Late Model 1903 barrel dates

Hello, I have come accross a very late M1903 SA SN 1535XXX .. don't know the rest of the serial number because the pictures received were very blurry. owner states it has a X-41 SA barrel. He cannot read the month... the rifle is in very good condition so I have no reason to believe it is not in the original condition he received it in in the 60's. I've checked my old stand by references but 41 appears to be to late of a date for the rifle .. any comments/advice to look for. My guess it should be about an 8-39 but I expect that there are exceptions to any rule during this time frame. I intend to take a look this weekend. I know the seller and all of the firearms sold in the past have been mint and very collectable - so this is not a recent CMP/humped up rifle.

regards,
CPC

Very late, indeed. Could have been a spare receiver and not assembled until later. Would be cool to own just 'cause of the serial #. :cool:

Some very late receivers were kept as "spare parts" and assembled after the start of World War II at one of the arsenals. If you can share any other markings or features. we might be able to tell you more. I agree owning a rifle would be interesting because of the high serial number. The highest documented Springfield M1903 was in the 1,536,000 range.

Rick is right. The last receivers were produced in 1937-1938(?) and held in reserve. A 1941 barrel is unusual, so the deal depends on price.

Close, Steve - Fiscal Year 1939 IIRC.

Rick: Quick question. Did Springfield actually make receivers in 1939 or did they finish forgings from stock? At some point (1938-39?) Springfield had to convert over the '03 forge line into the Garand forge line. These late finished receivers then went to various Depots for their use, as Springfield was effectively out of the '03 business by 1939. Correct?

Steve,

I hauled out my copy of William Brophy's Arsenal of Freedom: The Springfield Armory, 1890-1948 (which is what I should have done in the first place) and found the following:

Fiscal Year 1939 (July, 1938-June, 1939): Springfield Armory produced 7,740 "receiver assemblies" for the M1903.

Fiscal Year 1940: 8601 "receiver assemblies" for the M1903, plus another 1426 NM assemblies.

Now, the "catch" in all this is that the description says, "...the following items have been manufactured and altered. You would be left with an incomplete idea of what had been (apparently) rebuilt. I'd be willing to bet that most of the "receiver assemblies" if newly manufactured, were in the 1939 end of the fiscal year, not 1940.

All sources I have read state that Springfield continued receiver (not rifle) production for the M1903 through 1939. They continued to make replacement parts at least through 1944, so the Armory wasn't "out of the M1903 business" until then.

According to Brophy's book, the first year that NO M1903 receivers were made was FY 1941.

Although slightly off the subject we are discussing, many people firmly state that Springfield made no more M1903s after 1927. Yes, and no: They continued to make thousands of receivers and other parts through 1939 (for receivers) and 1944 for other parts. A large number of these parts were assembled into rifles, either at Springfield or at the other arsenals.

This deserves a whole new string. Springfield halted SERVICE RIFLE in 1927 but made many, many NM rifles nearly until the 1940's. Huge debate over this entire matter. However, not many 1939 or 1940 barrels are around and the rifle in question appears to have that going for it.

Actually, the number of National Match rifles, as a percentage of receivers manufactured was relatively small. For example, one of the fiscal years I quoted, 1939, Springfield made 7,740 "receiver assemblies" and only 710 NM rifles. In FY, over 29,000 receivers were manufactured.

The real disagreement seems to be how many spare receivers were "on hand" at the start of U.S. entry into WWII. Some, like Clark Campbell, insist there were something in the neighborhood of 200,000 spare receivers. Others, such as John Beard (to which I would add my agreement), say the number of spare receivers was relatively small.