Added another .22 Trainer: USMC Reising 65

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

  • No ad networks!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • mawkie

    C&R Whisperer
    Sep 28, 2007
    4,353
    Catonsville
    -The search for .22 trainers seemingly never ends. This time I added another US trainer to the collection. It's a WWII H&R Reising Model 65 trainer built for the USMC. There's some debate over the total number built for the Marine Corps but it seems at least 6,000 for sure. SN for this one is in the low five thousands so it's safely in the range for USMC issue.
    -After the war H&R made some changes to the design and the new Model 165 Leatherneck was born and sold in the commercial market for a few years. By all accounts they're good shooters. The commercial Leathernecks must have had rough time of it competing against much slicker designs like the Winchester 52 and 75, Remington 37 and Stevens 416. Probably why production lasted for just 7 years for the 165/150/151 commercial models.
    -Come the late 50s and the release of the M14 rifle and the Marine Corps contracted H&R for another batch but with the safety located in the same place as the M14; the trigger guard. Designated MC-58, about 3,500 were built. Unlike the Model 65 these were USMC Property marked.
    -This example is a bit worn but still in decent condition. She's seen range time! The only downside is the pair of scope grooves machined into the receiver. Must have been done some years ago as they look factory and were totally overlooked by me. Live and learn!
    -Designed by Eugene Reising, designer of the Reising Model 50 sub machine gun, it was built to approximate the heft and feel of a M1 Garand and comes in just under 9 lbs. The rear sight is a Redfield target registered for a max 50 yrds. Front sight has protective ears just like a Garand. She cocks by way of an action bar accessed through a slot in the bottom of the stock. There's a hole drilled in the bolt body (you can just see it in the last photo, near the edge of the ejection slot) that the bolt hold-open engages. Safety is a simple lever mounted on the right side of the receiver. Finish is parkerizing, worn rather thin in my case.
     

    Attachments

    • IMGP8376.JPG
      IMGP8376.JPG
      22.5 KB · Views: 1,178
    • IMGP8377.JPG
      IMGP8377.JPG
      20.4 KB · Views: 1,094
    • IMGP8378.JPG
      IMGP8378.JPG
      56 KB · Views: 1,174
    • IMGP8379.JPG
      IMGP8379.JPG
      39.7 KB · Views: 1,104
    • IMGP8380.JPG
      IMGP8380.JPG
      43.5 KB · Views: 1,100
    • IMGP8381.JPG
      IMGP8381.JPG
      53 KB · Views: 1,121
    • IMGP8382.JPG
      IMGP8382.JPG
      47.5 KB · Views: 1,107
    • IMGP8383.JPG
      IMGP8383.JPG
      47.7 KB · Views: 1,121
    • IMGP8384.JPG
      IMGP8384.JPG
      31.9 KB · Views: 1,096
    • IMGP8385.JPG
      IMGP8385.JPG
      34.6 KB · Views: 1,100
    Jul 1, 2012
    5,730
    The 65 and MC58 used a steel butt-plate. The 155 and 165 used a plastic/hard-rubber butt plate.
    It's a neat rifle, a lot heavier than you might think from looking at it.

    Most of the M-65's are parkerized, all of the USMC-contract rifles were' park'd as far as I know. The letter below (from David Albert at http://www.sturmgewehr.com/dalbert/Reising/M65Letter_Web.JPG) is talking about the 165 I believe, although it was ultimately called the Leatherneck and not "Sporter". Note the second paragraph... There's a couple of good discussions about these, one of the most thorough is:
    http://forums.gunboards.com/showthr...mp-R-MC-58-Model-65-Modified-(USMC-22-Trainer)
    It starts out all MC58 but quickly grows to cover M-65, 165 etc.

    As far as I know none of these had factory scope grooves, they were intended for iron-sight training only.
    Usually you see them with holes tapped in the left side of the receiver for a scope mount like this (M-165):
     

    Attachments

    • 3s.JPG
      3s.JPG
      60.8 KB · Views: 1,140
    • H-R Letter.jpg
      H-R Letter.jpg
      116.2 KB · Views: 1,076

    mawkie

    C&R Whisperer
    Sep 28, 2007
    4,353
    Catonsville
    Steel buttplate. It's parkerized with the finish well worn to a brownish tint. Only commercial .22 Reisings were blued.
     
    Jul 1, 2012
    5,730
    Even the "commercial" M-65's (e.g S/N's > 6500 up to 18000 or so) were park'd for the most part (based on the third paragraph in letter above).
    I'd venture to say that most of the blued/polished guns were refinished post-war.

