Experimental M3, two consecutive SN guns on GB!

[Rekraps]

https://www.gunbroker.com/item/1006800315

 

If only I had the cash!

[StrangeRanger]

Ono of our board M3 experts says that they're not quite what you think.  I'll let him lay it out in detail but in the meantime a huge caveat emptor applies

Edited September 19, 2023 by StrangeRanger

[Rekraps]

1 hour ago, StrangeRanger said:

Ono of our board M3 experts says that they're not quite what you think.  I'll let him lay it out in detail but in the meantime a huge caveat emptor applies

Thanks for the head's up! Let's hear it!

[Got Uzi]

I was alerted to these being listed on GB a week or so ago and made some points to a few potental buyers who contacted me about them and their possible "providence" so here is my assessment:

These are NOT so called "experimental" or "early factory test guns" due to what parts they have on them...lets take a tour of the pair shall we?

 

First off-note the rear sight has side reenforcing webs?  The early M3 guns had an "L" shape bent piece of sheet metal and the second variation rear sight is the one commonly seen on later style M3's and all the M3A1's.  If these were in fact "early test guns" they would NOT have these rear sights.  To stop the argument that "well they could have been switched out" I highly doubt it as those are original welds and no one would have wanted to have redone a rear sight due to the issues with welding the guns together in the first place.

 

Second point-note that one gun has the correct M3 barrel ratchet/lock while the other has the later M3A1 type barrel ratchet/lock.  Those units did not come out until the production of the M3A1, so again, if these were "early test guns" that piece shouldn't be on the gun.  

 

Note that both receivers are missing the word "Lamp" on the magwell where it should say "Guide Lamp"  Also note how the X25 and X26 were struck without a good bucking bar to avoid caving in the magwell?  Not something that would have been normal with "early" or "experimental" guns.  

 

I would love to see the markings on the internal parts as I will bet they are later pattern Buffalo Bolts and SA sears.  My personal opinion, and yes I have seen/studied the M3's for a long time, is that these guns were lunch bucket specials that were in the scrap hopper and walked out the door then someone amnesty registered them in 1968.  Too many red flags in my mind to support the claim that these were "early examples" or "factory test guns" 

[Rekraps]

16 hours ago, Got Uzi said:

I was alerted to these being listed on GB a week or so ago and made some points to a few potental buyers who contacted me about them and their possible "providence" so here is my assessment:

These are NOT so called "experimental" or "early factory test guns" due to what parts they have on them...lets take a tour of the pair shall we?

 

First off-note the rear sight has side reenforcing webs?  The early M3 guns had an "L" shape bent piece of sheet metal and the second variation rear sight is the one commonly seen on later style M3's and all the M3A1's.  If these were in fact "early test guns" they would NOT have these rear sights.  To stop the argument that "well they could have been switched out" I highly doubt it as those are original welds and no one would have wanted to have redone a rear sight due to the issues with welding the guns together in the first place.

 

Second point-note that one gun has the correct M3 barrel ratchet/lock while the other has the later M3A1 type barrel ratchet/lock.  Those units did not come out until the production of the M3A1, so again, if these were "early test guns" that piece shouldn't be on the gun.  

 

Note that both receivers are missing the word "Lamp" on the magwell where it should say "Guide Lamp"  Also note how the X25 and X26 were struck without a good bucking bar to avoid caving in the magwell?  Not something that would have been normal with "early" or "experimental" guns.  

 

I would love to see the markings on the internal parts as I will bet they are later pattern Buffalo Bolts and SA sears.  My personal opinion, and yes I have seen/studied the M3's for a long time, is that these guns were lunch bucket specials that were in the scrap hopper and walked out the door then someone amnesty registered them in 1968.  Too many red flags in my mind to support the claim that these were "early examples" or "factory test guns" 

Magnificent! I was about to say the same thing! Ha.

Excellent evaluation. Glad I posted and perhaps we've saved someone some hard earned $$$$

[Got Uzi]

I doubt it. Someone will buy them based on the story and not check them out then cry the blues when they realize they over spent.
 

People want to feel special and think they have the only one there is, then when that opportunity arrives, they will do whatever they can for bragging rights. Seen it too many times. 

[P.W.Browning]

First, let me state I completely agree… these are not early experimental guns.

 

I do want to say that I have never seen “Guide Lamp” spelled out on an M3 receiver, only ever “Guide.”

 

Is this something I have missed in my research?  Was it only on very early M3’s?  Any additional context would be appreciated.

 

Thanks!

[Rekraps]

On 9/20/2023 at 9:27 AM, Got Uzi said:

I doubt it. Someone will buy them based on the story and not check them out then cry the blues when they realize they over spent.
 

People want to feel special and think they have the only one there is, then when that opportunity arrives, they will do whatever they can for bragging rights. Seen it too many times. 

