New 03A3 Rifles

[Cosine26]

There has been some discussion about the availibility of NEW 03A3 rifles. The army through the DCM did sell some new 03A3's in 1947. Because of the war time excise tax, these rifles had to be segregated between new and used. The new rifles required the excise tax while the used rifles did not. I am adding some pictures of the advertisements.



In this advertisement, the requirement to pay the excise tax is annotated. Also note that it is indicfated that no more 03A3 rifles were avaiable. This is corrected in the November ad to indicate that no more 1903A1's not 03A3's



Here is the corrected ad.

In early 1946 NEW 1903A1's were advertised; however, this was later corrected to indicate that these were reconditioned rifles. In late 1946, the DCM indicated that no rifles were available. By 1957 03A3's were advertised in Serviceable ($30.00) condition and unserviceable ($15.00) condition. A small number of M1 and M2 .22'a were also adverised at serviceable or unserviceable at the same prices with no choice between M1 or M2.
I ordered and receive a servicable M2 and an unservicable 03A3. The M2 was in great shape, the 03A3 not so much.
By 1960, the army through the DCM was selling the 03A3's as UNCLASSIFIED for $14.50. I ordered and receive what appeared to be a NEW condition- Smith Corona.
The possiblity of finding as new 03A3 (unmolested) exists, but the probability is small in my opinion.
FWIW

Information

Warning: This is a relatively older thread This discussion is older than 360 days. Some information contained in it may no longer be current.

[Calif-Steve]

There are piles of re-worked Drill Rifles around. Dealers are indeed calling them "new". Hardly new. They are around, be aware.

[Roadkingtrax]

There are piles of re-worked Drill Rifles around. Dealers are indeed calling them "new". Hardly new. They are around, be aware.

+1 on that,...I would be more leery then ever with the dumping of all the drill rifles into the market. Seems there have been some debates about them on the CMP in the last few months. Cost prohibitive to purchase one when near new specimens are a $200 more.

$50 was a good chunk of change in 1947.

The Inflation Calculator

What cost $57 in 1947 would cost $550.27 in 2010.

Also, if you were to buy exactly the same products in 2010 and 1947,
they would cost you $57 and $5.24 respectively.

[Rick the Librarian]

Looking at the old DCM ads, if you read the "fine print" you'll see that "unserviceable" (i.e. unchecked) M1917s were selling for the princely price of $5.00, a real bargain, even in the day. My uncle bought two of them. One was an early Winchester in original finish, original parts, etc. and the other a mixmaster Eddystone. Care to guess which one he sporterized???

(I think he bought the Winchester to sporterize and the Eddystone for spare parts)

[Chuckindenver]

couple comments...
over the last few years iv had more then a few 1903 and A3 drill rifles in my hands...and note that some A3,s wer likely never issued before they were modified for drill use..shame,.but i know how the Gov, saw the issue of drill rifles...why spend more money, when we can have the labor were already have convert old surplus rifles ..anyhow.
also, a few NM and ex Snipers rifles convereted.
on the money...i hear the ol...750.00? dayum...i remember buying one for 25.00....so my reponce is....ok...how much money did you make back then??answer? about 1.00 an hour...and that was good pay...so...really, buy todays money...guns are cheaper.. a new Chevy truck cost you 2,000.00 for the loaded, top of the line model, and a 4 bedroom home likely set you back 15,000.00 right?? and now...30,000.00 would buy the base model Chevy, and 150,000.00 might get a basic 4 bedroom home...and the average skilled hourly pay is 12.00 to 15.00 an hour.. and theres people with degree,s that would take a 10.00 hour at Wlamart just to put food on the table.

[Cosine26]

New03A3’s Part 2
My original posting was to illustrate that the army through the DCM program had sold NEW 03A3’s and had specifically identified them as NEW. It was not intended to compare 1947 prices with today’s prices. It is very unusual for the government to label anything to be issued as new. I believe that the excise tax requirement caused this. Generally the services considers depot repaired material (either by commercial or organic repair) to be of equal value as new material and does not differentiate between overhauled material and new material. Material condition is listed as serviceable or unserviceable (or as RFI or non-RFI) in the supply chains that with which I am familiar. Packaging is usually marked with manufacturer’s ID or depot ID so that in the event of failure or defective material, the material can be UR’ed. After the excise tax requirement either expired or was repealed, the NEW category was deleted.
After WWII the army, as did all services, examined their inventory. It is my belief that the M1917 had been declared obsolete and deleted as an item of issue and sold at almost scrap prices. Shortly thereafter the M1903 was relegated to the same category. Most of the M1903’s had seen extensive service, the stock of 03’s had been severely depleted, and spare parts supply was depleted. The 03A3 was in good supply and most of the rifles were in new or excellent condition. The government had procured a large supply of 03A3 spares and elected to relegate the 03A3 to the “substitute standard”: category; to be used as wartime emergency stock and remained in the supply system. The armies consider the 03A3 to be equal to or better than the 03 from a logistics standpoint. Remember when the army decided to create a post war NM bolt rifle the 03A3 was the chosen item.
After the end of the Korean War, the stock of M1’s and M1 spare parts were such that the requirement to retain the 03A3 in wartime reserve no longer existed. The rifle was declared as surplus and sold through the DCM/NRA in the “unclassified” condition. Spare parts were dumped on the open market and sold at “scrap” prices.
I have no documentation, but I worked with the military on both the contractor side and the government side for over 30 years and feel that these are valid conclusions. Experts, pleas comment.
FWIW