    Something to hunt down:
    "the H&R 65 has a write up in the Garand Collector's Journal for fall of 2015" written by David Albert.
     

    mawkie

    C&R Whisperer
    Sep 28, 2007
    4,353
    Catonsville
    Thanks my friend for the letter. Had been hoovering up any and everything I could find on the 'net about the 65 when deciding to bid on this one. Hadn't seen this before, does clarify some things.
    Sucks about the scope grooves (these didn't show in the auction photos, a risk one takes and sometimes gets burned on). But it went so very cheap that I'm not concerned. Had I paid the typical $700-900 for one of these then you'd see steam coming from my ears. Funny thing is that I can't ever remember seeing a Model 65 live at a show or in a shop. Have run across the odd 165 Leatherneck but even these don't exactly pop up much.
     

    Doco Overboard

    Ultimate Member
    Even with the machine work done and all the different features associated with the martial and civilian models it's still nice.
    Beats the hell out of a cmmg 22 kit for an AR or a ruger dressed like a a carbine.
    I read somewhere that civ models were called the general and some were built from NOS parts.
     

    mawkie

    C&R Whisperer
    Sep 28, 2007
    4,353
    Catonsville
    Even with the machine work done and all the different features associated with the martial and civilian models it's still nice.
    Beats the hell out of a cmmg 22 kit for an AR or a ruger dressed like a a carbine.
    I read somewhere that civ models were called the general and some were built from NOS parts.

    Yup, H&R used parked parts from the USMC contract and added a more sporting stock initially and called it the General. Eventually went to blued finish but it all sounded a bit chaotic for a time. I suspect the post war recession that started in Nov. 1948 and ran for a full year into late '49 didn't help things.
    One thing I've discovered over time is that H&R was/is seriously underrated as a manufacturer. They built some NICE shooting arms. My M12 is stupid accurate and the M1A I had built using a H&R barrel is a tack driver. Got to shoot a Reising M50 once and was surprised at the reliability of it. Ran through mag after mag in full auto mode and never stuttered once.
     

    Doco Overboard

    Ultimate Member
    Funny you say that, I just went through an all HR m1 and zeroed it last Saturday.
    Gas cylinder splines dead nuts straight on hr barrel, rear sight 8 clicks up dead center good lock up and trigger group centered in stock mortise, great function nothing to see there, it was too easy to get squared away. Not much to tinker or fuss over.
    Government must have been pretty satisfied with the quality of the rifles that were built for them.
    Price value quality, HR made good stuff that was hard working and could be obtained by regular folks easy enough that could be relied on.
     

    ras_oscar

    Ultimate Member
    Apr 23, 2014
    1,667
    I understand that they were built as trainers for troops soon to receive an M1 Garand. Any idea why they wouldn't simply train on the garand directly? Was it availability of ammo or some other issue?
     
    Jul 1, 2012
    5,730
    Cost of ammo primarily (even at war the gov't had to pay for it).
    H&R wasn't the only company making .22 training rifles.
    The military used .22LR pistols as well for training for the same reason.

    There's still some mystery, confusion and bad gouge out there about the M-65 (and MC-58) unlike most of the other military-use WW2 rifles.
    David Albert obtained a lot of documentation from the Jeff Reising estate and I believe he's still sorting through it.
    Hopefully he'll write a book expanding on his research.
     

    mawkie

    C&R Whisperer
    Sep 28, 2007
    4,353
    Catonsville
    Lots of commercial and purpose built .22 trainers used during the war. Shotguns used for training aerial gunners too.
     

    F-Stop

    Ultimate Member
    Feb 16, 2009
    2,491
    Cecil County
    Picked up one of these last year. It's an interesting rifle and a joy to shoot. Mine is also a sub 6k s/n and hope it was one of the USMC. I bought it not knowing much about them and was happily surprised. It came with 3 magazines which was a nice touch and sling. Thanks for the info in this post.
     

    trailtoy

    GOA, MSI, NRA
    MDS Supporter
    May 19, 2013
    1,489
    St. Marys
    I just picked up a 65 today, pretty decent shape except for the 6, yes SIX scope mount holes, 3 each in the receiver and barrel. And the rear sight is a little bent. Must have had a tumble before the scope was added. Serial No. is 12k+ so not USMC. Is the rear sight difficult to find??
     

    Attachments

    • 20200223_111614.jpg
      20200223_111614.jpg
      71.6 KB · Views: 234

    trailtoy

    GOA, MSI, NRA
    MDS Supporter
    May 19, 2013
    1,489
    St. Marys
    You are correct about not easy to find. I was able to disassemble it and straighten it almost good as new! Not bad for a buck-fiddy.
     
    Jul 1, 2012
    5,730
    I've seen the sights on eBay off and on but trey expensive ($150+).
    I was in the same boat except mine was gone completely.
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    275,333
    Messages
    7,277,360
    Members
    33,436
    Latest member
    DominicM

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom