Printable View
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...g?t=1269793350
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...g?t=1269793544
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...69793612-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...g?t=1269793694
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...g?t=1269793766
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...g?t=1269793825
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...g?t=1269793883
Cleaned of red paint, grease and hay, by Will Levin.
FRSB lightening cuts, and GG not present on this rifle
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...g?t=1269794101
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...g?t=1269794154
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...g?t=1269794206
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...g?t=1269794262
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...69794320-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...g?t=1269794373
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...g?t=1269794432
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...g?t=1269794482
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...g?t=1269794549
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...69794636-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/imported/deleted.gif[/IMG]
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...g?t=1269794793
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...g?t=1269794848
Uncleaned with GG
Did you clean off the red paint? I would NOT take off the red paint.
as is grease and hay.
I received a thankyou note signed by Terrll Mullins, and John Beard in the Man at Arms issues noting these 2 SN's.
Andy
That's a beauty! I am envious.
Sorry for any confusion..there are 2 different RA Red Star M1903's here. One was cleaned in the 1950's..other with GG is how I got it, and how it still is!
Andy
That's what you get for carrying a greasy rifle through the weeds!! :D
He took the pics in Man at Arms!!
I need you to sign one of the mags too Rick...
I bet I could have taken some gems for pics too!
Andy
To bad the one was "cleaned", but never the less, beautiful rifles!
I know you are proud, and you know I am jealous! :cheers:
Garandrew,
Sure -- no problem. PM/email me and we can make arrangements.
FWIW, both of these rifles have both the Hatcher hole, and smaller hole opposiite side of the receiver.
There are other original rifles with GG in the 51K range too...late, but possible.
Will e-mail you Rick...Thanks Andy
Now what you have is a "siren" calling you. EVERYTIME you look at it you will say to yourself "It's dirty, I MUST clean it!" But you must resist the calling! :madsmile:
I got one already cleaned so I wouldn't have that problem! :thup:
Nice rifles! :super:
Emri
Dirty she stays!
Just as Tommy Atkins left her when he snubbed her, when the band began to play, for her cousin the homegrown SMLE.
Andy,Quote:
Originally Posted by Garandrew
Don't get too sentmentally attached to that grease...It isn't the original grease they were packed in at the factory. That grease was removed as soon as they were unpacked when they reached Britain. That's a coat of good, old, English grease and wood shavings that was slathered on the rifles, no earlier than December of 1954, when these rifles were re-packed for shipment back to the US.
Don't be afraid to remove the goop...In fact, I did just that with the five rifles I bought from Red Star.
Terry
The reason I'm leaving the grease on the grasping groove rifle is because it proves even beyond the magazine SN list, its a LL Red Star, and unmolested since the Brits put the grease on. I know its not RA shipping cosmoline.
If you look at the magazine pictures of the rifles out of the crate...what you see, is what I have...it blows minds at the Big E gunshow where Ive shown it to eye popping crowds....and I was just carrying it in to show a buddy from NY who collects 03's.
I'm not selling, but I guarantee it will be more valuable in the grease,,,because buyers would anticipate what it would look like with their TLC...removing the grease.
GG rifles are much rarer....and I'm proud to have 1, plus another with non GG stock, sort of the 2 big variations...
BTW..."Modified" does not refer to non GG rifles with stamped later parts, with FJA as some suggest....I note you dont refer to them with that nomenclature anyway...
We need a book on these early RA M1903's...
They are all "Modified"...by U.S. Ordnance reference, but not officially by the U.S. or RA, just "U.S. Model M1903 Remington" from 3000,000 to 03-A3
Andy
I don't doubt that the rifle draws attention in it's "uncleaned" state. I had several knowledgeable people suggest I leave #3024801 uncleaned but then again, my mother always said I lacked patience! :D
Andy,Quote:
Originally Posted by Garandrew
You are no doubt correct that the grease will make it more valuable to someone, but, personally, I would be a bit careful of representing the rifle as, "...unmolested since the Brits put the grease on."
