1934 Receiver and 1933 Barrel

[firstflabn]

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.?

[Roadkingtrax]

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.

[Rick the Librarian]

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.

[brick26]

Rick,

Where did you hear it?

[enbloc8]

That IS a sizeable quantity of receivers... do you imagine most of these were to replace SHT bodies?

By the 1930s, I'm sure it was more a case of "make-work" for the remaining shop forces than anything else.

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.

[John Beard]

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

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.

Hope this helps.

J.B.

[John Beard]

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.?

Follow the link:

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.