Firearm & Gun Forum - FireArmsTalk.com

Firearm & Gun Forum - FireArmsTalk.com (http://www.firearmstalk.com/forums/)
-   General Rifle Discussion (http://www.firearmstalk.com/forums/f18/)
-   -   What Does a Restored Garand Look Like? VIDEO (http://www.firearmstalk.com/forums/f18/what-does-restored-garand-look-like-video-79854/)

Amsdorf 12-31-2012 12:24 AM

What Does a Restored Garand Look Like? VIDEO
 
I read various discussions about the pros/cons of restoring a WWII era M1 Garand. Some believe it to be a terrible thing to do, in any way, to "improve" upon what the rifle is, since the story of the rifle comes with the way it has come down to us. Others either could care less about the "down side" of restoring, or don't like to do it only because the chances of recovering what you put into the restoration will probably never be returned to the person who paid for it. Still others want a beautiful restoration of the rifle that won WWII in the hands of our brave troops. I count myself in this group on the question of restoration.

In the midst of this, many don't ever get a chance to see a restored Garand, so I thought I would put this video together of the Garand I had restored. The video link is below.

This was my first M1 Garand I purchased, intentionally buying it for the purpose of restoring it. I wanted a WWII era Garand, both receiver and barrel. I found this one and bought it. It had a simply dreadful 50s era stock that was put on it.

of the Garand I had restored by Dean's Gun Restorations.

Chainfire 12-31-2012 01:15 AM

Restoring and collection value don't go together. If you want a pretty gun, the restoration is the way to go, as long as it is done professionally. If you want a collectable gun, and you start with a collectable gun, you can't improve on it with changes.

That is one reason you see collectors, turning their heads and spitting when you mention a Mitchells Mauser. They are pretty, but not historically correct or collectable.

Amsdorf 12-31-2012 12:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chainfire (Post 1072709)
Restoring and collection value don't go together. If you want a pretty gun, the restoration is the way to go, as long as it is done professionally. If you want a collectable gun, and you start with a collectable gun, you can't improve on it with changes.

That is one reason you see collectors, turning their heads and spitting when you mention a Mitchells Mauser. They are pretty, but not historically correct or collectable.

I've reached the point with my Garand purchases where I simply shake my head and chuckle at the heated arguments you can read amongst collectors. And to give you an example, here you go. Comparing Mitchell Mausers to ANYTHING any person with half a brain does, or does not, do to their Garand is offensive, sir. Mitchells Mauswers flat out lies about what they are selling and to my knowledge, I hope, has not moved into Garand desecration.

: )

Of course, nobody actually knows for 100% certainty that any Garand they purchase has its "original" parts on it, or parts restored by the Armory, etc. Because of the numerous parts available and complete interchangeability of parts, any Garand may, or may not, have already had parts swapped, replaced, etc. long after it left military service.

I purchased several Garands from a gent, CMP "Collector" grades from a gent who was moving into the "big league" of Garand collecting, obtaining original WWII era Garands STILL IN FACTORY packaging.

So, you see, it's all a matter of degree when it comes to these things.

Orlando 01-01-2013 01:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amsdorf (Post 1073241)
: )

Of course, nobody actually knows for 100% certainty that any Garand they purchase has its "original" parts on it, or parts restored by the Armory, etc.

Garands were not restored by military armorers but rebuilt with updated parts

Throwing on a park job and commercial stock isnt what I consider a restoration

JonM 01-01-2013 02:00 PM

Nothing wrong with taking one that has most of its finish gone some damage here and there missing parts or whatever and restoring it to like new condition.

Taking an obvious collector grade sample and having it refinished or drilled for a redfield scope is what sets people off.

TexasGunner 01-01-2013 02:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amsdorf (Post 1072641)
I read various discussions about the pros/cons of restoring a WWII era M1 Garand. Some believe it to be a terrible thing to do, in any way, to "improve" upon what the rifle is, since the story of the rifle comes with the way it has come down to us. Others either could care less about the "down side" of restoring, or don't like to do it only because the chances of recovering what you put into the restoration will probably never be returned to the person who paid for it. Still others want a beautiful restoration of the rifle that won WWII in the hands of our brave troops. I count myself in this group on the question of restoration.

In the midst of this, many don't ever get a chance to see a restored Garand, so I thought I would put this video together of the Garand I had restored. The video link is below.

This was my first M1 Garand I purchased, intentionally buying it for the purpose of restoring it. I wanted a WWII era Garand, both receiver and barrel. I found this one and bought it. It had a simply dreadful 50s era stock that was put on it.

Video Link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=izFV1BpvneI of the Garand I had restored by Dean's Gun Restorations.

That is a beautiful gun! I'd love to get my hands on a restored Garand like that. Well done.


All times are GMT. The time now is 07:53 AM.

Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.