Another, perhaps over-looked, value in keeping the grease on, is the fact that it covers up the dings and gouges in the stock from the more than fifty years of being thrown around by stevedores and longshoreman during its two voyages across the Atlantic, plus numerous moves across the country, while being tightly nestled against its crate-mates and separated from the row above, or below, by wooden dividers.
It is a crying shame what these beautiful rifles went through while lodged in those crates. The storage method did an excellent job of protecting the metal, but, not so great the wood. Apart from the various degrees of dings and gouges in the fore-end, of the dozens of these rifles I examined in Loren's store, every single one of them had major impressions in the butt from the front band screw of the rifle laying next to it in the crate. Some of these impressions were of such pressure that they bear the reverse image of the screw head, so the screwdriver slot in the head of the screw now protrudes.
Under some of these dents can be seen the evidence of British armorers attempts to sand out some of the dings the rifles received in their first trip across the Atlantic...Wouldn't do to issue a new rifle with fresh dents visible in the stock, now would it, old chap!
Perhaps there is more to be said in leaving the grease on than I first thought.
Terry
Just out of curiosity does anyone know for a fact how Remington packed newly produced rifles?
TM 9-1270 indicates 03's, A1'a, A3'a and A4's were packed in "containers" of 10 rifles. The same manual speaks of three grades preservatives - Oil for short term, Light preservative compound for longer term storage and Heavy preservative compound (cosmolene ?) for dead storage.
Its always seemed to me to be sort of pointless to have put rifles in cosmolene if they would be shipped right to Camp Swampy and put in the hands of new recruits who would then have to take the godawful stuff off!
On the other hand I can see that some of the crates may have gone on an ocean voyage and even been stored outside until issued. Certainly all of the rifles surplus from WW1 would have been put up in cosmo or something like it.
Also wouldn't the factory shipping crates have contained brackets or braces inside to prevent adjacent rifles from banging into each other in transit?
:dunno: Any rate if anyone knows it would be another piece of the puzzle.
Regards,
Jim
Jgaynor,
Can't really comment on Remington's shipping crates, other than to say, that judging by the evidence of old, previously sanded dings in the butts, directly under the fresher dings, I would think it quite possible that Remington packed them in a very similar fashion to that employed by the Brits when they sent them back.
The Brit method in this case, was two rows of six rifles per row, on top of each other, the two rows separated by two wooden dividers which were kept in place by slots down the sides of the crates. The six rifles in each row were arranged by alternating muzzle to butt, up and down, next to each other, with nothing but a bit of wood shavings and grease to keep them apart.
Terry
One thing that surprised us when we opened the two crates was that the rifles were not totally engulfed in straw, as we had been led to believe. As best I can figure, the rifles when they were packed in "bigger numbers in the UK, must have been packed in straw and grease. There were just the few flecks and pieces of straw (no wood shavings) on the rifles when we opened the crates.
(Pictures below)
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...standard-7.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...standard-5.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...019120LR-1.jpg
[QUOTE=Rick the Librarian;114407]One thing that surprised us when we opened the two crates was that the rifles were not totally engulfed in straw, as we had been led to believe. As best I can figure, the rifles when they were packed in "bigger numbers in the UK, must have been packed in straw and grease. There were just the few flecks and pieces of straw (no wood shavings) on the rifles when we opened the crates.
Rick,
It appears that different types and quantities of packing materials were used in packing these rifles. Some of the first crates I saw open at Loren's were quite stuffed with this filler, but, never enough to prevent stock dings, unfortunately. I thought it was straw too, until I looked at it more closely and discovered it to be finely cut wood shavings. You can see some wood chips stuck to the rifle in the beginning of this thread. Not to say there wasn't any straw in the crates you opened, but, I think you'll find those thin strands of material stuck to the rifles in the photos you graciously posted are really very fine strips of wood. Not that it really matters.
Thanks much for posting the photo of the markings with the shipping address on top of one of the crates. This confirms the information I gave a very sceptical John in November of 2008, that these crates of rifles, had indeed, gone to Wright Patterson Air Force Base.
