Hopefully I followed the procedure correctly this time. Let me know what you think. Thanks
Printable View
Hopefully I followed the procedure correctly this time. Let me know what you think. Thanks
Let's try this.....
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...P1070507-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...P1070506-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...P1070505-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...P1070504-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...P1070503-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...P1070502-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...P1070501-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...P1070500-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...P1070499-1.jpg
Nice rifle-PD
What makes it "re-arsenaled"? Scant stock makes me think Greek, but pale parkerizing makes me think not Greek. Looks nice from the photos. Nice find. But mind you, buy the gun, not the story! I don't care who says what, most stories are not true.
My computer will not open the photobucket links - it just goes to the PB home page.
Is the butt plate stippled?
Scant stocks were used during rebuild, indicating the rifle was rebuilt. However, if this was a Greek CMP rifle, the stock could have been switched by either the Greeks or the CMP.
What is the s/n & bbl date?
Does the receiver have a Hatcher Hole & does the bolt head also have a large hole between the lugs?
What other USMC characteristics exist?
Yes, has the hatcher hole, larger hole in bolt, bolt is SA 42, barrel is stamped U.S.M.C. 9 42 (S), Marine sights front and rear, stippled butt plate...
receiver: RI 311,XXX muzzle gauges at 0... not a CMP rifle, part of a long held collection
PARTS GUN! No real evidence of it being and USMC rifle. The barrel only means that it was replaced sometime after WW2. The new USMC barrels were $35 from SARCO about 30 years ago. There is no evidence that the Marines ever used any of the barrels for rebuilding springfields.
Hey MS,
It's not just about the barrel.
There is a bunch of evidence pointing to the fact that Para's rifle is USMC.
Has a Hatcher hole, enlarged gas hole in the bolt, Sedgley USMC marked barrel, stippled buttplate, and I just saw it...a dink in front of the serial number (Jim T. ya' might need your glasses to see that):). That's five known USMC points. Could be six if the serial falls in between known Marine numbers. Seem to be a lot of RIA Marine rifles in the three hundred thousand number range.
Yes it was re-arsenaled or put together by USMC armorers. No RIA '03 left the arsenal with anything but an RIA barrel.
Scant stocks were replacements. No newly manufactured RIA, SA or Remington or SC left the facility wearing a scant stock except for some snipers, sure don't know nothin' about them.
Didn't count the sights. They first appeared in the early twenties and were discontinued about 1928 or so. And an order was issued that any rifle with Marine sights that went through overhaul after '28 would have them replaced with standard service sights, but could be retained or re-installed by special request. That's all J.B.'s info. He's a generous guy.
The presence of a scant stock on a Marine rifle is debatable, don't no nuffin' bout' dat, I'll leave that to two of our experts to discuss the next time they eat ribs together:).
One or two USMC points on an '03 doesn't make a strong case for an '03 being Marine, but Para's rifle has five and maybe a sixth if the serial shows up in the right place.
Think Para has a pretty strong case for having a Marine rifle. Matching serialized bolt would certainly put it over the top.
Regards and death to bad guys,
Lancebear
Paratrooper,
If not for that scant stock, your rifle has many indications of being a USMC WWII rebuild. Something tells me the stock was added at a later date by someone other than the Corps. The serial number is in a range populated by many pre-WWI Corps rifles, and I have several known USMC rifles in that range with Sedgley 4-32 to 9-42 barrels.
For my money, it is a USMC rifle with a scant stock added by persons unknown. It is just an opinion.
Jim
1903 rock pictures by bodydenny - Photobucket
Here's a link to a rifle I picked up last year that a member found. my camera skills suck,but the barrel date is sedgely USMC 8/41. Also,I once owned RIA 352,598 that had USMC features save the scant stock and standard sights.
A slight disagreement with Musketshooter -- although I'm not familar with the barrels sold at Sarco, most new USMC Sedgely barrels were in the 1943 and 1944 barrel dates and were not used on Marine rifles. As I understand it, they went into the "mixed" for use on U.S. Army rifles, and (in a large number of cases) not used at all. I believe most of the 1941- and 1942-dated barrels were actually used on rifles. I'm not necessarily saying "yea" or "nay" on the rifle under discussion, but the 1942 barrel may be legitimate.
Many Sedgely USMC barrels were used by the Army.
