , like new condition around $125

.....invulnerable to moisture.....
Please be aware that many plastics do, in fact, absorb water at a surprising rate.

+1

When I first investigated dying different types of firearms plastics, I experimented on some commonly available household items.

Let's just say price is no indicator of whether a plastic item will absorb water or not.

How did my green PS-90 stock ever survive not getting dyed?

With all good respect to previous posters, the Ram-Line Garand stock is certainly GTG on the range.  BTDT.  Far better than most oil-soaked, loose-fitting wooden GI stocks.  BTDT, there, too.

Give such a stock a fair trial, and se what you think.

Disclaimer; no financial interest.

I respect your opinions.  May I respectfully suggest trying out such a stock first-handed?

You might be surprised.

I have five rifles about to come to life and if you have a Ram Line stock, we could give it a shot.

Ah, yes, another poster whom I've come to respect.  Regret that I cannot provide you with a RamLine Garand stock, as they seem to be in very short supply.  Unfortunately, you will have to find one on your own.  Buy one, while they are not extremely expensive, and see for yourself.  My regrets.

I'm familiar with the M1 "Drill Stock" items offered, but I have no experience with such.  That said, and my ignorance being admitted, I find it hard to believe that the "Drill Stocks" are GTG as far as shooting rifles go; don't think the stocks were originally intended for shooting rifles, but might be wrong.  YMMV, and certainly open to being proven wrong.  Won't be the first time, nor the last, I reckon.

Maybe, just Maybe, if one can find a "Drill stock" that has not been beaten unto uselessness, and if one is a skilled person as far as bedding M1 actions goes, then investigate the "Drill Stocks".  Carry with you my best wishes.

The composite plastic of the RamLine stock appears to me, after years of ownership, to be entirely insensitive to ambient moisture levels that would very much affect a wooden stock.

So far, unpainted, but painting the stock would almost certainly retard, if not eliminate, any effects of moisture.  Never seen the need to do so.  YMMV.

I have no reason to try one myself, wood stocks made it through decades of all weather use. I see no reason to use a plastic stock
Also the US plastic drill rifle stocks are not meant for live fire applications

My "shooter" M1 Garand has been in a ramline stock since about 2006 or so.  Awesome.

From the CMP the greek return rack grade SA would actually rattle in the stock if you shook it.  Ugly European beech stock that would not evenly take stain (lots of variable sized light/white circles that wouldn't take stain) so no use trying to make it look good and then bed it into the stock.

Ramline stock and handguards.  Nice tight fit.  Used a Krylon camo spray paint kit to put some color on the black stock.

Bought an Amega Ranges scout scope mount (replaces the lower handguard) and put a LER pistol scope on it.  Awesome.  I went from not being able to see the front sight without my reading glasses (which then lost me anything much past a few yards out from the muzzle) to being able to hit anything I wanted to hit with it.

Purists my not think it's pretty but fore me function over rides "pretty."  With the scout scope mount operation (loading clips, firing, ejecting the clips, etc.) is unchanged from GI issue.

I used to have a further project in mind that I never got around to - using that expanding foam insulation stuff and some aluminum blocks epoxied into the butt and a couple PVC conduit pieces of the correct diameter to have storage for a GI cleaning kit with a GI M1 butt plate.  Just never got around to it.

My sit in the safe, go to the range every few years don't need a synthetic stock.

My M1 I might take out in the rain, snow, woods does better than new in that ram line stock.

Oh, Dec. 44 SA receiver, 53 LMR barrel (said to be some of the best barrels ever screwed to an M1 receiver) and the stock/scope/scope mount make it a really fun rifle to shoot.  Ever been to Ramseur to a field shoot?  That rifle easily makes those 300 and 400 yd. head/shoulder shots on the pop ups with GI issue ammo that is older than most people on the forum.

Another stock option is the laminated stock.  It is very stable and weatherproof.  But it is heavier than a standard walnut stock.   This one also features a chrome lined 30-06 Criterion barrel

Is this the one you're talking about

https://www.ebay.com/c/1601619047

I am a bit of a purist preferring wood stocks but that laminate isn’t bad.

It certainly resists wood compression, the Achilles heel of the design.

Not really, ,no matter how compressed the wood gets its still a battle rifle that will easily hit a man sized object. We just try to make it something it isn't. A target rifle

No, that's for an SKS.  Saw that myself, when trying to find M1 stocks.

