Opinions on possible USMC Springfield Model 1903

[Warthog]

Hello, this is my first post, so please go easy. I recently acquired a Springfield Model 1903 rifle with some interesting features. After doing some research, primarily using this site as well as others, some of these features seemed to indicate the possibility that it could be USMC.
According to serial number (852526), this rifle was originally manufactured at Springfield Armory in 1918. It has been parkerized and re-barreled (SA 7-27) at some point, likely around the date of the barrel.
Interesting Features:
1.) Punch mark by serial number (possibly applied by the Philadelphia Repair Depot when the rifle was rebuilt)
2.) Serial number etched on bolt, matches receiver
3.) Lack of markings on stock
4.) Vise marks on barrel
5.) “Hatcher” hole in receiver
6.) Enlarged gas hole in bolt

What it doesn’t have:
1.) Stippled butt plate (has checkered RIA butt plate), should originally been smooth
2.) 1940 or 1942 dated USMC Sedgley barrel
Questions:
1.) With the above features could this be a USMC 1903?
2.) If so, any way to know when was it acquired by the Marines?
3.) Would someone be able to check an updated SRS database for any hits? I have an old one and there’s nothing even close to it…
4.) Is there anything noteworthy about the sights? I haven’t been able to find much information on those.
5.) Any way to know original month of manufacture, or does one have to extrapolate? According to Canfield’s “Illustrated Guide to the ’03 Springfield Service Rifle”, a lot of changes were made around this time which could help validate some parts/finishes.
6.) Straight stock marked with finger grooves, ‘S’ on tip with one screw, trap cut for spare parts container, a ‘C’ or ‘G’ under butt plate. Does the stock pre-date the rifle? (second screws were supposedly added before 1918)
7.) Bolt is a C8, some research suggests this is a DHT straight handle? Could this be original to the rifle or added later?
8.) Very late in 1918, Parkerizing was introduced, but it supposedly had a blackish tint. This one has later pale green Parkerizing. Could it have been done as early as the late ‘20s rebuild, or would it have been in the WW2 timeframe?

Thanks in advance for all information, sorry this is longwinded. Please let me know if additional pics are needed… Tom

[RCS]

I think you should ask John Beard.
I have a USMC Springfield 1903 that was verified, you really don't require the Sedgley 41 or 42 barrel or some of the other features found on late rifles to
be one of the USMC rebuilds

[Warthog]

Thank you for the response RCS, I will contact John Beard as suggested... Tom

[John Beard]

Answers are as follows:

(1) Without question, you have a USMC rifle. USMC features are numerous.
(2) 1918.
(3) Not listed.
(4) The numbered front sight blade was fitted by the USMC when targeted.
(5) Extrapolate.
(6) Yes.
(7) Correct bolt, but added later. Note the USMC-enlarged gas escape hole.
(8) Immediate pre-WW2 timeframe.

Thanks for sharing!

J.B.

[Warthog]

John, once again, thank you so much for your evaluation.

Just a few more questions, if I may, sorry...

1.) It is your opinion that this was USMC right from birth, how would one determine that? I thought in general they were cycled out Army rifles that the Marines acquired later as newer rifles came into Army service.

2.) Does the 1927 barrel date approximate another rebuild date in addition to the immediate WW2 rebuild, or could the barrel just been lying around and available for the WW2 rebuild?

3.) Is a Springfield USMC rifle any rarer than an RIA? The RIA's seem to be more commonly listed in SRS...

4.) Is there any likelihood that this rifle could have been used during the early Pacific Island campaigns? Just wondering if there are any details of this rifle that could indicate that, such as it doesn't have a Sedgley barrel. Just wondering if there's any discernible history with this rifle...

5.) Does the punch mark before the serial number indicate Philadelphia Repair Depot as I've read on this forum? If so, were there any specific date range that they were actively rebuilding USMC rifles?

Sorry again for all the questions, thank you again for your expert knowledge and opinions, I'm learning a lot... Tom

[John Beard]

Answers are as follows:

(1) Conduct research and amass a data base like I have. You thought wrong.

(2) Yes and No.

(3) No.

(4) Yes.

(5) Yes and yes.

J.B.

[Warthog]

Thank you, John, for graciously taking the time to share your knowledge, it is much appreciated!

[JiminLE]

I see two things that stand out to me,
1. only one stock bolt
2. looks like its notched for the spare parts container where the oiler would go.
Or am I seeing things...
Very nice rifle by the way.

Jim