Printable View
This Winchester had the inside of the receiver machined a little too close and the cutter broke throught the front section under the forward part of the rear sight base. I know of a 1941 SA
with the same feature - will not affect the function of the rifle.
This Winchester still has the original barrel and the bolt still had the WRA firing pin.
Attachment 15165 -- Attachment 15166 -- Attachment 15167 -- Attachment 15168
I have seen this in the past on a few rifles. Thanks for sharing. Rick B
If the Army had seen this would they have accepted or rejected the receiver? Anybody know?
Steve, RCS,Quote:
Originally Posted by Calif-Steve
A logical assumption is "reject" for out of tolerance. No other valid conclusion could be made. However with any visual inspection, the sight covers the defect externally and internally with the bolt back, Ordnance inspectors wouldn't see it after final assembly and proof firing. It was probably pushed ahead for completion at Winchester or just missed. An interesting receiver to say the least!
That's a definite rejection.Quote:
Originally Posted by Calif-Steve
Think the cutter broke and spit out a tooth causing the "defect"?
Damn man, Winchester got away with some shady stuff. How did a company that was renowned for finely finished rifles put out some of the roughest (albeit functional) examples of the M1? I've never understood that.
Key word is "functional." Demand was so great and so pressing, and GI's in combat didn't care if it was pretty or not, as long as it worked. When the GCA presented Joe Roberts with the M1 he carried in Korea, he remarked, "It sure looks nicer than when I turned it in!" SA also cranked out some guns that were at the very edge of acceptable accuracy.
I also have a WRA from 11/44 with the same hole. I find it hard to believe that with some many receivers looking like that, that no one noticed, or worse yet, the parts inspector saw it and passed it, without knowing for sure if would fail during a battle. I think that since they seem to affect both SA and WRA, that somebody, somewhere must have said that the defect was OK and passed them. Since they all occurred at the same place on the receiver they must have know that the potential existed for that to happen. I guess the only way to solve it is to find the acceptance standards for the receiver.
Perhaps one such receiver was assembled at that time, test/proof fired and since it functioned, this kind of manufacture defect was considered a serviceable defect and not cause for rejection? I can only guess, but with others out there, maybe it is a possibility. Just a thought.