People are usually concerned about how their vintage firearms are going to be refinished, and rightly so.

Parkerizing is a simple phosphate coating first developed in the 1920's. The most common coatings are either Zinc or Manganese Phosphate. Manganese-Phosphate was the first Parkerizing solution, and is considered superior to Zinc. However, it was recognized before WWII that our supply of Manganese was obtained from overseas, and could not be guaranteed in time of war. So, the Parker Coatings Company was asked to develop another solution just in case. The result was Zinc Phosphate, and most WWII guns were coated with Zinc. However after the war, the military returned to Manganese Phosphate as standard. Zinc Phosphate is basically "light gray", and Manganese Phosphate is "dark gray", however there are huge variations in color, which can change even MORE over the years...so "correct" parkerizing colors are all over the board.

Here is an orignal M-1 receiver after cleaning, but before stripping.


I strip old parkerizing using careful bead-blasting. This does not remove any metal (contrary to popular belief). It only strips away the phosphate crystals on the surface of the metal. When I am done, even the tiniest machine marks and forging marks are still intact. Here is the SAME receiver as above after removal of old parkerizing.


I can then proceed to re-coating the metal with new parkerizing. I use only Mil-spec solutions...both Zinc and Manganese. This receiver is done in Zinc and has a distinctive "two-tone" appearance due to it's lead-dipped heel. Some M-1 receivers had their heels dipped in lead to soften the metal to prevent cracking due to firing rifle grenades. The softer metal parkerizes DARKER than the harder metal, thus the two-tone appearance. Not all M-1 receivers got this treatment, so it's a semi-rare occurance to find a lead-dipped-heel receiver.

Here's the finished M-1 receiver...again, the same receiver as seen in the pics above.


Correctly done, the appearance is absolutely like new in every way. I have even compared the crystal structure of my phosphate coatings to known-original USGI parts under a stereo microscope, and they are identical...so I know I've got my process down pat. It's not rocket science but it's not a piece of cake to get 100% right either. However the results are well worth the effort.

Nice work Glenn. Can't wait until you do my Dec '42 M1.

Thanks!! I can't wait to take on the 1942 myself. It'll be a great restoration for sure.

that things beautiful!!

i planning on FINALLY getting a garand from the cmp later this year. cant really afford to spring for the "good" ones, doubt it will look near as nice as that!!

(looking at the $500 ones)

A CMP M-1 is the best deal going. There's nothing wrong with getting a "Rack Grade" one either. Your barrel will be well-used but still serviceable. Buy the rifle now, enjoy it for a couple years and build it up as you go.

My advice for a rack grade...done in stages as your wallet decides when is right:

1. Buy it, detail-strip, clean it, inspect it, lube it, and replace the op-rod spring as a matter of course. (I've had several broken op-rod springs as-delivered from the CMP. This shortens the op-rod spring, and allows the bolt to REALLY BATTER the hell out of the heel of the receiver!!)

2. Simple refinishing projects like cleaning and re-oiling the stock help give the old girl some sparkle for awhile.

3. When you're ready, have a new barrel put on and a stock set properly fitted. Reparkerizing at this time makes sense too if you want it.

Also, don't forget to read up on M-1 maintenance. Grease points are especially important on the M-1.

Of course, once your M-1 is up and running...find the nearest Service Rifle match and experience some REAL marksmanship fun.

"servicable bbl" that was the reason i want to get the $500 instead of the $400. im not worried about doing woodwork on the stock, or even a little smithing to the other parts, but the $400 one states that the bbl will be out of spec, the $500 one will be worn, but within spec.

is it terribly difficult to change the bbl on these??

are new bbls easy to find??

ive rebarrled mauser actions, ak's, and fal's, so im not total ignorant in the matter, but i dont want to bite off more than i can chew.

Well...since I'm working on starting a business doing exactly that, I'm not going to give away too many secrets!

However, the M-1 barrels are a pretty straightforward swap...with one or two caveats.

1. NEW barrels are available from Brownell's, Midway, etc. Wilson, Citadel, Criterion, and Krieger ($) all make new M-1 barrels. Honestly, they are all excellent barrels. The problem (sic) is that they are short-chambered, so you will need to buy a finish reamer, extension handle, and headspace gauge set. The finish reamer alone is $190, and a go & no-go gauge set will set you back another $75. You've already spent $80 more than the cost of the barrel and you haven't even bought the barrel yet!! Short-chambering is a blessing if you have the tools because you can cut the chamber to PERFECT headspace, but if you don't have the tools it becomes an expensive roadblock.

2. If you're only doing the one rifle, just send it off and have the barrel changed out. Really...it's much easier and cheaper. It would take you about 3 or 4 rifles to reach the break-even point with your investment in tools.

3. Spending the extra $100 to get a barrel with a good service life on it from the CMP seems like pennies on the dollar, huh? That's what I'd advise doing if you want to buy an M-1 and be able to use it straight away and not have a restoration project on your hands.

i should be good to go then, have the 06 reamer and gauges from a mauser build.

not that im too eager to get too it though, im sure the bbl it comes with will shoot better than i for quite some time

thanks for the info!!

