Printable View
I traded a Chicom Tokarev I got while evacuating Saigon back in the early 1980s. I am not exactly sure how it is classified today (A-whatever), but it is clearly a 1942 rebuild with a scant stock. Shots well. No corrosion, no evidence of refinishing, overall really good condition. I am finding it difficult to figure a worth.
Is that a Rock Island Frank Krack stamp? Nice...
Yes, it is RIA over FK. I have often thought it interesting that they bothered to rebuild a "low serial number" 1903, but maybe this one was heat treated or wartime demands dictated using everything available. The barrel has a mirror-like finish, and the rifling looks good to my untrained eye - I think it did not end up with very many rounds through it.
There's a lot about that here in forum, if you search it out you'll be very interested. Not heretics shouting each other down but old experienced collectors with actual information. Well worth a read. You still have to take away what you will though...Quote:
Originally Posted by RDG
General Hatcher issued a bulletin (No. 23-10-1) stating all servicable U.S. Rifles, Cal.30, M1903 will continue in service regardless of the serial number stamped on receiver.
(30 September 1943)
Prior to that all low number rifles were to be stripped for usable parts.
I'm sure Corporal Norton has all the note's/letter copy's of the whole episode.
Major Smith (USMC) thought Hatcher was some what daft for condemning them. I believe the Marine's kept them in Service(Conjecture?)
Ed
So, despite its elderly s/n, would this be considered an A3?
1903/A3 had a receiver sight so this isn't one.Quote:
Originally Posted by RDG
Ah, yes, my mistake. You see why this particular gun seems to defy classification. I guess it is just a rebuilt 1903.Quote:
Originally Posted by browningautorifle
That's right. I didn't see it as too confusing though. Many, many old rifles underwent this very thing. Many of them were lost when the Philippines fell.Quote:
Originally Posted by RDG
Most of them were put into long-term storage in the 1920s...a convenient way to dodge the issue in peacetime. Any that came in from the field after a certain cutoff date were to be scrapped, and replaced with a high-numbered rifle.Quote:
Originally Posted by ed skeels
They did, because they had to...the Navy wasn't in the small-arms procurement business. (This wasn't limited to rifles either...the Marines also applied to purchase M1911A1s in the 1920s, and were rejected by the Navy.) Their response was to minimize the known risks as much as possible...to that end, they replaced the bolts and barrels with new parts to ensure tight headspace (and remove the casehardened bolt), drilled a rough "Hatcher" hole into the receiver ring for gas venting, and ordered that they were not to be used for anything that would produce a sudden, sharp shock to the receiver, such as firing rifle grenades.Quote:
I believe the Marine's kept them in Service(Conjecture?)
First time I've seen an RIA mark on a scant stock. I had always thought they were only used by Remington or Smith Corona in A3 production, or as field replacements. I've seen/used several field replacements, and they only have the final manufacturer's first letter marked, if anything. (Keystone has a "K" on the forend tip, with a bomb. Springfield S in the mag cutoff recess, etc.)Quote:
Originally Posted by RDG
So, re-stocked with a field replacement during tear down and rebuild at Rock Island between 1941-1946 (Frank Krack stamp range), and re-proofed too. Does this increase the chance that it was a USMC hold-on-to? Is that an extra vent hole on the right side of the receiver in the last pic? can't see it in the first pic close up.
The Army never pulled the low numbers receivers from Service. Hundreds of thousands stayed in service the whole 1903 service life. They only would replace low number receivers when they came in for rebuild from 1928 to 1940. But unless a low number went back in for rebuild, it was never pulled from service. The reason the Army decided to replace the low number receivers when they came in for rebuild was because they were worried how the single heat treat receiver would react to defective ammo (especially cartridge case failures) that were often exceeding the pressure that the 1903 receiver was designed to take. So they were pulled because of the way they may respond to an ammo failure that was very common back then.
The Marines never pulled any low number receivers as they did not feel the Army Policy of replacing the receivers was justified. They felt the receivers were safe for normal use. The only thing the Marines did was not fire VB rifle grenades out of low numbers from the mid 20's to 1939. By 1939 the Marines even rescinded the policy of not firing rifle grenades out of them.
The Army removed the policy of replacing low number receivers in rebuild in 1940. To try as get as many serviceable rifles as they could for the war effort. By 1944/45 Springfield Armory and RIA had changed their stance on low number receivers because they had not seen any failures. They both stated they felt they were entirely safe as long as they headspaced and they were using standard m2 spec ammo.
Springfield Armory wanted to go public in 1944 stating low numbers were entirely safe, to try to stop the public's concerns. They wanted to post a article in the American Rifleman at the time stating they were entirely safe but for whatever reason the article was never picked up.
