Printable View
looking at those pictures, likely original bolt, and the rust pitting, in the locking lug area is why it failed headspace, a replacement is needed for sure. there is a dealer in France and another in Greece that may have a genuine A4 bolt.. shipping a bolt to EU, could be challenging, i know i wouldnt do it. the stock you have pictures appears to be a newly made reproduction made in Italy, fitting can be challenging,
Attachment 138633Attachment 138634Attachment 138635Attachment 138636Attachment 138637Attachment 138638
heres one of my A4s thats 75 rifles away from yours, i got it from an old lady walking it through a gunshow, had been duffle cut, said she found it under her Brothers bed after he died, and that he had it in Europe WW2, and some place i have picture of him with the rifle. its original, and correct, i reblued the bolt, as he had for some reason removed all the finish from it, the original sling was rotted off and hanging, i found one that was pretty close to the original. it has its original scope, barrel and stock, notice its marked RA FJA over SA GAW, as Springfeild provided Remington with 1100 C stocks and hand cut the bolt notch, the black spot was from a can of boot water proof can {snowseal} that had leaked onto the the rifle under the bed, when i got the rifle, the stock was so dry i looked white, the leather scope cover had got wet and as you can see rusted the scope were it was touching
It is true that there are discrepancies and use of different terms between all the '03 reference books (Poyer, Harrrison, Canfield and Brophy; e.g., part name nomenclature for one and "types" - most are author created as the USGov procurement office and manufacturers NEVER designated stocks, or any '03 part with type terms...all parts were uniquely defined and designated ONLY by drawing number and dwg version, and in some cases as a "dash number".
From my experience, I have found that the two easiest to use (Harrison and Poyer) when used together and combined are at best 95% useful or complete, and as stated, both have some contradictions. Even when comparing notes with them to Canfield and Brophy I have found at times that its is still up to me to determine for myself, right or wrong, what bits from any one source to use as fact or consider the most reliable info. I dont consider any one '03 collector's reference book ever printed to be truly "stand-alone".
Nice weapon and too bad this superposition of buffers. A photograph of the lever in profile would have been good. You are known for forging copies of bolt bodies.
Of course, my Remington body bolt is an original, certainly for the first series. The scope mount too. My A4 has lost its green color. Our oils do not have lanolin, unlike you.
Brophy stipulates, contrary to what was done, that the type 1 (C) stock was mounted as a priority. Type 2 (Scant) stocks were mounted on most of the 1903 A4s of the first block then on the C types at the end of 1943 and 44. If your weapon has an arsenal stamp SA-GAW (Springfield Armory (Rebuild only)), it is because there were repairs in US Army after WW2. Until what year did it remain in the USA before joining the house and under the bed of its owner?! It certainly had updates other than its original version. Perhaps a change of stock, or even scope.
The seller in France failed. They tried to sell me a copy (it was a bit visible) while in the meantime, 3 original body bolts went on sale at very reasonable prices (the last one $115). They thought I was certainly ignorant. My raw wood comes from the USA (very well-known seller in the USA) without the notch for the cocking lever.
For information, I have the possibility to buy in the USA and the delivery will also be made in the USA. All that remains is to wait for this bolt body at a decent price.
I am done with this topic and I thank all the participants.
Kind regards
Remington had no, C stocks, for the A4, Springfield sent over, 1100 C stocks from standard 1903s, just as i said, that info is posted in most of the books, the SA GAW is not a rebuild marking. it is a standard marking used at Springfield, on 1903s and M1 Garands, my rifle had never been rebuild, it was smuggled back by the troop that used it in Ww2.
There is indeed a reference to SA made '03 C Stocks that were used at first by Remington for A4s along with Scant Stocks (I missed that over the past years, so this is good to know, thanks!) However no mention of the qty was found (Harrison pgs 168-169, and Poyer pgs 117 and 118). Also, they werent made pre-war nor sent to RA pre-war as they were made by SA for use as replacement stocks on rebuilt '03s and not for NM rifles with dwg # stamps nor the NM quality. Accordingly they were a little rough. I didnt find a reference of SA C-Stock qtys in Canfield nor Brophy either. Perhaps the qty of 1100 was the total A4s made with either stock within the first block?
I cant agree with the SA GAW as being an original 1903, 1903A3 nor 1903A4 inspectors' cartouche. If I recall correctly they are indeed original Garand inspection cartouches, but my understanding if that if SA GAW is found on a 1903, 1903A3 nor 1903A4 they should also have a crossed cannon and they are arsenal rework, 1943-1944 (Harrison pg. 17). Further, all four reference books seem to state that the A4 cartouches were the standard RA/Crossed Cannon/FJA version only (Harrison pg 168). I have not checked Canfield nor Brophy as thoroughly, so perhaps there is additional info there. Also, I am only saying that I didnt FIND the same info, that doesnt mean its not there, simply that Ive not found it, but my understanding since many years now is different from yours.
It was also my understanding that the first group of A4s were stocked with Scant Stocks and the SA C-Stocks as you stated (this is a new learning for me, thanks to you, and I confirmed it finding the references in Harrison and Poyer)! I missed this fact previously, over multiple "reads" over the years! :-O Before today, I would have insisted that all A4 stocks were made by Keystone). Then there was a second and third group of A4 production, but I cant find the reference that seems so clear in my mind, but nonetheless it was my understanding that the 2nd set were made mostly with Scant Stocks and the third with C-Stocks. What blows my mind is that I just read where Poyer says the second set included the SN duplication "Z" prefix A4s, and that they were stocked with Scant Stocks and S-STOCKS!!!!!! S-STOCKS!!!! (Poyer pg 358). I hadnt remembered reading THAT before! I wonder if that is correct?????
---------- Post added at 12:38 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:35 AM ----------
BTW, we have gone far away from the topic of the original post here, but I find it very interesting discussion! :-)
Poyers has alot of misinformation. the scant grip stock wasnt used until the mid production of Z rifles, and not all were scant grip no A4s were ever built with straight stocks, by the last group, they were a mix of C and scant grip, made by 3 vendors, Keystone being only one of them American Billiard and Bowling and Milton Bradly. pre 1942 scant grip stocks were mostly sent to the USMC for 1903 rebuilds, they had no cut for a handguard ring, Clark Campbell, was a manager at Remington at the time, and was a good personal friend of mine , in his book the 03 era page 114 is goes into some detail about the stocks for the A4
I read this thread with interest and I don't mind that we're going off topic (quite the opposite). I'm taking information. But if Springfield sends stocks, shouldn't they be marked after the action is shaped on them and checked by the inspector afterwards?
PS: I still don't see a picture of the body bolt to compare mine to. :))
If someone has one (original) and sells it, it will be delivered to the USA. The rest will be for my gunsmith.
1903 stocks only need to have the recoil lug area opened up, handguard ring cut, and for the A4 the bolt handle notch cut. no shaping is needed as you say. all the 1903 C Stocks Springfield provided to Remington would have a SA marking, then a FJA crossed cannon RA stamped over that, just like mine is.
Hopefully it’s still possible to mail that, maybe DJT will make that easier?