Armory Sponsor
Posted: 3/4/2009 6:25:39 AM EDT
| Is any one manufacturer better/more desirable than another? |
|
Yes there are mfg's that are more desirable. For WWII guns Winchester will always command a premium over Springfield's. For Korean International Harvester or Harrington & Richards are more desirable than Springfield's as well. The only caveat is the sniper guns which were all made by Springfield Armory. |
|
Quoted:
Id really like a Springfield but sounds like they are not as popular. Thanks! Springfield produced the most M1s totalling around 4.2 million. I wanted the Springfield since there was a chance it would be a WW2 receiver, and I also like the classic Springfield Armory stamping on the heel. If you want a nice shooter with superb fit and finish then go with the H&R or late Springfield since they are all post war. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Id really like a Springfield but sounds like they are not as popular. Thanks! Springfield produced the most M1s totalling around 4.2 million. I wanted the Springfield since there was a chance it would be a WW2 receiver, and I also like the classic Springfield Armory stamping on the heel. If you want a nice shooter with superb fit and finish then go with the H&R or late Springfield since they are all post war. Same here..my Springer is a March '42 gun. Now with that said..my next one will be a Winnie or a Harvester..why a Harvester? My Dad worked there. |
|
The springfields are less money not because they are "not as popular" but because more of them were made.
One funny thing that kindof took the CMP folks aback was the popularity of the IBM M1 Carbine. It seems there are a lot of us gun nut geeks out there who thought having a firearm made by IBM would be cool. Don |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Id really like a Springfield but sounds like they are not as popular. Thanks! Here is the kicker. The "most popular" WWII Garands were of the lowest quality. using the term "lowest quality" when talking about garands in a misnomer. They were one of the finest rifles ever produced, no matter who the manufacturer was. They were durable, reliable, and very accurate under most all conditions. IMHO they were ALL top quality. It is one rifle I will never talk bad about. |
|
Quoted: I think he is referring to Winchester produced M1's as they had poor barrels that did not last very long.Quoted: Quoted: Id really like a Springfield but sounds like they are not as popular. Thanks! Here is the kicker. The "most popular" WWII Garands were of the lowest quality. using the term "lowest quality" when talking about garands in a misnomer. They were one of the finest rifles ever produced, no matter who the manufacturer was. They were durable, reliable, and very accurate under most all conditions. IMHO they were ALL top quality. It is one rifle I will never talk bad about. |
|
Well the points are pretty well covered.
-SA inc isn't the least desireable other than there is no pressure on finding one, they made the most of them. Pick your flavor prewar, WWII, or post war, they're not hard to find. Only thing hard to find is a pre WWII or WWII rifle in all original shape. -WRA rifles were a bit rough in final finish but they met military specification and were accepted by the Army. Even SA was less fussy during the war supposedly. -Post war rifles from HRA and SA are probably the nicest quality as far as fit and finish, well the big war was over. No offense to any Korean War vet, I'm just pointing out that we were in possession of a metric ass load of war materials already and there wasn't the production fever of WWII. Red fever maybe but not quite the same. -IHC were post war and not as nicely finished as HRA and SA but they were acceptable to the Army and had some great barrels from LMR as well as SA barrels. They're desireable because they're scarce. Apparently we sent a disproportionate number to our friends in Iran before things went ugly there. We'll probably never see those again here. |
Armory Sponsor