Annealed receiver on a 7-41 Garand that never was rebuilt?

Greetings all, I am a semi-recovered Garand collector and long-time viewer of this forum. Great community with excellent content! Never have posted here before.

Anyway, received my GCA journal today – another outstanding issue, kudos to all who help with it. I have a question about the B-17 recovered Garand article:

Per the story, this 7-41 rifle was issued as a survival weapon to a B-17E deployed at Java, and the crew carved on it accordingly. The rifle was recovered from the B-17 when it was destroyed on the ground in Feb 42, and kept by the crew gunner who recovered it.

How did this rifle end up with an annealed receiver? I thought new build and even maintenance or rebuild anneal dates were later than anything this rifle would have had per the story above. Also, was it common to issue new rifles for purposes like this at a time when not even all of the infantry had Garands or gas port Garands yet?

I have also received my GCA Journal today and read the article on the m1 that came from a B-17. I have studied the anneal colors for many years on
both Springfield and Winchesters. The photo of the rifle in question on page 10 is not an anneal color, the discoloration is not complete on the rear portion
the receiver. If the receiver was annealed the entire rear section behind the rear sight would display a darker color - this rifle was not annealed

I agree with RCS, it has not been annealed. I expanded the original photos submitted by the author.

Thank you both, it is good to hear from the experts on this. Definitely the author should fix his datasheet for any future reprints.

So the non-annealed aspect at least is consistent with the WWII owner’s story from the article. I have no doubt the guy served on a B-17E in Java, and it’s well documented that several were lost on the ground around the time he indicates. Still I wonder about the rest of his rifle story, but maybe I am just too cynical on that! It’s a beautiful rifle in any case, was glad to see it featured.

I am not bashing them but surprised the GCA would let this slip by and be published. A lot of people take what the GCA says as gospel and will inaccurately repeat/believe what is written

Overall the GCA editorial staff does a great job in proofing content and usually double and triple checks everything with several sets of eyes before getting signed off for publication. Sometimes errors do get through, but to the credit of the GCA staff..... not many. I can see how this detail on the data sheet was missed. I missed it too when I read the article and I've been around the block a few times.

What I find amazing is the amount of errors that appear in movies that have tens of millions in production costs. Whose cup off coffee was left on the table in that scene in The Game of Thrones? He he.