If you've got a .30-06 reamer you're 75% of the way there. You'll need a proper M-1 receiver wrench and barrel vise. The M-1 (and M-14) have stepped barrels near the receiver so the barrel vise needs to have the right dimensions.

Sounds like you know what you're doing though.

Hi Glen,

Great work. What do you use to finish the gas cylinder and lock? Any Pics? I've built a M1 mixmaster off a 1942 receiver. It's a mix of black, gray, and green parkerizing. I'm thinking of getting it refinished, but don't like the idea of baked enamel on my stainless parts. What's your thought's.

Thanks,
Chris

Chris,
Yes, I completely agree with you. Right now I am using Brownell's Matte Black Aluma-Hyde II for gas cylinder refinishing. It's a very durable epoxy paint, and works great...especially when baked on at low heat. However it does look like it was "painted". Really what gives it away is that it looks "too black" in my opinion. Go to my post called "Chris' M-1" and you'll see a painted gas cylinder.

The next step...which I have to invest in...is to get the chemicals necessary to do black oxide coatings on stainless steel. That's what the originals were, and it looks different than painted metal. I've got to do a little more research, and I have to scrounge some money together, but I should be able to do black oxide coatings in a few months.

However, keep in mind that the original black oxide coating done through WWII wasn't very durable at all. That's why when you look at WWII films, the gas cylinders were invariably silver. The Army Ordnance Manual specifically gave instructions for lower-level repair depots to paint the gas cylinders with black enamel...to be sprayed or brushed on, and then baked in an oven. So painting your gas cylinder is not "incorrect" by any means. Springfield Armory went through a long series of different coatings to try to get it right. The gas cylinders from the 1950's are the best in my opinion. They had it all figured out by then.

I have seen CMP rack and field grade M1's slopped with black paint. I figured it was something done in the field. On you buddy's rifle the heal of the receiver is really dark grey due to the lead dipping. Is their a way to get that dark grey throughout the whole finish? It would probably match up really nice with the black oxide gas cylinder, lock, and sight.

As soon as I get my old cigar together, I'll post some pics. Pulled her apart to replace a "no go" op rod. She ain't pretty, but she can shoot.

Thanks for the replies, I just found this forum, its as I tell my friends at work: You meet the nicest people shooting!

Chris

Trying to get the exact parkerizing color you want is a little trickier than you would think. Metal hardness has a lot to do with it. So does your park solution. When I first started doing this, I had a solution that I was REAL happy with. Nice dark gray color and it even made lots of sparkley crystals just barely visible to the naked eye. It was a thing of beauty. However, that supplier has since gone out of business, but won't answer any questions about his formula. (I think he might want to have another try in the future).

Anyway...now I use the park formula from "The BIG guys" (Brownell's), and it seems to produce a lighter and smoother color. I've been playing amateur chemist and trying to drift the formula in the direction I want, but it's not easy. I've even gone so far as dig up the original Parker Coatings patent, and am thinking about brewing my own based on the original formula. It seems NOTHING about this line of work is easy...trust me on that. Behind every success I have is a lot of hard work and headaches. When you get it right though....it's worth it!

Now...keep in mind there are TWO basic kinds of parkerizing....Zinc Phospahate and Manganese Phosphate. Manganese Phosphate tends to make a darker, almost-black color. You might want to go with that...it seems to be the more popular of the two kinds anyway. I like the Zinc though.

Also, I completely agree with you in that you DO meet the nicest people shooting. Just did so today in fact.

Trying to get the exact parkerizing color you want is a little trickier than you would think. Metal hardness has a lot to do with it. So does your park solution. When I first started doing this, I had a solution that I was REAL happy with. Nice dark gray color and it even made lots of sparkley crystals just barely visible to the naked eye. It was a thing of beauty. However, that supplier has since gone out of business, but won't answer any questions about his formula. (I think he might want to have another try in the future).

Anyway...now I use the park formula from "The BIG guys" (Brownell's), and it seems to produce a lighter and smoother color. I've been playing amateur chemist and trying to drift the formula in the direction I want, but it's not easy. I've even gone so far as dig up the original Parker Coatings patent, and am thinking about brewing my own based on the original formula. It seems NOTHING about this line of work is easy...trust me on that. Behind every success I have is a lot of hard work and headaches. When you get it right though....it's worth it!

Now...keep in mind there are TWO basic kinds of parkerizing....Zinc Phospahate and Manganese Phosphate. Manganese Phosphate tends to make a darker, almost-black color. You might want to go with that...it seems to be the more popular of the two kinds anyway. I like the Zinc though.

Also, I completely agree with you in that you DO meet the nicest people shooting. Just did so today in fact.

Well keep up the mad scientist routine and get that zinc park formula knocked-out. I prefer zinc too.