What do you make of this M1903MkI USMC rebuild?

[Claven2]

I think this rifle is a legit USMC rebuild, but happy to hear what other think of it. It followed me home yesterday from a local shop.

Key features:

-USMC sept 41 Sedgely barrel
-checkered buttplate
-pipe vise marks just ahead of rear sight base
-a smattering of R maker replacement parts mixed with older re-used parts
-the stock may have been slightly relieved for the bolt handle
-electropencilled serial number on bolt (but sadly not matching)
-no P proof stamps on the stock. Stock is finger groove type, but not relieved for MkI ejection port.
-straight-backed handguard that has been modified to deepen the sighting groove - pretty sure I've seen pictures of other USMC rifles with the same modification.
-interestingly no hatcher hole.

Gun came with storage grease still evident under the wood, and was fitted with an original M1907 sling, but it's falling apart - at best a display item. Been repaired too, with a mix of steel and brass fittings.

[browningautorifle]

Stock is finger groove type, but not relieved for MkI ejection port.

So an after fitted stock, but since the ejection port was redundant why worry. Pipe wrench marks are usually the sign of marine armorers all right... That spot at the bolt handle almost looks like it's just been pounded down, could be a rasp.

Nice piece though, where did you get it? Elwood Epps?

[Claven2]

Gunco in ottawa. Supposedly marine armorers often gave the bolt root area a few file swipes to give clearance.

[Claven2]

I actually just bought it because it was a decent condition 1903 with honest issue wear, not because it was maybe USMC. I initially thought it could be a mutt until reading about USMC rebuild 1903 traits and everything non-standard army on this rifle seems to line up to USMC armorer practices. Now I think it's likely untouched since it left service, but again, an expert may disappoint me here! This is not one of the post-1942 refurbs that sometimes turn up looking like new, and the Sept 1941 date pre-dates US involvement in the war. Given the date and condition, I'm kinda thinking maybe it did serve in the PTO, or alternately at a marine training facility somewhere during early war years.

Or maybe I'm out to lunch and it's a post-42 Navy rebuild that happened to use some USMC parts - I literally do not know how to tell the difference.

For the price I paid in Canada, I think it's worth more just based on the sum of its parts having done a little research last night.

[Chuckindenver]

stock is an A3 stock that someone added grasping grooves to, no gas hole, so im out to lunch on the USMC thing, serial looks off on the bolt. im saying most likely Navy, that had civilian additions made to it

[Claven2]

stock is an A3 stock that someone added grasping grooves to, no gas hole, so im out to lunch on the USMC thing, serial looks off on the bolt. im saying most likely Navy, that had civilian additions made to it

Why do you think 03A3 stock? There is no inletting for an 03A3 hand guard ring, so I don’t think that is possible.

If the sn on the bolt were faked, I would think they would have used a matching serial number?

[ssgross]

No hits in any of the SRS.

[Claven2]

No hits in any of the SRS.

What is SRS?

Rifle is in Canada, if not obvious. There is no cache here for usmc springfields vs any other 1903, I think it’s unlikely anyone up here would bother to fake such a thing.

[browningautorifle]

What is SRS?

Springfield Research Service (SRS) A series of publications with serial numbers of known martial arms.

[Claven2]

Springfield Research Service (SRS) A series of publications with serial numbers of known martial arms.

Thanks. Are all usmc issued rifles documented there by serial number?