This sir, is why you are the king of M3 IMO's! Love it.

For others, there are people on this forum who know a little, and other who know a lot. Mostly experience (I call it wisdom) but worth listening to. Next to me, these guys are soooooooo smart! :)

[yohuang]

With the information in this thread, I can see the modified rear sight, missing "lamp" word on the magazine well, and add-on serial number. But regrading the barrel ratchet/lock, both look being normal M3 style (not M3A1) on pictures... What did I miss?

 

Edited October 4, 2023 by yohuang

[inertord]

I don’t believe that any M3 had “Lamp” in the nomenclature markings , just “Guide” in cursive script. Can someone post an example of M3 “Guide Lamp” Markings???

[yohuang]

19 hours ago, inertord said:

I don’t believe that any M3 had “Lamp” in the nomenclature markings , just “Guide” in cursive script. Can someone post an example of M3 “Guide Lamp” Markings???

I just looked up. It is Guide in curved writting no Lamp.

For example, s/n HX (claimed being experimental too)

http://auctions.morphyauctions.com/_n__high_original_condition_scarce_early_experimen-lot452725.aspx

 

And s/n 076894 , a regular production gun:

http://auctions.morphyauctions.com/_n__highly_collectible_u_s__guide_lamp_m3__grease_-lot448828.aspx

 

[yohuang]

The pair of guns on gunbroker.com look being refurbished. They might be refinished after the rear sights being modified.

[yohuang]

I looked at those Morphy pictures again.. please note s/n HX was stamped after the gun had been finished. The s/n 076894 on the regular production gun had been applied before the gun was finished.

I use those two for studying because both of those Morphy samples look being original to me. 

The s/n on gunbroker samples, X25 and X26 also give viewers an added-on look and feel. That is similar to the above mentioned HX, but the stampings are more coarse.

Edited October 6, 2023 by yohuang

[Rekraps]

So, what's the consensus?

[Blanksguy]

My impression is that they walked home at end-of-shift from factory before serial-numbering and inspection/acceptance.............more "accountability" after serial-numbers applied. Later, the new serial-numbering added.

FOIA would show dates registered and possible give us a better understanding of where these came from and speculation on how (?). 

As for value (?).......I would guess somewhere about the low end of the M3 line......unless better information on where and how these came onto the NFATR (?).

 

Edited October 10, 2023 by Blanksguy

[yohuang]

These two are OK items. The modified rear sights is common among this type of gun. $80k is high probably due to the seller thinks "consecutive numbers" being a big deal. Probably can sell them by cutting $10k off.

[Rekraps]

On 10/10/2023 at 4:31 PM, Blanksguy said:

My impression is that they walked home at end-of-shift from factory before serial-numbering and inspection/acceptance.............more "accountability" after serial-numbers applied. Later, the new serial-numbering added.

FOIA would show dates registered and possible give us a better understanding of where these came from and speculation on how (?). 

As for value (?).......I would guess somewhere about the low end of the M3 line......unless better information on where and how these came onto the NFATR (?).

 

I agree, with dubious provenance, the odd markings do not add any value, at least for me. 

[Blanksguy]

Yohuang,

I looked through the TM 9-1005-229-35, dated September 1969......and the rear-sight is not listed as an available part. It is only listed as being part of the "Housing" (Receiver). My question now would be where would the person who changed these rear sights get the parts for the conversion as a new-rear-sight (?).

I go back to my earlier posting of these probable walking home at the end of a "shift" ....... or possible being found/made up after production was halted  after the War ended (?).

[John in IN]

I would say that based on the location of the Guide stamping that these are not early produced guns at all. From the ones I've seen over the years, M3's under serial #100,000 have the Guide logo stamped low on the mag well. For some reason they made a change somewhere around the 100,000 area and moved the Guide logo up higher, partially covered by the magazine release. These have the higher stamped logos indicating later production.

John

Edited November 4, 2023 by John in IN

[TSMGguy]

M3s X25, X26, and HX have no US Army Ordnance Department crossed cannon inspection/acceptance stamps, lending credence to the "lunch box" theory.

Edited November 9, 2023 by TSMGguy

[Rekraps]

On 11/9/2023 at 10:09 AM, TSMGguy said:

M3s X25, X26, and HX have no US Army Ordnance Department crossed cannon inspection/acceptance stamps, lending credence to the "lunch box" theory.

Yes, quite the mystery. 

[Rekraps]

Anybody know if these sold?

[texasguns67]

He split them up. One is listed on GB right now for $37k

[Rekraps]

1 hour ago, texasguns67 said:

He split them up. One is listed on GB right now for $37k

Thanks!

[Rekraps]

One just popped up again on GB. Still listed as "experimental"...... bad poop as we say in the Army.