Buying a M1903

[twh]

The butt plate is a Smith Corona but the stock appears to be an earlier Remington 03a3 stock. Nice example of a rebuilt rifle.

[Merc]

I've been reverse-engineering the logic behind the origin of the stock. Some of the things it has, and doesn't have has me assuming that its a later Smith-Corona:

The rifle was made in June, 1943 according to the serial number. The stock has recoil screws instead of recoil pins and, according to a knowledgable collector's information, mid 1943 Remington stocks still had recoil pins. I've been unable to find anything elsewhere that would confirm this information.

The stock has Frank J. Atwood's inspection cartouche and the Ordnance Dept. cartouche along with the usual proof marks, but it doesn't have a maker's mark nor a rebuilder's mark.

There's an original 03-A3 on the WTB/WTS Thread that has an original Remington stock that's stamped with "RA" near the Ordnance Dept. cartouche. Since mine was rebuilt and doesn't have any marks that indicate the OEM or rebuilder, should we assume that the Arsenals stopped stamping their initials on the 03-A3 stocks after rebuilding and that the RA stands for Remington Arms instead of Raritan Arsenal? Should I assume that Smith-Corona made the stock because there's no maker's mark? I read that S-C didn't mark any parts.

Taking all of that into consideration makes a good case that it's a later Smith-Corona stock that was probably installed on the rifle when it was rebuilt. BUT, I would like to be proven wrong and will be more than willing to accept the knowledge that it's a Remington made stock. If anyone has a source of good info that indicates it's a Remington, I'd like to see it.

Merc

[Art]

Looking at an example of the final product, and adding the Parkerizing process, I would say that's probably how it went. They did things in the most expedient manner possible with the resources they had. It's unfortunate that there were two OEMs that made 03-A3s resulting in a fine rifle with mixed parts. They probably didn't think there would be any interest in the old rifles 70 years later.

Merc

Merc, they could give a rats rear less about keeping the rifles "correct." They care about the most expedient way of putting rifles in the field. The don't care about collectors or enthusiasts a bit. Whether the rifle eventually wound up with a collector or as bumpers and razor blades was irrelevant. The didn't care then then and still don't.

You'll read often about "bubba" rifles. Heck most "Bubba" specials were made by WWII and Korean War vets who didn't want anything like a military rifle. They had had their fill of rifles in military garb. They wanted a hunting rifle and they didn't want it to look military which resulted in the boom in "sporterized" military rifles back then. I don't think that's "evil." If I was a serious collector of '03s I'd have a couple of pretty '03 sporters from that period to go with the others.

[twh]

Look at the band spring cut out. In the pictures it looks square. If it is it's a Remington Stock. Early Remington cross bolt stocks were only marked with the FJA and ordinance mark as there was no SC production so no need to mark them with RA.

[Merc]

Art,

I agree, the army had a war to fight.

After WW2 ended, the vets were busy firing up the post war economy and the rifles they knew how to disassemble and reassemble blindfolded were available and cheap. I agree that most collectors look down at sporterized rifles without considering who did the work and when. The fact that they're worth a fraction of what an original sells for shows you where the interest is. I've been going to gun shows for years and have seen a few military sporters here and there, but the one military rifle that I've yet to see sporterized is the M1 Garand.

Merc

[Merc]

Look at the band spring cut out. In the pictures it looks square. If it is it's a Remington Stock. Early Remington cross bolt stocks were only marked with the FJA and ordinance mark as there was no SC production so no need to mark them with RA.

TWH,

I looked and it is square. Thanks for the sharp eye and the knowledge.

Merc

[Merc]

Here's a sight that identifies M1903 and 03-A3 stocks:

www.trfindley.com/pgm1903stkid.html

Check out the links at the bottom of this guys page. Looks like his speciality is refinishing stocks and can re-stamp cartouches.

Merc

[PhillipM]

Merc, they could give a rats rear less about keeping the rifles "correct." They care about the most expedient way of putting rifles in the field. The don't care about collectors or enthusiasts a bit. Whether the rifle eventually wound up with a collector or as bumpers and razor blades was irrelevant. The didn't care then then and still don't.

You'll read often about "bubba" rifles. Heck most "Bubba" specials were made by WWII and Korean War vets who didn't want anything like a military rifle. They had had their fill of rifles in military garb. They wanted a hunting rifle and they didn't want it to look military which resulted in the boom in "sporterized" military rifles back then. I don't think that's "evil." If I was a serious collector of '03s I'd have a couple of pretty '03 sporters from that period to go with the others.

As a teen, I begged my Korean War vet father for an M1. We simply had no knowledge of the DCM, so he spent a lot of 1983 dollars to get me an SA Inc. Garand for Christmas. After I unbound it and shot it in the back yard etc., He picked it up and looked it over and said, "I never thought I'd touch another one again." This was not a jubilant remark, but a lamentation. What was going on in his mind, I'll never know. He was a life member of the NSSA, loved his 1148 in 28 gauge, but the M1 drug up memories he never conveyed to me.Photo217.jpg

[Merc]

Phillip,

Do you have a photo of your father in his uniform?

Merc

[PhillipM]

Phillip,

Do you have a photo of your father in his uniform?

Merc

Unfortunately not a good one. I have his company graduation somewhere but I don't know if I could pick him out