And what makes you think the USMC didn't use scant stocks? I suggest that you reconsider.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Tarleton
J.B. :wave:
I find it remarkable that some believe the USMC contracted with Sedgley for tens of thousands of replacement barrels during WWII, and then declined to use them. I have seen scores and scores of Sedgley USMC barrels with dates up through 1943 that were installed in USMC rifles.
I further find it remarkable that the USMC turned over their unused Sedgley barrels to the Army. I'm still waiting to find significant quantities of Army-issue rifles fitted with Sedgley USMC barrels. But meanwhile, I'm not holding my breath.
J.B.
Now you know that my Corps wouldn't use those uglya$$ scant stocks on their fine 1903 Springfields.:madsmile:Quote:
Originally Posted by John Beard
To be honest, I have always had the impression that the Corps did not use scant stocks, but I am not certain where I got that thought.:bow: Are you saying the Corps did indeed utilize the scant stock? I thought the scant to be a product of mid to late WWII, after the Corps switched to the M1.:thup:
Jim:cool:
Jim:
The first scants were made at Springfield in early/mid 1942, before the 03A3 was standardized. These have the mortice for the M1905 rear sight, but do not have the mortice for the barrel guard ring of the 03A3. The two that I have are nicely finished and would pass for a pre-war "C" stock except for the lack of the full grip.
Resp'y,
Bob S.
The Marine Corps would sell the barrels for scrap before they GAVE them to anyone, particularly the Army.:madsmile:Quote:
Originally Posted by John Beard
I fail to see the motivation for the USMC to give away perfectly good barrels, particularly at a time when the Army didn't really need the barrels.:dunno:
Jim:cool:
Bob,
That is earlier than I thought, still, the Corps was switching to the M1. I have no definitive evidence either way as far as the Corps using scant stocks.
Thanks, Bob, and you too, John.
Jim
Thanks for all the information and support gentlemen. This is my first '03 purchase, I rarely by on impulse or emotion, but this rifle really jumped out at me. I wanted a WW2 era rifle and with the RIA '18 barrel, I really get the sense I'm the steward of a genuine piece of American history. I've been to U.S. battle monuments in Europe, the Arizona at Pearl, every monument and memorial in D.C. as well as Arlington Mem. in VA.... when I hold this rifle in my hands, the same emotions are tapped.
I've sweated and humped with Marines, from jump school to missions in Latin America... I've always had a great respect for the Corp...so owning an '03 that once belonged to the U.S.M.C. is all at once an honor and a privilege... Semper Fi, Macs... and Airborne All The Way!!
I've seen all varieties of Scant stocks, as far as quality. Some look like they were turned out by a beginning 5th grade woodworking class. I have seen others which, like Bob's, had every bit as much quality as pre-WWII Type C stocks.
Hey Rick,
I have two scants on rifles. Both Springfield and real fine. What other manufacturers made scants? Remington and SC perhaps?
Death to bad guys,
LB
Springfield, Keystone and (I think?) American Bowling and Billiard?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Tarleton
The USMC did indeed utilize scant stocks. Lots of them! Most of the ones I've seen were inletted for the '03-A3 barrel guard ring and were made by a contractor during late WWII. And, of course, the stocks have neither an inspection stamp nor a proof mark because the USMC didn't mark their rifles during WWII.
J.B. :wave:
I just got a RI 03 that has the USMC Sedgley barrel(6-41 date), S/N on bolt, but the stock is straight grip, no grooves, and no inspectors marks. Has Hatcher hole, extra hole in bottom of bolt. 312xxx ser#. Gun show dealer with table full of 03s claimed I had a spare parts gun, but I suspect he wanted it cheap. Any body help on this?? Stock looks like it has been there a long time-cosmo around the metal parts, but minty surface wise.
Your description matches that of a WWII USMC-issue service rifle. Congratulations! :wave:Quote:
Originally Posted by xs hedspace
J.B.
p.s.,
I would be grateful if you would e-mail me the complete serial number for my data base. Thanks!
Sorry, senior moment---S/N is 321xxx, and the buttplate is smooth, except for a checkered trap. Stock has maybe 3 slight dings in it, but the front sight band looks like somebody had a hard time taking off the sight cover!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick the Librarian
and I believe Milton Bradley.
regards,
Jim
