Mystery M2

[ESWL]

I picked up an interesting Springfield M2 on GB from a dealer in Hawaii. It is an early first variant M2, serial numbers “3950”, with the correct early M2 bolt, but with non-matching serial number. Metal has been re-parkerized dark-gray. Barrel date is 6-37 and is likely original to the rifle. The stock is an M1 “B” type issue stock that was converted to an M2 by modifying the pistol grip.

So here’s what is interesting, the serial number has an “A” suffix, 3950A. The suffix is the correct font, perfectly aligned and was present when the receiver was re-parkerized. I, personally, have never heard or seen any type suffix on an M2 rifle. Of course a suffix was added to Model of 1922’s, (A), and M1922M1’s, (B), which were converted to M2’s, but this was not the case for early M2’s.

I have asked Herschel for his thoughts and he speculated that it might just have been an error by an SA employee doing a bolt upgrade, although this rifle still has the earlier bolt. I speculated that maybe this was an M2A1 sub-caliber training device and the “A” suffix may have been to denote this. We know that some 1903 had an “A2” suffix added to “Model 1903”.

Anyway, I’d love to hear the forums thoughts on this mystery M2.

[ESWL]

WOW! Absolutely no interest at all. I'm shocked.

Art

[gunny]

http://www.rifleshootermag.com/rifle...gfield_201002/

[218bee]

"Records show that between 1933 and 1942, 11,172 M2 rifle were made"

I know it doesnt help you, but just thought I'd add this for posterity and I hope Herschel chimes in here...

This info has been debunked as I have a minty , late M2 with a 17,xxx serial number. I beleive Herschel has one in the low 20,000 range but that might be near where they end.


Nice rifle BTW

[Herschel]

The highest M2 I have owned was number 18008. It was in near perfect condition.
If I remember correctly the bolt well was in the white. In the '03 Springfield Rifles' Era, Clark Campbell gives a lot of detail about the high numbered M2 rifles.

That is not really relevant to this thread but might be of interest to collectors of the 1922 Series Gallery Practice Rifles.

[ESWL]

"Records show that between 1933 and 1942, 11,172 M2 rifle were made"

I know it doesnt help you, but just thought I'd add this for posterity and I hope Herschel chimes in here...

This info has been debunked as I have a minty , late M2 with a 17,xxx serial number. I beleive Herschel has one in the low 20,000 range but that might be near where they end.


Nice rifle BTW

You are correct in you comment about total M2 production count, however, that generally applies to the M2 production through fiscal 1942. Brophy lists 11,171 M2's through 1942 and Campbell references 11,335 M2"s. What Clark Campbell also mentions are M2A1's and un-assembled M2's. Basically that includes 5732 M2A1's and 3094 un-assembled parts the were sold post WW2. That pushed potential M2 receivers to 21,137. The highest M2 listed by the SRS is 20148. The highest I found on the internet is 20143.

Art

[ESWL]

http://www.rifleshootermag.com/rifle...gfield_201002/

I've read this article a few times and though interesting with some factual statements, the author is mistaken on a few issues. First, the 1922 series of rifles were not built on 1903 receivers. The receivers were built and marked specifically for 1922 production. His rifle, SN 20076 was likely assembled in 1943 or later. It was not made in 1904. Also, the barrel date is not an assemble/production date, it is a barrel production date. His barrel was built in April 1942. Since this rifle was purchased through the DCM in 1957 as surplus, it is highly likely it was originally an M2A1 sub-caliber training device that was obsoleted after the war, assembled as an M2 and sold by the DCM.

Art

[pmiya]

I have a 1922. M2 serial number 20475. Bolt has serial number electro pencil on the bottom. Barrel date 8-42, no markings on stock.

[ESWL]

I have a 1922. M2 serial number 20475. Bolt has serial number electro pencil on the bottom. Barrel date 8-42, no markings on stock.

Very nice. Definitely close to the end of M2 production. Is the receiver well under the bolt parkerized or in-the-white?

Art

[pmiya]

Receiver interior is parkerized, bolt body and handle are in the white.

[ESWL]

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

Art

[Herschel]

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.

[Peconga]

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 in its current form. 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.

[motorcop]

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.

[GGaskill]

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.