New Rock-Ola, picture heavy.

[aptech77]

Form everything I can tell, between the books I have read and the research I have done here and on a few other sights, this Rock-Ola looks good to me. I do however, seek the opinions from others here. Please take the time to let me know what you think. Thanks!

[aptech77]

[aptech77]

[aptech77]

[aptech77]

[aptech77]

[aptech77]

Im a bit concerned by all the silence. Should I be?

[Mike in NC]

My thoughts, like it or not. To me the barrel band looks like a repro. The "MR" stamping looks far to deep and crisp to me. The back lip of the band where it meets the handguard doesn't look like a Rock-Ola barrel band to me. The B/R hammer is not a Rock-Ola hammer. The flip sight looks like a repro to me (milling marks on the side of the base and the letter stampings). Seems like a very early 3-43 barrel for a 4.57 million Rock-Ola. The recoil plate screw is a Winchester. The bolt with "Rock-Ola" on right lug is too early for this receiver, would expect one with "Rock-Ola" on left lug. I would have to check one of my early Rock-Ola bolts, but the stamping on the right lug doesn't even look like a real Rock-Ola to me. The "I I" marking on the gas cylinder has me wondering, that doesn't seem right to me. Not sure about the early Rock-Ola barrels, but I was pretty sure at least the later ones have "Rock-Ola" stamped on the side of the gas cylinder. I will have to look but I think the milled front sight might be too early for this rifle, I think it should be stamped Rock-Ola front sight by this time. I am not sure if the mag catch is real or not. Sorry to be negative, but too many parts look like repro and too many parts not from the right era of production.

[aptech77]

I guess my questions or concerns would be if the parts aren't time frame correct, are they at least actual authentic rockola made parts and not reproduction. Sounds like there might be some issues with both.

[Tuna]

The serial number dates to about February 1944. The barrel if it is a Rock-Ola barrel is far too early for it but the gas cylinder is marked for Inland. The front sight may go along with a barrel dated as this one is but too early for the serial number but again I wonder about the barrel. The hammer as pointed out by Mike is not correct. I'm pretty sure the trigger housing should be a type 4 for the serial number. The barrel band I think is suspect. I agree with Mike in that I think it's a repo. The bolt is correct as it was used marked on the right to almost the end of the second block of serial numbers. Some bolts can be found in the later part of the second block with Rock-Ola on the left side lug. The rear sight well if it's real it's in the wrong serial number block. Those marked as yours were used in the first, with some used in the third and fourth serial blocks of numbers but not the second block. While you do have some Rock-Ola parts that are right you do have a lot that are not right or are fakes. If your able to send it back and get a refund I think that is what I would do.

[BrianQ]

The 3-43 Rock-Ola barrel is correct with an Inland gas cylinder.

[cplnorton]

You know I repark guns a lot and to me it looks like it was reparked and quite recently as well.

Maybe it's the pics, or I'm just flat wrong. But it looks like it was just refinished to me.

[wtmr]

Number font

Look at number font. Then compare it to another 3-43 rockola barrel. Also see if reduced barrel size diameter in front of front sight. To me it has several repro parts. The repro guys are getting good. We are educating them.

[aptech77]

Let me first apologize and clear some confusion. This rifle was advertised and having been “corrected” with Rock-Ola parts. Maybe not time frame “correct”, but my bigger concern is that the parts are in fact real Rock-Ola and not repo. The barrel band was the part I was most unsure about, but not having another to compare it to I was giving the benefit of…. all the other parts looked ok for the most part to me. I know there is some questions on the hammer, but another site I was using says a double boxed B/R hammer IS a correct type3 Rock-Ola hammer. ????
These days it has been hard for me to even find a Rock-Ola in any kind of condition worth buying. Even average condition mix master are going for $2k. This one’s a bit more than that, but it seemed like a good start on a Rock-Ola for me. Dare I ask about the stock originality? Given all the bad and a little bit of good, is this even worth starting out withthis one? I know it’s ultimately my decision, but I now have mixed feelings, and I’m a bit bummed. My window to backing out is closing, if not already closed. I might have a fighting chance at saving my ass on it if I can get a true value of it. So I ask……..??
Thanks again for all the help. It’s a learning process that sometimes can sting. It’s a damn shame there are people out there that are dishonest. Maybe with what I learn, I can help others if not myself.

[BrianQ]

The boxed B/R and circled B/R hammers are not Rock-Ola hammers. They are replacements made by Bruner-Ritter. With the amount of repro part and the refinish the value as a "corrected" carbine is a fraction of the figure you posted.