Parts assembled USMC Sniper clone question, sort of

[Token]

Howdy all,

First time poster, and never saw this board before today. But I have a question that ya'll might be able to help with.

I am not a 1903 guy, but do have quite a few other milsurp rifles. Today at a local gun shop I ran across a 1903 that does not (to my untrained eye) make sense. My only reference is "The Model 1903 Springfield Rifle and its Variations", Joe Poyer, and, of course, the net.

The rifle is being called a "Hilux USMC Sniper" at the shop, it is not being represented as a true WW II USMC rifle, but it is configured roughly as one would be. It looks like it might be a decent shooter, with a USMC Sniper configuration. I strongly suspect it is a gun assembled out of parts. But the price is not bad at all for a shooter.

The receiver is supposed to be a Rock Island. Because of the scope mount I cannot see all of the markings, but I can see that it does appear (half of the letters visible) to say Rock Island. I cannot see the original RI serial number.

The barrel is an SA from 11-42. Good rifling if a little frosted. Crown is quite nice.

The rifle appears to have a 1905 front and rear sight on it.

The stock is a decent condition Scant grip. The barrel bands, sling swivels, and stacking swivel are all a variety of different types.

It has a Wm. Malcolm scope marked "USMC - SNIPER" that looks like a copy of a Unertl.

The serial number is very odd. As I said above, the scope mount obscures the original RI serial. But on the right side, about where the serial of a real sniper rifle would be, is a number that does not match anything I have found. The serial number appears to be "SF100XX" very nicely done in a font that obviously does not match anything else on the rifle. Because of where and how this is done it leads me to believe this is not a home assembled parts rifle or if so this serial was in place before the parts got mixed together.

I am considering this rifle as a shooter and a curiosity. If it is indeed an assemble gun from parts it obviously has no value other than that. The price reflects that (only slightly more than the new cost of the scope that is on it). My questions are, what to pay attention to when looking at such an assembled rifle? What is up with that serial number, and does it match any known assemble rifles?

Thanks,

T!

Information

Warning: This is a relatively older thread This discussion is older than 360 days. Some information contained in it may no longer be current.

[BEAR]

Pictures would be nice.
The "SF" before the serial number does not match any US rifles if that is part of the serial number. There were several companies after the war that went into production of replica 1903, A3 and M1 Garands. They National Ordnance, Federal Ordnance and Sante Fe, just to mention a few.
As I said, pictures would be really nice.

BEAR

[Token]

Yeah, unfortunately in the gun store I was not able to get images.

T!

[Neal Myers]

Optics Planet has many Hi-Lux repro scopes for sale. They have a Malcolm & a USMC scope, both around $400. I believe that they also make a repro of the M73B1. I haven't heard complaints, they seem to be a good value for those who don't want to spend a few thousand on an original scope.

I would not want to pay serious money for a homemade repro sniper without having a gunsmith check it out first.

Neal

[John Beard]

Your description of the rifle's receiver markings exhibits some inconsistencies which raise serious questions about the receiver. An authentic Rock Island receiver ring should be marked "U.S./ROCK ISLAND/ARSENAL/MODEL 1903/serial number". Depending on how the scope mount is positioned, perhaps only the "U.S." and original serial number should be visible. The original serial number is in a much larger font than the other markings. The scope mount should not cover up the original serial number.

The "SF100xx" serial number suggests that the original serial number was ground off and the receiver re-serialized. That might raise legality issues with the BATFE. Your description raises suspicion that the receiver might not be an authentic Rock Island receiver, but perhaps a reproduction M'03-A3 receiver.

Stay safe!

J.B.

[jamie5070]

My first thought on the serial # was: Santa Fe arms

[Ernest T]

James River Armory used to make USMC sniper clones with the Hi Lux scopes. I think they started with drill receivers then added a new barrel and stock. I don't know if they re-serialized the receivers or not. I just recently saw one of their reproduction rifles with the Hi Lux scope sell for over $2000. I've got one put together by a local gunsmith who has built a number of them for CMP vintage sniper competition shooters. It was built on an old 1903 rifle receiver with a new barrel and stock. Mine has a real Fecker 8X scope and I paid $1400 7 or 8 years ago. It is a tack driver and very fun to shoot. The long scope always draws a crowd at the range.

[browningautorifle]

James River Armory used to make USMC sniper clones with the Hi Lux scopes

Looks like a beauty, I couldn't afford that price tag though. I'll bet it DOES shoot too.

[Chuckindenver]

walk away from that one..

[Token]

Your description of the rifle's receiver markings exhibits some inconsistencies which raise serious questions about the receiver. An authentic Rock Island receiver ring should be marked "U.S./ROCK ISLAND/ARSENAL/MODEL 1903/serial number". Depending on how the scope mount is positioned, perhaps only the "U.S." and original serial number should be visible. The original serial number is in a much larger font than the other markings. The scope mount should not cover up the original serial number.

The "SF100xx" serial number suggests that the original serial number was ground off and the receiver re-serialized. That might raise legality issues with the BATFE. Your description raises suspicion that the receiver might not be an authentic Rock Island receiver, but perhaps a reproduction M'03-A3 receiver.

Stay safe!

J.B.

Thanks for all the responses.

Unfortunately the few images I got in the shop are junk to try and work with, out of focus, etc. But I will post a few of them here. Since I chose not to buy the rifle I will not bother blurring the serial.

Yes, the serial seems to be reworked, but it is done nicely, this is not some grind and electropencil job. As for regs and serials, that becomes an interesting question, particularly when discussing firearms that were produced long enough ago to have never required (by law) serial numbers.









T!