The whole tone of the low number receivers changed in WWII and you never seen Army Ordnance worry about their safety again.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cplstevennorton
Quote:
Originally Posted by cplstevennorton
Quote:
Originally Posted by cplstevennorton
Quote:
Originally Posted by cplstevennorton
You know how many times this exact discussion comes up as well Steve, I wonder if a sticky could be created with not just this info you speak of but I know you have written documentation in the reams in possession. To be able to show these things would be beneficial to not just this forum but it will come up in future internet searches...Quote:
Originally Posted by cplstevennorton
Here are two photos showing the "extra" vent hole on the right side of the receiver, one with and one without a flashlight shone into the receiver showing it is drilled all the way through. If this is an extra vent, where might the first one be? From previous discussion, does it appear this may be a Marine rifle? I like the comment that it may have been reproofed; to what pressure one wonders? You would think there would be documentation of this work. Anyway, I think it's a fun shooter and have no qualms about using ammo my gunsmith uncle loaded back in the fifties as well as some I have reloaded (nothing HOT) in the last decade or two.
Quote:
Originally Posted by browningautorifle
I have really thought of just writing up bullet points like that Jim, and then posting the Ordnance docs under them and do it in chronological order. So that way you just follow the progression from the beginning all the way to the end. Then that way people can research it themselves and decide if they feel safe firing low numbers.
I even thought of maybe seeing if we could put it on one of the forums as a sticky, or even just put it on the USMC Weaponry page and then people just post a link to it when this question pops up.
That is the standard gas escape hole. The additional one is on the direct opposite of the receiver. The Army started to drill the additional gas escape hole in the Spring of 1937 on the new NM's and SA drilled it on all rebuilds going forward of that date.Quote:
Originally Posted by RDG
The Marines started to drill it in the fall of 1938.
This rifle above I am sorry to say is unlikely Marine. :(
But this is the additional gas escape hole. This one was drilled by the Marine Corps. But it's the same as the Army in everyway. In fact Springfield Armory is the one who taught the Marines to drill them.
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...mNL9a9zh-1.jpg
---------- Post added at 04:56 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:52 PM ----------
It was 100% for sure re-proofed when the barrel was installed.Quote:
Originally Posted by RDG
The proofing changed over the years, but this was the policy in 1939. Some documents state the avg pressure of the proof round was 70,000 PSI
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...1PDmMM5h-1.jpg
This is how the Marine Proof Fired a M1903.
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...IcaMYLPh-1.jpg
Sort of what I was inferring, so we have a datum point.Quote:
Originally Posted by cplstevennorton
Great information. This rifle has no added vent on the left side, just the one I showed in the last photograph. But a 1942 barrel and rifle proofed to as high as 70,000 psi is a win!
Everyone seems to be forgetting why Springfield M1903 rifles failed.......not the high pressure generated by a normal M1 or M2 round, BUT what happened when a defective standard M1 or M2 round had a head separation. The low numbers failed in a catastrophic fashion, but the high numbers failed in a less than catastrophic fashion.
Talked about in post 12.Quote:
Originally Posted by m1903rifle
Say, is that a National Match butt plate?
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo.../eovu8NI-1.jpg
I wouldn't know what a NM butt plate looked like, but off the cuff I would wonder why a match plate might have a cleaning compartment cover.
For cleaning gear.Quote:
Originally Posted by RDG
Here is the butt plate on my 1903 NM rifle
http://www.milsurps.com/images/impor...0DwEjpg2-1.jpg
USMC match rifles used the "meat tenderizer" buttplate...looks like Calfed has one of those with wider and deeper checkering than the one in the OP.
I think the story was in Canfield's book? - USMC recommended the whole Corps adopt these based on performance by the marksmanship team, and because there were not enough to go around armorers/individuals started to stipple the buttplates. I've read too much. Can't keep it all straight anymore. Correct me if I'm wrong on the source.
Yep, deeeep checkering on those. I always wanted one of those butt plates on mine.Quote:
Originally Posted by ssgross
Must be a reason few military rifles have such a rough surface. Catches on clothing, slow to change position, extra cost to manufacture. Target shooting doesn't necessarily translate to combat shooting - close up, fast, quick to the shoulder, interspersed with long periods of carry.
The photo of the NM butt plate shows rhe faintest outline of the cleaning tube hole, but it does not appear complete with the hinge section. Is there really anything there?
Yes, there's a complete butt trap there... Just hard to see because of the huge checkering, the line is in it.Quote:
Originally Posted by RDG
Even though they are called the NM buttplate, they were just a design change by SA in the 20's. They were just the updated design that could have been used on any rifle. It's just SA didn't build new service rifles after 1927 and didn't use the buttplates that often other than the new NM rifles.