Help Wanted, Identifying 1903 Sporter Origins?

I've had this 1903 Sporter of my late father, since mid-2011. Over the years since, I've researched photos and builders of these fine rifles, but still have no idea who made this one. I've come to realize I may never find out who made it due to the surprising number of people who've made them, but, I'm not going to let that stop me from trying a while longer. From what I've seen, this forum has the most knowledgeable people when it comes to 1903's and the 1903 Sporter, which is why I joined.

This 30-06 Springfield 1903, based on the serial number (1387XXX), was manufactured in 1931, according to the Vishooters site. Unlike some others, there are very few markings on this example. On the lower left side of the receiver, about midway of the rail cutout, is a number 3. On the front underside of the receiver (behind the front action screw hole and recoil-lug) is the letter R, with possibly two other symbols above it. I say "possibly" because I never noticed them before they appeared in the photo I recently took. One looks like a V, the other I'm not sure about, but could be a question mark, or a comma?

I've removed the checkered wood butt plate but only found a vertical pencil line (on the stock) that I assume was used to line up the two screw holes? I haven't removed the matching wood grip cap as I have doubts of finding anything there, and didn't want to chance cracking the thin piece of wood (but will if deemed necessary). The receiver does not appear to have the front edges rounded as the NRA Sporter rifles do. Inside the barrel channel and receiver inletting of the stock, are no markings. The barrel itself has nothing other than the alignment mark, but it does have a Redfield (marked) ramped front sight with brass bead. Originally (before I removed it to install the rail, due to safe overcrowding) there was a blued Buehler scope base and rings, holding a Kowa Prominar 2.5X scope, all of which I still have (as well as a "spare", new in worn box, 6X Prominar scope dad never installed, which could of been for his unmolested 1903-A3, but it's not D&T?). The rifle appears to also have a Buehler style safety lever, but it's not marked as such, and seems thinner to me. As you can see in the photos, the bolt is fully jeweled (around all 360 degrees), yet has no markings, nor does the curved handle. There is a "blemish" near the top of the handle (on the "flat"), as if it may have been marked originally?

What's interesting to me, and may possibly give some clues, is the bottom-metal, with floor-plate release, and fully jeweled (on top) follower. The release in built into the trigger-guard, ahead of the trigger, and the metal blued. The only markings I found was an H with two periods/dots, as shown in one image. I've seen/read about Sako made 1903 bottom-metal which appears similar to this, minus the jeweled follower (Here, Post #8, photos P#1: https://www.milsurps.com/showthread.php?t=69435 ).

I'd like to say; Thank You, in advance, for any assistance provided as to the origins of this rifle, which I highly prize. At this point I don't have much else to offer, but I'm more than willing to take more detailed photos of anything that may help with identification. Not to make that any more complicated, if it does, but my father was a (20 year) career US Navy Officer who retired as a Commander. Besides his involvement in numerous other military activities (chasing typhoons, hunting subs, meteorology, etc) he also shot in competition, most of which was done in San Diego (at a SD Police range, according to the trophies), possibly some in Guam, in the early 60's. I mention this in part due to the exceptional triggers on his early Supermatic, K-38, and 1911, which has me thinking he may of had help from one or more military gunsmiths, but I can't say they built this rifle.

Notes, I did scope the barrel before the one time I fired this rifle (last year). This was from 100 yards, with the Nikon Monarch-5-ED 2-10x50mm, initially using reduced recoil Federal ammo (I'm 61, have numerous health problems, thus am recoil-sensitive), followed with some corrosive surplus FMJ ammo, which dad had lots of, so now I do. I did clean the rifle really good after the corrosive ammo use, naturally. The (cut down sleeve, medium-sized) Pachmayr slip-on recoil pad was amazing at saving my shoulder from bruises and pain, if anyone may have interest in one. It worked so good in fact, that I didn't need the reduced recoil ammo, which is a good thing since I only bought 2 boxes before the (current) ammo shortage hit last year. My prior use of the bore-scope showed the barrel did have some light corrosion, along with a few inches of light heat cracking, but it appeared far safer than numerous barrel photos I've seen that others claimed to have shot on a regular basis. I've thought of having this barrel replaced, but given the amount of corrosive ammo I still have (enough to likely outlast me), the idea became foolish. Considering the normally windy conditions in the high desert where I live and shoot, the old Sporter and I didn't do too bad for only using "a hunting scope" (10X max magnification) at 100-yds. Keep in mind I only started getting serious about paper punching in 2020, and just finished my bench last October (but shot this prone), although I've been shooting for most of my life.

Beautiful sporter would be more than welcome in my gun safe, good luck in your info search, flathead

I don't see any real evidence in your photo's to prove it but your rifle reminds me of a FLAIG'S rifle from the 1960's era. They built alot of rifle's in their day from mausers. 1903's and other military surplus weapons. Do you see any markings anywhere on the barrel that would give a clue who built it or maybe a caliber marking that someone might recognize? Very nice looking rifle that to me.. exhibits workmanship from a past era.

Thank you flathead sir.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wthenley

I don't see any real evidence in your photo's to prove it but your rifle reminds me of a FLAIG'S rifle from the 1960's era. They built a lot of rifle's in their day from mausers. 1903's and other military surplus weapons. Do you see any markings anywhere on the barrel that would give a clue who built it or maybe a caliber marking that someone might recognize? Very nice looking rifle that to me.. exhibits workmanship from a past era.

---

Thanks Mr Wthnley sir. Sadly there's nothing on the barrel other than the alignment mark, and I was looking very close for familiar to me names such as Sedgley G&H, Owens, etc, or any thing else (there's not even a caliber marking). After the many 1903 Sporter's I've seen while searching these online, I'm surprised how few markings are on this one, maybe shocked is more accurate?
With what I know of my father, his shooting - gun buying habits, and where he/we were stationed, I too think it was (at the earliest a very late 50's creation, otherwise) early 60's. My dad did have a habit of "helping (other service) guys out" and would purchase firearms from some needing cash, so that adds more complications to the mystery for me.
I'll try to look into Flaig's and see if I can find anything that matches up.
Does anyone know anything about the Roberts (Wood Products) "1903 conversion kits" that I've only read about in that old thread I referenced in the 1st post (post #10 in that thread, by rgg_7)? I haven't been able to find anything on that yet (other than a current hardwood flooring co with the name).

Photo Note: I "airbrushed" an S-III scope, mount, and the rail, out of the image, so don't let any "weirdness" at the tops of the receiver bother you.
Attachment 116800

I would leave it alone. Barrel is likely OK. Just how accurate is it? That is the only question that remains.

looks like a typical 60's era sporterized 1903. Bueller was one of the more well known aftermarket part supplier of that time. what is the barrel length?

Calif-Steve, as I mentioned in my original post (last paragraph - "Notes") "the idea became foolish" when it comes to replacing the barrel (mostly due to the amount of corrosive ammo I have on hand). The rifle will likely stay as is due to it having been my fathers "pride and joy". The true accuracy potential may take some time, and a scope swap to fully determine, as the Nikon 2-10X scope (for me) doesn't have near the magnification I need for attempting small groups at that distance. That said, the target photo in my 1st post was with a 1/2" target-dot, and as mentioned, was shot at 100 yards. I believe that shows the rifle is more than accurate enough for hunting, but I don't hunt.

Rugersworld, your assessment is likely accurate ("60's era"). I don't yet know the tenon length of 1903 barrels, so the measurement I took is from the receivers front edge to the muzzle, which is 21.5 inches.

Thanks for all the responses gentlemen.