New Zealand lend lease Remington 1903...

[Faulkner]

ALL Remington M1903s were called "M1903 Modified." The term as you use it is a collector term (much like "P1917") that is incorrect.

Rick, your comment above got me to thinking that I recalled something different regarding the “modified” Remington’s so I did some looking.

According to Bruce Canfields excellent work, “U.S. Infantry Weapons of World War II”, page 73, under the heading Remington M1903 (Modified) Rifle, he states;

“As the demand for the rifles increased, the workers at Remington became hard-pressed to meet the production quotas . . . Remington’s engineers working in conjunction with the Ordnance people proposed several time-cutting changes . . . These new features began to be incorporated into production rifles beginning in December 1941 and were phased in over the next couple of months. By March of 1942, The Remington ’03 evidenced a number of revisions from the original production rifles. In order to properly identify these rifles, the designation was changed to the “U.S. Rifle, Caliber .30, M1903 (Modified).”

Echoing Canfield’s information would be that in the book “The M1903 Springfield and it’s Variations” by Joe Poyer. On page 60 under the heading U.S. Rifle, Caliber .30, M1903 (Modified) Remington Arms Company, he notes;

“In early March 1942, the third supplement to the original contract with Remington Arms designed the new model as U.S. Rifle, Cal. .30, M1903 (Modified) and doubled the quantity of rifles produced.”

So, it would seem, at least according to these two references, that all Remington M1903’s were not in fact considered “modified” and there was in fact an official designation which differentiated early production M1903’s manufactured by Remington from the later “modified” Remington’s. Therefore, unlike the so called “P1917”, there is an official designation for M1903 (Modified) rifles made by Remington and it’s not just collector nomenclature.

[Jake Holman]

Do the New Zealand lend lease Remington 03's bring a premium?
How many were lend/leased to New Zeland?

[Rick the Librarian]

Rick, your comment above got me to thinking that I recalled something different regarding the “modified” Remington’s so I did some looking.

According to Bruce Canfields excellent work, “U.S. Infantry Weapons of World War II”, page 73, under the heading Remington M1903 (Modified) Rifle, he states;

“As the demand for the rifles increased, the workers at Remington became hard-pressed to meet the production quotas . . . Remington’s engineers working in conjunction with the Ordnance people proposed several time-cutting changes . . . These new features began to be incorporated into production rifles beginning in December 1941 and were phased in over the next couple of months. By March of 1942, The Remington ’03 evidenced a number of revisions from the original production rifles. In order to properly identify these rifles, the designation was changed to the “U.S. Rifle, Caliber .30, M1903 (Modified).”

Echoing Canfield’s information would be that in the book “The M1903 Springfield and it’s Variations” by Joe Poyer. On page 60 under the heading U.S. Rifle, Caliber .30, M1903 (Modified) Remington Arms Company, he notes;

“In early March 1942, the third supplement to the original contract with Remington Arms designed the new model as U.S. Rifle, Cal. .30, M1903 (Modified) and doubled the quantity of rifles produced.”

So, it would seem, at least according to these two references, that all Remington M1903’s were not in fact considered “modified” and there was in fact an official designation which differentiated early production M1903’s manufactured by Remington from the later “modified” Remington’s. Therefore, unlike the so called “P1917”, there is an official designation for M1903 (Modified) rifles made by Remington and it’s not just collector nomenclature.

I hate to say this, but Bruce is wrong. He admitted as much when he replied to my initial review of his book. The term "Modified" as he used it, is a collector term and not an "official term". The Army used the terms "M1903 Modified" and "Remington M1903" interchangably. There was an excellent article in the Martial Arms Collector magazine that quoted extensively from original Army documents.

For one thing, the usual "cutoff" between the (collector terms) Remington M1903 and M1903 (Modified) is 3,050,000. There is relatively little different between Remington M1903s in the 3,049,000 and those in the 3,051,000 range. I have no problem with people using the term "later Remington M1903" to describe well, later Remington M1903s. But to hint that "Modified" was an official term to describe later Remington M1903s only just ain't true.

I also hate to say it but given Poyer's reputation for fantasy when it comes to M1903s, I wouldn't use him as a source for anything pretaining to M1903s.

Bruce wrote a very good book on M1903s, which I often recommend to those starting out on M1903s. I just don't agree with him on his use of the term "Modified" and I think I am backed up by the facts.

[Faulkner]

I hate to say this, but Bruce is wrong. He admitted as much when he replied to my initial review of his book. The term "Modified" as he used it, is a collector term and not an "official term". The Army used the terms "M1903 Modified" and "Remington M1903" interchangably. There was an excellent article in the Martial Arms Collector magazine that quoted extensively from original Army documents.

For one thing, the usual "cutoff" between the (collector terms) Remington M1903 and M1903 (Modified) is 3,050,000. There is relatively little different between Remington M1903s in the 3,049,000 and those in the 3,051,000 range. I have no problem with people using the term "later Remington M1903" to describe well, later Remington M1903s. But to hint that "Modified" was an official term to describe later Remington M1903s only just ain't true.

I also hate to say it but given Poyer's reputation for fantasy when it comes to M1903s, I wouldn't use him as a source for anything pretaining to M1903s.

Bruce wrote a very good book on M1903s, which I often recommend to those starting out on M1903s. I just don't agree with him on his use of the term "Modified" and I think I am backed up by the facts.

Interesting. Okay, so I went to Bruce's web page and browsed through his section entitled "Canfield's Corner". In a update dated May, 2010, he wrote where he does indeed indicate that the term "Modified" as applied to Remington 1903's is indeed incorrect nomenclature and is not used as official terminology.

