-
Contributing Member
Stupid Question?
I guess it must be a stupid Question because no one has answered it over in the 1903 section, so I'll try here...
Why didn't the Springfield rifle have a bolt numbered to the rifle ?
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. |
|
-
-
04-20-2017 03:20 AM
# ADS
Friends and Sponsors
-
Legacy Member
mrC303,
I'd not call it a 'stoopid question' at all. The US way of doing things is considerably different form the Commonwealth way.
US M1917 rifles, M1 Garands, M1 Carbines and M14s did not have matching numbered bolts, either.
My guess is that the US saw the bolt as a replaceable assembly in maintenance and therefore didn't 'match' the bolt and receiver/action. If the bolt was found unserviceable, it was replaced as a maintenance unit. Unlike the .303 cartridge, head spacing for the 30-odd is less finicky and more forgiving.
Happy to be 100% wrong, but there's my thoughts from research and observation.
Trying to save Service history, one rifle at a time...
-
The Following 2 Members Say Thank You to 22SqnRAE For This Useful Post:
-
-
Contributing Member
Cheers mate, I didn't give this any thought until I bought a Springfield. I was genuinely surprised by the lack of SN, it just seems like sensible housekeeping to me...
-
-
Legacy Member
General issue 1903 rifles did not have bolts numbered to the receiver - but many National Match rifles and USMC rifles did have electric pencil numbers on the bolts to match the
serial number
-
Thank You to RCS For This Useful Post:
-
Legacy Member
The Americans weren't the only ones to not number the bolts to the rifles either. The Italians didn't number the bolts of there Carcano rifles (except for early rifles a practice that was dropped quickly), and the Austrian-Hungarians didn't number the bolts on there M95s, M90 and M88 series rifles.
-
Thank You to Eaglelord17 For This Useful Post:
-
Legacy Member
US manufactured arms were made with completely interchangeable parts so no need to serial number everything. The serial number being stamped on everything is more of a European thing. Special rifles like National match and target rifles initially had no numbered parts either but on later production when special modifications to parts began to be allowed the bolts, stocks and even trigger groups on the Garands were numbered because the parts were specially gauged and fitted to each rifle. Very simplistic answer to an involved question but gives you the gist anyway.
-
Thank You to twh For This Useful Post:
-
Contributing Member
Thanks for the responses guys, I guess the same is true of your current issue M4, only numbered on the lower receiver?
Come to think of it, of all the US military firearms that have passed my way in the past, its only been the M1 Thompson that had S/N numbered upper and lower receivers.
-
-
Legacy Member
Originally Posted by
mrclark303
Thanks for the responses guys, I guess the same is true of your current issue M4, only numbered on the lower receiver?
Come to think of it, of all the US military firearms that have passed my way in the past, its only been the
M1 Thompson that had S/N numbered upper and lower receivers.
And the only reason for that was because they were fitted together then parted ways for final finishing . Strictly for good looks . Same as fitting a buttplate , then sending the stock to be stained and the plate to be finished , then mating them back together .
Chris
-
-
Legacy Member
Originally Posted by
twh
US manufactured arms were made with completely interchangeable parts so no need to serial number everything. The serial number being stamped on everything is more of a European thing.
So, how did that work out? Are M1917 and m1903/03A3 bolts generally interchangeable between rifles from same or different manufacturers? Mosins are an interesting case as the bolts are numbered but the easily removed/ lost bolt heads which control headspace, are not. However, I've measured a great many Mosin boltheads with a micrometer and they are very, very close in dimension unless visibly worn on the locking surfaces.
Ridolpho
-
-
Legacy Member
Generally the answer is yes as they were designed to be fully interchangeable and it's not uncommon to find an 03a3 bolt being used in a 1903 and vice versa even though produced decades apart. There were interchangeability issues with early 1917s which as I recall led to some of the early production rifles being limited to stateside issue only but the problems were worked out in later production. As I recollect the issue had to do with Winchester proceeding with production prior to a set of standardized drawings being produced because there was a war on which led to interchangeability issue with Remington and Eddystone rifles.
-
Thank You to twh For This Useful Post: