Is it worth it?

Hello,

I have a Springfield 1903 in the 400,XXX serial number range that's in quite good condition. However, it's in a newer commercial reproduction stock with a glossy finish. I'm not sure of the value of the non-fireable rifles, and I'm trying to decide whether it would be smart or foolish to spend the money on an original stock. Can I have your opinions, please?

Thanks,

Mike

What makes it "non-fireable"? :rolleyes:

If your rifle was otherwise all original finding a stock would be worth the effort, but if it has gone through one or more rebuilds plus the whims of the person that put it in a bright and shiny new stock it is probably not going to be worth the expense. It is going to depend on what you are starting with.

Johnny,

Those are excellent points. I think I'll look it over in detail before I make a decision.

Thanks,

Mike

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Johnny Peppers

If your rifle was otherwise all original finding a stock would be worth the effort, but if it has gone through one or more rebuilds plus the whims of the person that put it in a bright and shiny new stock it is probably not going to be worth the expense. It is going to depend on what you are starting with.

---

...Not to mention what the seller want for it.

What do the low-number rifles with the proper stock sell for? I don't recall having seen one for sale.

It depends on whether the rifle is original. A mixmaster LN M1903 sells in the $300-450 range. One that is worn, but original, in the $1500-2000 range. Johnny's comment pretty much nailed it. If the stock has been changed, chances are that other parts have too. If you can get it for the lower price I mentioned and can find a "generic" grasping groove stock and maybe a couple of other parts needed, it might be worth it.

Gentlemen,

While I haven't torn down the rifle yet, I suspect it's going to turn out to be a mixmaster. However, it has a very low serial number, 19079, which I believe makes it an early first-year production rifle. Is that correct? Am I correct that it should be a rod bayonet rifle? Never having seen one, should there be some physical indication of that on the rifle? What's the chances that it was converted to knife bayonet configuration at the factory?

Thanks,

Mike

I am going to go out on a limb here, but you said it was a 400,XXX SN then you gave a number of 19079, if that means this gun is 419,079 than that would put it in the 1910 year of manufacture!
My understaning is there is only a very slim to no chance that this gun was ever anything other than a standard 1903 knife bayonet weapon.

Oops, I must have been thinking of another rifle because the 1903 is 19,079.