I didn't intend to take the topic this deep but I did learn something. I appreciate the discourse Rick.

[Rick the Librarian]

I tend to be a little touchy about the "Modified" term and I hope I didn't give any offense. Whether a Remington is called a "modified" or not, the sun will still rise every morning!

[John Beard]

I concur with Rick. The term "Modified" with respect to the Remington M1903 rifle appeared in official Ordnance documentation several months before the rifle went into production. Bruce Canfield and Joe Poyer merely parroted an incorrect conclusion reached by Clark Campbell many years before.

J.B.

[Rick the Librarian]

In Hansen's article in MAC Magazine, he has copies of documents printed that show the term being used starting in September, 1941.

My opinion has always been that use of the term "Modified" leads to confusion and misunderstanding. Saying "...a late Remington M1903..." or "later in production" is much more accurate.

[Mike Haas]

I have a Remington M1903 with New Zealand markings on the stock. My question is if there was a specific range of serial numbers of the rifles sent to New Zealand.

While I've yet to uncover a specifc list of rifles sent to NZ I think I can give some subjective opinion based on others research which I have read.
In 12/41 Remington had packed 1903's for shipment to England and these were at New York for shipment when Pearl Harbor was attacked. The shipments were held and these rifles were later shipped to NZ.That being the case these rifles had to have been very low serial #'ed Remington 1903's.

Subsequent shipments continiued thru approx. 6/42. Where these dates are only approximate It can give one an "idea" of an approximate serial # range of what was shipped. In other words the US couldn't have shipped what wasn't manufactured yet!

The above being said NZ stamped the 1903 stocks in two different ways. The earliest received being on the L/S butt stock with a 3 digit # and the later being stamped on the R/S butt stock using larger stamps and the (inventory) # ascending into the 5 digit # range.

I'll attach links for your use later tonight that hopefully will support my statements. I want to finish this post because of a emminent thunderstorm here (sure can use the rain!!!)

I'm attaching a link to a rifle I bought. Condition actually turned out better then the description and is perfectly functional although some of you won't like its appearance. It cleaned up very nice and metal is 95% and stock cleaned nicely and BLO did wonders for the wood. Considering the auction price I paid was the "total to my door" I thought it was a hellva deal! cheers:

Civilian Marksmanship Program - Promoting firearms safety training!

Added link: While this link does not directly affect the NZ Rifles it address's The Remington 1903 "Red Star" rifles serisal #'s to some extent. NOTE the author mentions rifle serial #3016776 with a 12/41 barrel as the earliest he observed amongst those rifles. {my NZ marked chrome rifle is 3016760 with 12/41 barrel } .

Red Star Remington Model 1903's

More shortly..Mike Haas

Added link: Previous thread on this forum Stamping Info please

Added link - This article, posted as a sticky on this website is highly informative as to the OP's original questions as well as other commentators.
Of particuliar interest pertinent to this discussion are Pages 22 thrrough 26 concerning shipments of Remington 1903 Rifles via L/L programs (England- NZ-etal). Page 22 " US Army records..a total of 64,003 Remington Rifles(were shipped) to the British Commonwealth under Lend Lease, including it's dominions.."

Remington Society of America - journals/RedStar

All appropriate credit given to the authors and owners of the attached links that I've included in this/my post..

My conclusions and summary - Purely my opinion that very few Remington 1903's were L/L'ed after 5/42 (serial # approx. 3105878). A Remington 1903 rifle with a N/Z stamped stock with a serial # under 3077187,with a consistant N/Z stock stamp (as described above) is a candidate for being authentic. Do your "due dilgence" .

HTH - Mike Haas

[Rick the Librarian]

Regarding the "Red Star" rifles, I have one in my records in the 3,004,000 range - but that is the only one (so far) that is that low. There was also one identified in the 3,008,000 range, another in the 3,012,000 range and another in the 3,016,000 range. I have 125 rifles identified out of the 200 that Will Levin imported in 1955. 36 more are in crates unopened (so far).

Here's the "range":

3,000,000-3,019,999 - 5 rifles

3,020,000-3,029,999 - 10 rifles

3,030,000-3,039,999 - 39 rifles

3,040,000-3,049,999 - 43 rifles

3,050,000-3,059,999 - 24 rifles

over 3,060,000 - 3 rifles (3,089,452; 3,090,031; 3,136,870)

I thought anything over @ 3,054,000 was a misprint or mistake on Bill hansen's part, but as there are at least three, there were a few, apparently, which trickled through.

I don't know if this info is down the rabbit hole, or is of some use.

[Mike Haas]

Regarding the "Red Star" rifles, I have one in my records in the 3,004,000 range - but that is the only one (so far) that is that low. There was also one identified in the 3,008,000 range, another in the 3,012,000 range and another in the 3,016,000 range. I have 125 rifles identified out of the 200 that Will Levin imported in 1955. 36 more are in crates unopened (so far).

Here's the "range":

3,000,000-3,019,999 - 5 rifles

3,020,000-3,029,999 - 10 rifles

3,030,000-3,039,999 - 39 rifles

3,040,000-3,049,999 - 43 rifles

3,050,000-3,059,999 - 24 rifles

over 3,060,000 - 3 rifles (3,089,452; 3,090,031; 3,136,870)

I thought anything over @ 3,054,000 was a misprint or mistake on Bill hansen's part, but as there are at least three, there were a few, apparently, which trickled through.

I don't know if this info is down the rabbit hole, or is of some use.

I think your data is entirely consistant with what I posted today and indeed helpful

Mike Haas