1944 Anomaly Receiver

[SA1941]

I have an assumption as to why this is, but just want to make sure. One of the rifles in my collection is a November 1944 SA with a 12 44 SA barrel. The serial corresponds to November 1944 and is 3283944. However, the drawing number on the receiver is a "34". The correct drawing number for this receiver should be a "35". The heat lot code also places it to a batch of Youngstown steel as it has the code of Y O 9 C. My guess is that the receiver was made at an earlier date, set aside as reserve, or taken back for rework for some reason, then manufactured as a complete rifle (serialized) in November of 1944. Any other thoughts or opinions?

Sean

[TJT]

Any, or all of the above.
Jon

[RDS]

Please post photos of the receiver.

[SA1941]

I have a second pic to upload. Hope you can see this.

[SA1941]

Pic 2. This one isn't as good. But it does show the heat lot better.

[TJT]

The 34 is the drawing revision number. I have a May '45 SA (3.7 mil-my DCM "one per life time")that is a revision 35. Look at it this way--in 5 years time there were 35 revisions to the drawing. That's 7 revisions per year. What's your concern? Receivers were not numbered or assembled in chronological order from the milling department. Some were indeed, stock piled in reserve for what ever reasion(s), some were indeed sent back for rework. If it bothers you, you're fretting over a non-issue. Remember this concerning the M1 rifle--every thing is not chiseled in stone. There were lots of "exceptions" to "the rule". The only thing certain about the M1 rifle is that nothing is certain.
Jon

[SA1941]

The 34 is the drawing revision number. I have a May '45 SA (3.7 mil-my DCM "one per life time")that is a revision 35. Look at it this way--in 5 years time there were 35 revisions to the drawing. That's 7 revisions per year. What's your concern? Receivers were not numbered or assembled in chronological order from the milling department. Some were indeed, stock piled in reserve for what ever reasion(s), some were indeed sent back for rework. If it bothers you, you're fretting over a non-issue. Remember this concerning the M1 rifle--every thing is not chiseled in stone. There were lots of "exceptions" to "the rule". The only thing certain about the M1 rifle is that nothing is certain.
Jon

Absolutely zero concern (or fretting or worrying) on my part. It is just something out of the ordinary not seen everyday. I realize that exact reasons for "why this happened, or why that happened" are few and far between. It was wartime, and the only thing Uncle Sam was concerned about was getting functional rifles. Just was curious if someone else might have a different take or theory as to why this particular receiver has the "date gap" like this one does.

[IRON WORKER]

Stockpile receivers ,you might say that.

[RDS]

I wish you would publish a book of your ordnance photos.

[m14brian]

If I hit the Lotto, that would be what my garage looked like. I'd have you guys over.
m14brian

[SA1941]

Thanks for posting Iron Worker! Ive never seen that one before. I second that m14brian!

[IRON WORKER]

The picture was from 1942 IIRC

[Bruw]

M14Brian - I'm mailing you a Lotto ticket. When you win, I'll bring the beer.

[SA1941]

If I hit the Lotto, that would be what my garage looked like. I'd have you guys over.
m14brian

Thanks for the invite! But be careful.........while the party is going on, I might slip a few receivers into my coat pocket. (I have big pockets). You won't miss them! LOL

[m14brian]

Not to worry Sir, I would be handing out party favors like candy! (legally of course!) Everyone would leave with a couple handfuls or receivers. I know how to party.
m14brian

[SA1941]

Not to worry Sir, I would be handing out party favors like candy! (legally of course!) Everyone would leave with a couple handfuls or receivers. I know how to party.
m14brian

Your a good man!