Duh.. I miss that part sorry. I was actually looking for that stock to not for me I was looking to see if I can find one for you

M1G, I value your opinions, and your recent parts help.  A partial purpose of this thread was to alert M1 users of the apparent discontinuance of a useful, well-fitting synthetic stock for their M1s.

Converting an M1 to "Match" grade goes much further than having a good, bedded stock.  This we all know, and creating a "Match" M1 was not the original intent of this post.

However, if an M1 user wishes to have a well-fitting (not bedded) stock that can be substituted for their original, hard-to-duplicate GI stock, and which will be invulnerable to moisture-induced effects, and one  which is eminently paintable, and "beatable", the RamLine stock might be considered.

I maintain that the RamLine stock, unbedded, is quite likely to increase accuracy compared to old wooden stocks.  Let's put it another way.  A brand-new wooden stock shouldshow definite resistance to the lock-up of the trigger guard about 1/2" before lockup.  An old, particularly oil-soaked stock, probably won't.   The "tightness" of the trigger guard "lockup" is a very easy thing to see, but only one of the many considerations as regards a well-bedded action into a stock.

As an aside, perhaps some of the problems with bedding M1/M-14 actions into wooden stocks were not only due to relatively inferior bedding compounds (nowadays, I use Brownell's Steel-Bed), but also to the fact that such bedding compounds were inserted into a wooden stock in the first place.

Consider this:  Which is likely to show signs of deterioration first:  An old-style, fiberglass compound set into a compressible wooden stock, OP a modern Epoxy compound installed into an incompressible, composite stock?

We all know about the old trick about inserting some sort of shim into the small area where the trigger guard presses into the stock, in order to get a tighter fit, and hopefully, better accuracy.

What I'm saying is that the RamLine stock is incompressible, and so not vulnerable to this, proven issue.

I consider you a friend, and, aside from that, a very astute poster.  Please consider my remarks in that light.  NO offense intended.

And no offense meant with my comments. Just my opinions, yours may vary

No offense taken, of course.  We differ in the small things, but not in the bigger things.  As always, your Friend.

I have a Norinco M14 with a synthetic stock.  It locks up tightly and it affords some very accurate shooting.  I hate the way it looks, but I love the way it shoots.

So a synthetic M1 Ram Line stock could be a good idea

I have two.  One was bought long ago.  The recent second for dirt cheap recently.

May I say, that if you can find an unmolested unit, you will not regret it?

I believe the RamLine is a tighter fir than most new Garand stocks, and more durable to boot.  YMMV.

Submitted with al due respect.

The HRA M1 was installed into the RamLine stock today. Just like  my  "Navy Re-Build" Garand was done previously.  "Navy Re-build" was more accurate with RamLine stock than with obviously late-issue, tight-fitting, wooden stock stock.

Regret being unable to provide before- and after- pix of targets with the "Navy Re-build" experiences.  Never thought such things would be questioned;  My mistake.

I don't intend to shoot the HRA much, since it is rather valuable as-is.  I certainly will shoot the the "Navy Re-build" with Cryo-treated barrel, and scout scope mount.

Stay tuned.

I have one of these stocks. I bought it for $30. I'm going to use it on a Garand I am going to set up for the boy to deer hunt with. Now I'm trying to figure out an optic mount I want too use

just curious where does the end of trigger guard stop hard from closing that you have to force it closed on one of those stocks

That is a fair comment.

The garand was what 4” mean radius at 200or 300 yards or something?  So about 8” ?  Pretty generous.  I may be misremembering the spec.

Behind able to hit a head or head and shoulders at 300 yards is a lot to ask for under fire.  The rifle was more capable than the combatant was most of the time.

Sorry to stray off target OP.

I have a usgi m14 stock that has light lock up.   Not worth bedding it to me.

As the RamLine stocks come from the factory, there is no point at which the trigger guard encounters a "hard-point" during closure.  The trigger guard clamps down in a straightforward manner, without a "resistance" point.

Now on wooden stocks, and ideally, the trigger guard should encounter obvious resistance to closure about 1/2 before the trigger guard "locks-up".  If there is NO resistance to lock-up, then one needs to question whether or not the wooden stock has compressed, over time, and has become a less-than-ideal stock, accuracy-wise.

One can overcome this situation by inserting shims into the area in the stock, where the trigger assembly sits.  IOW, the shim is inserted onto the stock, at the very rearmost point where the trigger guard assy rests and the trigger guard assy sits down upon it.  This serves to partially compensate for worn/compressed wooden stocks  This is a very old trick.