Best regards,
Terry
Remington rifles were packed 10 rifles/crate. The crates were made from wood and obtained from an outside supplier. The crate design had to be approved by the Army Ordnance Dept.Quote:
Originally Posted by JGaynor
Although I have not knowingly examined a Remington crate, I very seriously doubt that Army Ordnance would have allowed the rifles to bang together.
J.B. :wave:
Terry,Quote:
Originally Posted by Terry Hawker
I have no recollection of having expressed skepticism that the rifles had gone to Wright-Patterson AFB. When the rifles arrived in the U.S., Capt. Willard Levin was stationed at Wright-Patterson AFB, which is in Dayton, OH. I clearly stated in a message on or about 12 November 2008 that the rifles arrived and remained in Dayton, OH.
You stated that the rifles followed Maj. Levin from duty station to duty station. I disagreed and stated that the rifles remained in Dayton for the duration of Lt. Col. Levin's military career.
The shipping label you cite confirms my statement. Look closely. The stenciled addressing ships the rifles via Wright-Patterson AFB from Dayton, OH, to Lt. Col. Willard Levin's retirement home in California. The rifles had been sitting in his brother's basement in Dayton all those years.
J.B.
The rifles DID NOT follow Maj. Levin from duty station to duty station. John is correct that they were stored in a basement in Dayton, Ohio. Will Levin's next duty station was Eglin AFB in Florida and from there he was stationed in Los Angeles, CA where he ultimately retired from the Air Force. The rifles were shipped from Dayton to Los Angeles. Only one minor correction, the basement was the basement of his cousin, not brother, who was in the wine business in Dayton. As for wood shavings, I have never seen any. I'm not saying that some crates opened previously didn't have wood shavings. The two crates that I've seen opened, and quite a few rifles that I've seen that still had cosmoline and "straw" on them from crates that had been opened in previous years, certainly had no wood shavings.
TexaG45...I have a feeling he would know what hes talking about! :-)
Andy in CT :-) :-)
John,Quote:
Originally Posted by John Beard
It appears you and I have different recollections. Personally, I find as I get older my memory gets worse, so I do keep any e-mails that are interesting, as I did our past correspondence. I have no intention of getting into a silly, "I said, you said,..." spitting contest that would only demean us both. In that vein, when I made that comment in Rick's post, I purposely referred to you only by your first name, as I knew Rick would know what I was talking about, while the majority of readers probably would not.
If my remark offended you, that certainly wasn't my intention and I apologize.
Now that someone else has gotten into the fray though, I feel a clarification is in order. I made the remark I did because of your complete dismissal of the information I gave you, regarding the crate I saw at Loren's, plainly addressed to Wright-Patterson Air Force Base. "Very sceptical...", was the most polite way I could think of to describe your attitude at the time - "complete denial", probably would have been more accurate.
As far as the infamous, "...followed him from duty station to duty station." statement you credit me with, my MKL article, as well as our private correspondence, plainly shows that this is something I was told by the selling agent.
Going from Wright-Patterson AFB, to the Dayton basement, is something that makes much more sense, now that I know you accept the fact that they did, indeed, go to W-P first. Now I can correct that statement in my article.
I do hope this resolves any lingering unpleasantness John.
Thanks for a fascinating, but, very educational, article, that so well fills in the backgound history of these interesting rifles and what they went through on their long journey to Red Star.
Best Regards,
Terry
Texag45,Quote:
Originally Posted by Texag45
As far as the "duty station to duty station" comment is concerned, please see my reply to John.
"Wood shavings" and "straw" - Perhaps we are only discussing semantics here. "Wood shavings" does conjure up a picture of nice, wide, curling strips, rising up from a woodplane, I admit, so it probably isn't the correct term to describe what was in the five crates at Loren's. "Straw" is that hollow-tubed, dry plant product fed to animals - also not was in those five crates. If you are using "straw" as a generic term for that old packing material, much like we now use "peanuts" to describe the styrofoam packing material we use today, then you are quite correct.
