Is this an original WRA cartouche stamp?

[cplnorton]

I am helping a friend on another forum and he bought this carbine. On the stock is a cartouche that I'm not sure is legit. I would like your guys opinions.

It's a 5.6 million WRA and this is the cartouche. What do you guys think? Legit or no?

http://i621.photobucket.com/albums/tt293/cplnorton2/M1cartouche1FLASH_zps721a5e19.jpg

[jimb]

Doesn't look quite right to me.

[boykin]

My 5.6 has the WRA mark also. My 5.8 looks just like the one you have. Looks ligit to me.

[boykin]

If everything else checks out and you are afraid it ain't "right" what is he asking?

[Bill99]

Looks a little too " new" in my opinion.

[Tuna]

It's a real Winchester stamp.

[Mike D]

It's a real Winchester stamp.

Stamped on top of power sander marks, and you think it is legit??

Why not look at all the photos? http://www.usmilitariaforum.com/forums/index.php?/topic/186566-came-early-in-the-mail-my-winchester-m1-carbine-opinions-please/

How 'bout the rear sight?

"Put-together", I say.

Mike

[boykin]

Again, my 5.6 and 5.8 are basically unissued and my stamps look just kike that. Tuna is right.

[Johnny in Texas]

Looks like there was some sanding done over the cartouche and may be the reason the bottom is missing

[BrianQ]

It was probably sanded after the fact to hide some of the mistakes on the fake stamp.

[Tuna]

Your right I never noticed the sander marks on it. Man I need new glasses.

[Mike D]

Would there also be an inspector stamp along with the crossed cannons?

Should the "P" on the wrist be in a circle?

Thanks for all the info guys!

Mike

[Tuna]

When Winchester started using the type 3 stock about March 1944 they went to just the crossed cannon acceptance stamp with no initials on it. The proof P in a circle on the base of the grip was dropped in 1943. The P on the grip means that the stock was on a carbine that was reproofed most often during a rebuild.

[TSimonetti]

My observations as a hypothetical buyer would be:

1.It may have been sanded more than once. And steamed too.

2.The front band area looks worked on, like the wood was sanded and then grease smeared on it. The top of the ferrule has no open grain structure, like it was also sanded smooth to hide type2/3 band depression.

3.The proof "P" points to restoration

4.There appears to be a light type3 band shadow on the barrel

5. The bolt looks parkerized

6. Someone above implied that the rear sight is problematic. Perhaps he can expand on that.

Looks like a decent restoration, but I would not buy it if it was offered as an original.

[jimb]

Tuna, the marking doesn't match the drawings in War Baby, but does match some of the ones in Harrison's book. Please note that there are two different Winchester Ord. stamps shown in Harrison's. Look in particular at the trunnions and the large belling at the cannon breech. I don't believe it is real.

[tanker trash]

I dont think they used orbital sanders in WW2