The composite stocks are almost always tighter-fitting, in all dimensions, and so, tend to be more accurate.  I can say, for a certainty, that the NOS stocks on my Garands, being old, but not having seen much abuse, are definitelylooser compared to the RamLine stocks.  One can always bed such actions, and they offer far better platforms for bedding than do wooden stocks. Again, the bedding of wooden-stocked M1s is a somewhat complicated process, but neither is it rocket science.  I've done it myself, to good effect.  Also bedded a RamLine stock, with Brownells "Steel-Bed" compound, and that combo is, over the years, rock-solid

The point to this thread is to remind posters that the increasingly hard-to-find RamLine Garand stock is worth looking-at, for a variety of reasons.  YMMV.

There should be hard resistance on any stock stock even the Ramline.

With compressible wooden stocks, for sure.  The compression of the wood shows tight lock-up.  With properly-fitting, synthetic stocks, there is NO stock compression, and so the lack of "resistance" felt before "lock-up" on a perfectly-fitting Syn stock is a very different thing.  IOW, zero lock-up resistance on an incompressible, syn stock is not necessarily a problem; maybe the stock fits perfectly.

IMHO, most users might well look to the "cams" locking up the trigger guard.  Many I've seen were very worn.  All of them should be lubricated with a dab of grease, IMHO

I think we are talking "apples and oranges" here, and perhaps that's my fault.  I believe that both of us know that a "Tight" trigger-group lockup is an accuracy-enhancer.

I admit I was a bit concerned about the lack of resistance to lock-up with the RamLine stock, and after shooting the Syn stock for a while--to very good experience-- I bedded the action into the same syn stock, paying attention to trigger group lock-up.

Results were also Excellent, and no detectable difference in the 200 yd range which I used, using very good handloads.

FWIW, and with respect, I'm not saying that switching over to a Sym RamLine stock will transform one's Garand into a tack-driver.

Doing so will preserve the vulnerable GI wooden stock from damage.

There may well be (certainly so, in my personal experience) some accuracy enhancements.  YMMV.

Let's let the users decide, and respond, if they will.

Submitted with respect.

Ever have a glass bedded stock? They don't compress and have hard solid lock up,same for laminate stocks, USGI fiberglass M14 stocks, etc, etc

I can attest to the fact that both of my USGI fiberglass sticks lock up nice and tight.

Yes, so do mine.  All 4 of them.  Nice and tight, as things should be.

Sure.  I've also bedded some barreled actions, including M1, M1A, Mini-14, and others.  My Ruger GunSite Scout rifle shoots better, with a bedded syn (Ruger) stock than with its' original laminate stock.  I have bedded synthetic, fiberglass, wooden, and laminated stocks.  In order of the accuracy results, they are: Synthetic, Fiberglass (very close), Laminated, and a distant last is straight hardwood.  Conversely, the improvement in accuracy seen is exactly the reverse of the previous. FWIW, I prefer Birch to Walnut, as it is about 10% denser, and has less tendency to split.  I have a "Max Dimension", wooden stock for my SA M1A Super Match.  Came with it from SA.  Don't recall if it was bedded from SA or not.  The bedded GI fiberglass stocks shoot at least as well, IIRC, and are much lighter.

Not surprising.  a properly bedded stock will always enhance accuracy.  I venture to say that the Ruger laminate stock would be just as accurate if it was bedded in identical manner-- although about a pound heavier than the syn stock.

All bedded wooden stocks compress.  Just not so quickly as un-bedded stocks, in most cases, since the area subject to compression is increased by the bedding.  The properly bedded wooden stock will still need to have its' bedding renewed from time to time due to wear and tear, and underlying wood compression.  The wear and tear is due to extraction from the stock eroding/wearing the bedding; Some rifles, like the M1/M1A/Mini are tougher on bedding during the extraction process than others. The rearmost point of the M1/M1A/Mini trigger guard, being a small area, is particularly susceptible to underlying wood compression.  This compression of the underlying wood simply does not happen with syn stocks.  With modern bedding compounds (I use Brownell's Steel Bed), even wear and tear is greatly reduced. Modern bedding compounds are much superior to the ancient fiberglass resin used long ago.

The original Mini-14 came with a notoriously ill-fitting, loose wooden stock, no doubt part of the "legend" that early Minis are all very inaccurate.  Replacing the wooden stock with a tighter-fitting syn stock will certainly improve the Mini's accuracy vice the wooden stock, as long as there are no other fundamental issues.  Note that Ruger now offers most models of their much-improved modern Mini with syn stocks.   I don't believe that's a simple coincidence.