It was mentioned that the latest two crates opened had very little "straw" in them, and, perhaps, that is part of the problem...Just not enough material to notice the difference. Some of the open crates I saw at Red Star were full of the stuff. As can be seen in the photos where it is stuck on the rifles, it consisted of bits and pieces of various sizes and fibers. The handfuls of stuff I saw in the crates were rather odd, usually white, rounded bundles of extremely thin fibers, strange enough to prompt, "What the heck is this stuff?" It was much too thin to be straw, wasn't hollow inside as straw is, and when I broke several strands in half, discovered it was a wood product of some sort. How it was made, I don't know, but I would guess it may have been produced through some shredding process of lumber scraps.
Whether this same stuff was used in all the crates, I couldn't say, but it is what was inside the Red Star crates, and, I see lots of it stuck to the rifles in the photos. Yes, some straw could easily have been mixed in with it in some of the crates, but I didn't see any in the crates at Loren's.
Regards,
Terry
As Terry said, the material used to pack the rifles could have been a variety of things - to us, it looked like straw, but as he also said, it may be a matter of semantics. Here are two detailed pictures of a Remington from the collection in the 3,021,000 range, which shows the material we found.
The only thing I will say is that both crates we opened did not have any of this packing material around the rifles, just some of this stuff stuck to the rifles, themselves. Obviously, I cannot say what was in the 6 crates that made up the "Red Star" rifles.
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...standard-6.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...standard-7.jpg
Looks like wood shavings to me.
Jim
Terry, thanks for the response.
With regard to the rifles being "shipped from duty station to duty station," I certainly understand that you were told that and there should be no reflection on you whatsoever. My purpose in posting was simply to correct that notion, because it didn't happen. There have been things said and written about Willard Levin and about his importation of the Remington 1903 rifles that are incorrect. Some of these things are trivial and don't matter and I would put this "duty station shipping" stuff into the trivial column. Having said this, I obviously hate to see some of these things perpetuated, even though trivial.
Re: the "straw." I have never been real comforatble with the use of the word "straw" because, like you, I envision straw material being long straight stems that are hollow. I felt that the use of "straw" in the "Man At Arms" article was about the best description of the material that we saw without going into a long winded discussion of what it looked like. While I agree with Jim Tarleton that the photos posted by Rick seem to show wood shavings, what I saw mostly was dried grass that looked like it came from my Coastal Bermuda field. Coastal Bermuda is a grass that has long runners with branches of leaves and stems coming off the runners. Jim will certainly know what Coastal looks like.
While I'm picking around with corrections, as I recall, the sale though Red Star was 5 crates, not 6, and Will Levin held a few rifles back out of those 5 crates.
I find it strange that the crates at Red Star were packed full of "straw" when the crates that I have seen opened show only remnants of "straw" on the cosmoline of the rifles. The rifles were crated at the same time for shipment to Will Levin. They were shipped in two shipments, but the second bunch was simply held in storage at Pall Mall Depositories, London, until Will Levin directed them to ship. Why would the crates be packed differently? You could speculate that they may have been packed at two separarte depots, but I think that unlikely with an order of 200 rifles.
JB and Texag45,
The "...duty station to duty station" line has now been corrected in the MKL article. Also changed the "six" crates in the earlier post to five, thanks for catching that...Suppose my brain was thinking of sixty rifles and out came six crates. As my neighbor says, "This getting old...It's not for wimps!"
As far as the different quantities of "straw" in the crates is concerned, open a few more and you may be surprised at what you find.
Regards,
Terry
Terry,
As you once pointed out to me, one of the virtues of internet publishing is the ability to go back and correct errors. You are to be commended for correcting the errors as you described.
J.B.
i agree Jim. I think the stuff is actually termed "Excelsior". When the family moved to Germany and back to the States in the late 50's the commercial packing and shipping companies used it pretty widely in our breakable stuff.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Tarleton
Christmastime TV watchers will also recognize it from Darren McGavin's "major award" :D
Regards,
Jim
Thanks guys.
I figured that someone was simply going to say: " The Brits obviously ran out of straw!!" :)