Please check the serial number on this 03. # 297081. It has a RA barrel dated 9-42. Does not have the correct stock. Person wants $875 for it. Thank you
Printable View
Please check the serial number on this 03. # 297081. It has a RA barrel dated 9-42. Does not have the correct stock. Person wants $875 for it. Thank you
296961ri 071718ria (gauged)
297019ri 071918function test
297040 031224svc co 10th inf
297098ri 071718ria (gauged)
297134 042512p r regt
cplnorton,
Do you know what 'gauged' means?
These are notes from the SRS, so that is Frank Mallory's notations. What Frank did is when he found a serial in the archives, he put the date of the document, and a brief description. He also notated the location of the file, and if you paid him he would go back and make you a copy of the original document.
I have a good portion of the documents that Frank pulled the 1903 USMC serials from. But the Army ones, I have very few.
If I had to guess what "Gauged" meant, you see so many many documents where they detail the gauge of the barrel. Usually you see them in ammo tests, as they are studying why the barrels were wearing so quickly. But this one was a document at Rock Island Arsenal in 1918, so it really could be about anything guaged on the rifle.
But in 1918, everyone was doing huge amounts of ammo testing, so that would be my best guess. But, It's really hard to speculate till you pull that specific doc at the archives and read it. I've seen some notes Frank had that don't make any sense when you read the actual document.
I will ask Andrew Stolinski to see if he knows as well. He has spent a considerable amount of time in the Army files at the Archives. He's there every week, so he would be a good one to ask on this.
I wasn't going to comment mainly because I don't like to speculate on what a citation says without having read the document. Many times it turns out to be completely different than what one might think. But it has piqued my interest so I may work in searching for on my next trip to the archives (I was just there yesterday so it may be another week or so). But Steve mentioned me and I don't want to be rude.
Steve is correct that there were a lot of ammo tests being conducted in 1918, and ammo was a huge problem as well as bore condition and the need for replacement of barrels was constant issue. But the problem with ammo and bore condition was not limited to the WWI time frame, it appeared to span almost the entire service life of the M1903 itself. A great portion of the serial numbers I have come across, especially when being sent to overhaul to Rock Island Arsenal (and other various Depots) deal with Ordnance Officers screaming at the units and their supply officers for turning rifles in such poor shape. It is a lot of times a common denominator to recorded serial numbers on these documents.
My personal favorite is an attached to a string of endorsements at Rock Island Arsenal in 1909 concerning a lot of 28th Infantry rifles. The exchange is between the supply officer of the 28th Infantry and a ordnance officer of why the rifles were in such poor condition. You can "feel" the anger in the various replies. I typed one of the endorsements.
August 6, 1909
"The muzzles of the rifles were enlarged due to the use of a steel rod or some abrasive material in violation of orders and regulations. The rifles, when received at this arsenal were in terrible condition, indicating that they had not been properly cared for. The bores on a number of barrels were pitted and many of them badly rusted and many of them unservicable and must be replaced on account of their rusty condition. If non of the rifles in the service received better care than have those referred above, it would be necessary to re-arm the entire army once in two or three years at most."
I don't want to speculate with too much confidence without the document in hand. But given the time frame as well as knowing how much of a problem ammunition really was during WWI (before and after the conflict), if I had to guess it would be something concerning ammunition testing or gauging rifles after overhaul. But I have been proven wrong before. So take that with a grain of salt. Maybe someone else has a copy of the files or one similar.
I'll see if I can find the file on my next trip and have more detailed information.
Respectfully, Andrew
Obviously don't access to the "files" but I know that there were a lot of new manufacturers with little or no experience in making ammunition and quality had fallen down from the pre-War stuff.
I also seem to recall that they weren't even sure how to properly clean rifles in that pre-WWI era or what the stuff was that pitted/rusted the barrels. They thought it had something to do with the powder when, in reality, it as the primers.
I have read the document and it fortunately provided an easy to read synopsis...Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike-B
From Major J.S. Hatcher, Major, Ordnance N.A.
To: Commanding Officer, Rock Island Arsenal
1. I am directed by the acting Chief of Ordnance to state that it is desired that 500 assembled rifles, Model 1903 be gaged to determine dimensions of the location of the rear end of the front sight fixed stud from the muzzle of the barrel, and report be made at this office."
This is another example why I never try and speculate what a document says without reading it. Another lesson learned on my part as well.
Cheers!
lol, that is awesome. It never ceases to amaze me when you get the actual document and read what it actually says.
By the way guys, Andrew is for hire. He's a hell of a researcher and lives right by the archives. I've had him do quite a bit of work for me, and he does a great job. :)
In a million years I never would have guessed that. Thanks for the info.Quote:
Originally Posted by Smokeeaterpilot
Me either, why I always stress never speculate.
Best wishes,
Andrew