There is an old trick some M1/M1A shooters would/still use with rifles having wooden stocks that locked-up tightly.  The trick is to store the rifle with the trigger group unlatched.  This greatly reduced, over time, the compression of the wood in the trigger guard area, especially the very small area of wood at the rear of the trigger guard.

It is also well-worth mentioning that the locking lugs on the M1/M1A/Mini receiver, and the mating "ears" on the trigger guard almost never get any attention.  Both should be liberally greased.  If the receiver lugs become worn, this means either some expert-level welding/building-up of the lugs, or some expert-level bedding, so that the action will be very slightly raised in the stock, and so the worn lugs will still allow a good "clamp".  Before doing this, try out a trigger guard with un-worn locking "legs".  A caliper, applied in the right spot, will show the difference between good and Unsat locking ears.  Also, try out some thin plastic shims attached to the areas where the trigger guard contacts the stock, especially the rearmost point.

The original M1 was intended to be a 2- to 4-MOA Battle rifle, given GI-Issued ammo.  I see nothing wrong with replacing the stock with a generally tighter-fitting one synthetic stock, and obtaining better accuracy instantly.  Not to mention saving your antique wooden stock from wear and tear.

I apologize for being long-worded, and perhaps a bit wandering.  This subject  of SHTF rifles is necessarily related to the stocks into which into which such rifles are installed, either originally, of afterwards.

Collectible firearms aside, I have come to believe that tight-fitting syn stocks offer accuracy and durability benefits compared to wooden, or even laminated-wood stocks.  YMMV.  I generally shoot my wooden-stocked rifles with good, handloaded ammo, and then try out syn stocks on them.  I have yet to find an out-of-the-box syn stock that didn't shoot as accurately as the New wooden one, and almost all out-of-the-box syn stocks were more accurate than their Older, worn wooden counterparts, not to mention more durable, and lighter.  In all cases within my personal experience, a bedded syn stock will be more accurate than even a tight-fitting wooden stock, and will stay accurate far longer than a bedded wooden stock.  Definitely more accurate than a loose-fitting wooden stock.

Now, I certainly don't claim to be an expert in this field.  No doubt there a whole lot of folks that can teach me many things.  OTOH, I think it reasonable to say that I am not entirely ignorant. We may differ, and respectfully discuss things.  That is good.  All of the above stated with respect, and no offense to anyone.

My 2 missing stock metal parts showed up and I put my new garand in the ramline stock. I like it seems to have some extra length of pull which I really like. Now to get a mount made and a reflex installed and she might sit in the deer stand this year. And if Fluffy's 6.5x55 build works out I might switch barrels too

I suggest the Ultimak M1 mount as being lower (that counts, a LOT) than the Amega ranges mount: http://ultimak.com/BuyM1Garand.htm

That's really the best way to add optics to the M1, because of the M1s' clip-loading system.  I have 2 M1s, with this rail, and other rifles with rails by the same mfr.  Just follow the simple instructions to the letter, and use some High-Temperature Loctite, and you will be fine.  Disclaimer: no financial interest.

The very critical reason for selecting the lowest possible rail mount is to allow the user to mount their optic as near as possible to the bore of the barrel, and so mimic the sighting plane of the iron sights when using the optics.  1/16" between the widest part of the scope, and one's rifle is about ideal.  Higher than that, one has to fuss with getting a good shooting cheek-weld on the stock.  What you want is an instant cheek weld, with a good sight picture, whether using iron sights or optics.  I cannot stress enough the benefits of the "natural", instinctive, cheek weld.  Makes all the difference in the world, and worth fussing-over.  BTDT.

I've used similar Ultimak mounts on a Mini-14, and on a 10-22.  No problems, just read the simple instructions, twice, and follow them to the letter.  Use High-Temp Loctite compound, available on the net.  by 'High-Temp" I mean a compound that will withstand high temps, but still be able to be dis-assembled by hand-tools.  Sort of an upgraded "Blue" Loctite.  NOT the Red Loctite, which requires serious heat for dis-assembly.

Sigh. This place costs me more money than both of my ex-wives put together.
Got a Ramline stock on the way for my Mini-G.

"Mini-G"?

I am going to try and make my own type of Hopco mount to replace the rear sight. And run a reflex type sight. It will not alter the rifle and the rear sight can be reinstalled at any time

Mini-G
Attached File

Not sure what you mean by a "Hopco" mount.  ETA: just searched it.  No comments on its' quality, but what will one do if the batt in the sight goes dead?  How about damage to the sight itself?  Certainly such a mount will eliminate the excellent OEM rear sight, and also require a cheek-riser to properly employ it.

