1934 Receiver and 1933 Barrel

[Coopdog]

Would a 1933 barrel on a 1934 (1.45 million) receiver be indicative of an original rifle out of Springfield?

Information

Warning: This is a relatively older thread This discussion is older than 360 days. Some information contained in it may no longer be current.

[Mike D]

Possible, my guess. No wartime rush goin' on.

[John Beard]

Would a 1933 barrel on a 1934 (1.45 million) receiver be indicative of an original rifle out of Springfield?

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.

J.B.

[Coopdog]

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

[Claven2]

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.

[Mike D]

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'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.

[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 1934

[enbloc8]

Yes, I think that very few new rifles were put together at Springfield in 1934

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.

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.

[Rick the Librarian]

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.

[Claven2]

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