Go Back   CMP Forums > CMP Sales > Smallbore
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old 08-18-2018, 05:57 PM
ESWL ESWL is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: North Georgia Mountains
Posts: 63
Default

Well until proven differently, you can boast that you probably have the last known Springfield 1922 series rifle made.

Art

Last edited by ESWL; 08-18-2018 at 06:01 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 08-18-2018, 09:25 PM
Herschel Herschel is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Rison, AR
Posts: 614
Default

I never read Mr. Timerson's article in Rifle Shooter until tonight. Art is being very kind in his comments. I have never read such a collection of inaccurate, incomplete and misleading comments in one article.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 11-04-2018, 04:16 PM
Peconga Peconga is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Boise, Idaho
Posts: 305
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Herschel View Post
I never read Mr. Timerson's article in Rifle Shooter until tonight. Art is being very kind in his comments. I have never read such a collection of inaccurate, incomplete and misleading comments in one article.
My impressions also; while well-intended the article has so many factual errors that it should never have been published. Not only is the DOM off by THREE DECADES but then the author seems baffled by the appearance of a standard issue front sight cover on his rifle, as well as a checkered trapdoor buttplate. Rather than recognizing these as standard USGI 1903 parts that have been fitted to his (incorrectly) restored 1922M2 rifle, the author doubles down on stupid by asserting that they are evidence of a previously-unknown variation made by Springfield Armory.

Unfortunately this illustrates one of the chief perils of the Internet Age, that bad data becomes permanent, once it has been posted online.
__________________
"A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed."

Last edited by Peconga; 11-04-2018 at 04:22 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 11-14-2018, 10:58 AM
motorcop motorcop is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Southeast Wisconsin
Posts: 541
Default

Wow! You guys have pretty much taken Mr. Timerson to the wood shed. While I agree that his article has several flaws in it so do many other articles that have been written in the past. I don't recall seeing anywhere in his article where he claims to be an expert on 1922 rifles so one should immediately take what he has to say with a grain of salt. The article was written in 2010 so that's at least 8 years ago. Much has been learned about these interesting rifles since the date the article was published. How he came to the conclusion that his receiver was made in 1904 is beyond me, but SOMEONE had to have given him that information. I highly doubt he looked into a bowl of tea leaves for the date his receiver was built. It would be nice to know where he came up with that date and then you could chastise the person that gave him that information.


Lets face it so much information and misinformation is out there about old firearms that to sift thru it all and determine what is correct versus incorrect is a nightmare especially with the internet adding fuel to the fire. All one has to do is say this is the highest serial numbered receiver made and sure enough, someone will come up with a serial number that exceeds the highest number thought to have been made. Clearly one has to look at the big picture but I learned a long time ago that one authors article or book doesn't make for something being cast in stone. Read the information and make an educated decision on what is spelled out and go one with life. Was Mr. Tomlinson "stupid" in what he did? I don't think so, he just didn't verify what some other genius probably told him. How many other well known articles and books are out there that have NOW KNOWN inaccuracies in them and we don't call these authors stupid...

Believe it or not, but there are still Lord Knows how many people out there that believe the barrel date of a Mil-Surp firearm is the date that firearm was made.


Rick H.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 11-14-2018, 02:50 PM
GGaskill GGaskill is offline
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Central Arizona
Posts: 2,669
Default




The suffix is the correct font, perfectly aligned ...


I have to disagree. The whole number is not centered and the A is stamped at an angle instead of straight up. No idea why the A is there but I suspect it is not original.
__________________
Only hits count.

"The trouble with most people is that they think with their hopes or fears or wishes rather than with their minds."--Will Durant
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 11-14-2018, 05:32 PM
ESWL ESWL is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: North Georgia Mountains
Posts: 63
Default

You are correct the the A suffix is not original to the serial number, however, I believe it was added by error or confusion on some of the early M2's that where upgraded to the new bolt. I have pictures of two other M2's with the A suffix. Also, it is referenced by the late W.P, Eyberg.

In W.P. Eyberg's Man at Arms article, Jan/Feb 1985, page 22, he comments:

G. Other conversions will be encountered from time to time which do not fit any known official pattern. For example:

2. An "A" stamped after the serial number of an early M2 (not Model of 1922M2) which had been updated to the late M2 configuration.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:06 PM.