Consider this:  With a low rail installed for my optics, I can very quickly remove the optic (10 seconds, tops) and then use the original, and excellent, M1 Iron sights.  I do not need a cheek-riser or anything attached to the stock to obtain a good natural cheek weld, useable for both very low-mounted optics, and the OEM iron sights.

May I suggest that you pause, for a moment, re-read my remarks, and re-consider?

Not my place to tell you what to do, but tried what you seem to propose doing, in the past, it was a serious mistake.  Please benefit from my mistakes.  YMMV, of course.

Very nice.

Love mine (it's a .308).

LOL!   ... No, not at all with any of that. LOL!

And you don't need to be Sherlock Holmes to figure out if that wuddle battery goes dead, you just swap it out for a fresh one. C'mon, even Larry Holmes  gets that. Easy-peasy.

Okay, here ya go, Chief. All ya need to know, nuthin' ya don't ... Live-n-learn:

Hopco M1 Garand mount for running a micro-RDS
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=er__eN-Xm_M

By the way, you DO realize that plastified Ramline stock is illegal to use on your M1 in official CMP John C. Garand matches (and similar so-called 'Vintage Rifle Matches'), right?

Thanks for the video.  Not thrilled at how the sight is struck by the ejected brass, but YMMV.

I've replaced a few batteries over the years, so I can figure that one out, I reckon.  The point being, what does one do if the rifle is needed while finding the battery, and replacing it?

FWIW, I have other M1s to shoot in "official" matches, if desired.  Aside from that, switching out the syn stock for a wooden one is pretty "Easy-Peasy", to use your phrase.

Oh, and BTW, the  RDS rig you are discussing is also illegal in the matches you mention.

I have one of the Ramline stocks.  They are ugly and cheap-looking, and absolutely offend the delicate sensibilities of the purists and "collectors"--and they work like fucking gang-busters.

There are two positive factors the Ramline brings to the table--one is weight, and the other is a complete and incongruous first-round repeatability.  I had a scout-scoped Garand with a Ramline stock.  I could take the action out of the stock, pack/conceal/transport it in a compact form, and at a moments notice, slap it back into the Ramline and have the rifle reliably shooting to zero the very first round. There was no "bedding in" or flyers or general flakiness involved.

I also have seen where someone epoxy-bedded a sling swivel stud/plate in the hollow fore-end of the Ramline stock, and was able to mount a bipod.

Yes--this all takes the Garand out of the mundane ruts of traditional sensibilities--but it also adds more capabilities to an already very capable warhorse.

I love my walnut stock, and would hate to see it get fucked up with rough usage.  The Ramline?  I'm fine treating it with a lack of respect.

I did make a couple mods to my stock.  I installed a USGI (m16) sling swivel in the rear with an allen head bolt, and I bedded the front ferrule with Brownells glass bedding.

I fear you are in serious danger from being burned at the stake for heresy.  FWIW, my experiences have been similar to yours.  I did not change-out the OEM rear stock swivel stud, because its' threads are fully-enclosed by a reinforcing rib within the buttstock.  It would take a great amount of force to tear out the OEM sling swivel stud.  YMMV, of course.

That's the problem; they've been discontinued.  However, I found this one on Ebay just now:  https://www.ebay.com/itm/Ramline-Syn-tech-M-1-Garand-Rifle-Stock-Set-Black-Injection-molded-Tactical-LQQK/223966221740?hash=item34256d55ac:g:OxcAAOSwxzleh2q9

ETA:  The item above finally sold for $137.50.

Back when they were still being made, the going price was about $65, IIRC.  As things stand nowadays, I doubt the price on these things will be going down soon.  As against that, it seems there was never a huge demand for them, so the price is rising, but slowly

I know nothing about the unit or seller, just saying they're out there.  The "triangle" of foam is normally inside the buttstock.  I always remove it, and stash spare parts/emergency cleaning kit/supplies/essential tools inside the stock.  YMMV.

Assuming the stock is structurally sound, and the interface between stock and barreled action has not been buggered up, then mere surface dents/scratches can easily be filled/sanded, and the stock painted/camo'ed.  These stocks are pretty hard to really mess-up.

After having watched the linked video several times, I think I understand the attraction of the optical sight, which replaces the excellent OEM rear sight.  The point is that the optical sight is faster to use at most ranges than the OEM peep sight, what with its' relatively small aperture.  It is also much more useable under low/no light conditions.

