Would a 1933 barrel on a 1934 (1.45 million) receiver be indicative of an original rifle out of Springfield?
Printable View
Would a 1933 barrel on a 1934 (1.45 million) receiver be indicative of an original rifle out of Springfield?
Possible, my guess. No wartime rush goin' on.
A 1933 barrel on a 1934 receiver would be indicative of an original combination. But, it would not likely indicate an original rifle out of Springfield. Perhaps, but not likely.Quote:
Originally Posted by Coopdog
J.B.
Thanks, J.B. Please elaborate. If it is an original combination, where would they have been combined (assembled) if not at the armory in Springfield? and when? Thanks.
Coop
I think he might mean that just because a barrel is proper for a receiver based on year of production, does not mean the rifle is "original". It it statistically likely to have been rebuilt at some point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coopdog
I'll take a stab. I think John means there is a very good chance that SA sent those parts to another arsenal for rebuild purposes. Lots of low number receivers were scrapped as they came in for rebuild. Think that was the later 30's, though, not positive.
Yes, I think that very few new rifles were put together at Springfield in 1934Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike D
Somewhere I've seen actual build numbers for Springfields in the 1930s...indeed, they were VERY low. Regular Springfield production had ended in 1928, and rifles were being assembled only on an as-needed basis. Most of what production there was, in fact, was for match rifles and civilian orders placed through the NRA/DCM. The Army was truly at a low point in its history then in terms of funding, strength and morale, they had plenty of Springfields on hand, and the new M1 Garand was on the horizon anyway. Large-scale assembly of Springfields at the Armory did not resume until the literal eve of World War II.Quote:
Originally Posted by Coopdog
Parts were still being made, but on a very limited basis...there were still plenty of new parts left over from the last Big One, and most of what was being produced was "make work" to keep the remaining shop forces busy. And yes, low-numbered receivers were being scrapped and replaced as they came in for base rebuild or barrel replacement, but at that point most of the low-numbered rifles were slumbering in "war reserve" status, out-of-sight-out-of-mind, since the 20s.
It's very likely that the receiver and barrel are original to each other, but more information about the rifle itself (e.g. stock type, cartouche, metal finish) would be necessary to say much more.
Actually, a fairly large number of spare receivers continued to be made, but did vary from year to year. For some of the years mentioned,
1932 - 24,456
1933 - 19,364
1934 - 27,719
1935 - 27.759
If you check William Brophy's excellent book "Arsenal of Freedom" you can get a list of all the parts made at Springfield Armory year by year. There is no doubt that at some points, especially during the 1930s, NM rifles and spare parts were about the only thing that kept Springfield afloat.
That IS a sizeable quantity of receivers... do you imagine most of these were to replace SHT bodies?
Not sure how Brophy calculated his calendar year serial number table in his '03 book, but I would hesitate using it for anything beyond a general guide. He seems to disagree with himself. His '03 book and his armory book differ on numerous yearly entries - some small, but others not so small. As an example, his '03 book shows 105,120 .30 cal. rifles made in FY 07. But his armory book shows 102,118 and you have to add 3,002 .22 cal. Gallery practice rifles to arrive at 105,120. It's a real mess in many places.
Since the figures in his armory book are more detailed and the book was published later, I would tend to favor its results. The biggest challenge is finding reliable serial number/manufacture date correlations. Does anyone know of any semi-reliable official data of this sort besides #800,000 at the institution of the new receiver forging process (probably June 1918) and the first Mark I in November 1918 at #1,034,503? Any documented mentions on when the complete rifles and barreled receivers were made during the ramp up to full scale production by the new method - complete rifles first, rifles and B/Rs mixed, etc.?
I've read in Crossman I believe, that 800,000 was in Jan/Feb of 1918. I have a rifle with a 806,XXX and a 2/18 barrel.
I was just about to say that June, 1918 sounds too late - I had heard that from Jan., 1918 to April, 1918, Springfield Armory was "down", as far as producing receivers. I would say April, 1918.
Rick,
Where did you hear it?
By the 1930s, I'm sure it was more a case of "make-work" for the remaining shop forces than anything else.Quote:
Originally Posted by Claven2
It would have been no secret (to the Armory, at least) that the new M1 rifle would soon be replacing the venerable Springfield, so its days were clearly numbered. While the 1903 was still the issue rifle, there were loads of Springfields left over from the World War in storage, and those would have filled the anticipated needs of the peacetime services. Without doubt, there were also plenty of leftover spare parts to go with them. So, there really wouldn't have been a great need for additional parts in the 1930s...but the Armory needed reasons to keep their experienced toolmakers and machine operators on hand.
Please pardon my tardy reply. Mike D is correct. Many if not most barrel and receiver assemblies from that period were shipped out from SA to other arsenals and depots in the Ordnance system for use as replacements in overhaul.Quote:
Originally Posted by Coopdog
Hope this helps.
J.B.
Follow the link:Quote:
Originally Posted by firstflabn
Springfield Armory Serialization Table
This table is extremely accurate. The serial numbers from 1 Jan 1906 through 1 Jan 1938 were actual reports from Springfield Armory. The remaining serial numbers were meticulously calculated from actual production data and have been carefully validated.
Double heat treatment at Springfield Armory started on 20 Feb 1918.
Hope this helps.
J.B.