Unfortunately, using such an adaptor requires removing the excellent rear M1/M1A rear sight, and even then, not only does the new optics system require a cheek-riser to use properly, but the optic itself is frequently struck by ejected brass.  Battery replacement issues, and the fragility of any particular sight mounted in such a manner must also be considered.  The issue is not just simple battery replacement, but the point that while the optic is out of action for any reason, be it dead batt, or damage, one has NO other means for sighting the rifle accurately.  IOW, there is no sighting back-up for this system.

After having given this overall issue some consideration, I believe I have a possible solution.

For the sake of discussion, let's compare the replacement mount used in the link above to my alternative.  Forget any other optics/sights mounted on the rifle for the moment.

My proposal is to obtain a M1/M1A Rear sight aperture.  It looks like this: https://www.sarcoinc.com/m1-garand-rear-sight-aperture/  I'll have my gunsmith drill a hole in the OEM aperture, and tap it for common Lyman/williams threaded peep apertures.  They look like this: https://williamsgunsight.com/product/williams-twilight-aperture/  The "Twilight" aperture, with easy-to-pick-up bright brass ring, and in .150" inner diameter, is suggested as a starting point.

Generally, the threaded Garand rear sight aperture will be used during the daytime as a "Ghost" type rear sight, and so without any inserts.  During twilight hours, the "Twilight" aperture may be used--or not.  At night-time, a front sight with a Tritium insert will be used.  They look like this: https://stores.kensight.com/m1-garand-kensight-front-sight-trijicon-tritium-insert-stripe-night-sights/

The savvy user can (and should) paint the rear of such sights with neon-green, luminescent paint, which greatly aids in quick front sight pickup under all conditions of lighting.  The paint looks like this: http://www.brightsights.com/  I suggest the neon green colors, but YMMV.

The advantages this proposal has over the previously mentioned optics mount are many.  

1) The excellent Rear sights are retained, with full adjustability in elevation and windage.
2) No Batteries required.
3) Rear sight retains its' OEM protective "ears" and suffers no cartridge strikes.
4) Modified front sight is FAR more visible under ALL conditions.
5) The modified (MUCH) wider rear aperture sight is FAR more easily used under ALL conditions.
6) The ability of the threaded rear sight to accept easily-replaceable apertures of various inner aperture dimensions allows the user to tailor the aperture to   existing conditions/demands very quickly.
7) No cheek riser required.

There are some drawbacks, though.  This primarily involves the expense of obtaining the spare aperture, and drilling/tapping it, plus the expense of the apertures.  There is also the expense/effort of obtaining the Trit front sight, and painting it.  Some people will be able to do this themselves, others will need the assistance of a gunsmith.  That said, the gunsmith's services are fairly simple, and ought not be terribly expensive.  As against these expenses, there is the cost of the accessory mount and the optic to be considered.  I submit my proposal will prove much less expensive.

BTW, assuming a low-profile Scout rail, like the Ultimak http://ultimak.com/BuyM1Garand.htm is mounted on the Garand, along with a suitable optic, my proposed system allows for the possibility of the add-on optic to be removed and still having back-up iron sights that are an improvement over the OEM sights.

I would be willing to bet that if Garand Thumb had been able to try out my proposed system, he would certainly have found it a distinct improvement over the OEM sights, and possibly a useful alternative to the system he used in the link.  My system allows a FAR more visible front sight, and FAR easier-to-use rear sight, all the while retaining the time-proven virtues of both.  If an Ultimak Scout rail is mounted, then further optics options are available.

My rear apertures are currently at the gunsmith, and I'm painting the Trit front sights as I type.  Very delicate work; use the right applicator/brush from your local model/hobby shop.  Given the current circumstances, field trials will take some time.  Of course, such will be subjective in nature.  OTOH, it has been remarked by others that a "Ghost Ring" rear aperture, and a painted, highly-visible front sight do wonders on almost all rifles.  This was noted here: https://www.amazon.com/Testing-War-Weapons-Rifles-Machine/dp/0873649435.  If you don't have this book already, I suggest reading it.  Certainly one of my top 10 "tactical" firearms books.  YMMV.

Of course, all the above is my personal opinion, and is an untested proposal.  However, all the elements of the proposal have been demonstrated to work on similar firearms.  In fact, the close-range, "0-200" "Ghost Ring" rear sight is present on almost every AR with a GI-type rear sight.

Disclaimer:  No financial interest in any vendor/mfr mentioned above.

So, YMMV, and so forth.