-
FREE MEMBER
NO Posting or PM's Allowed
Remington 1903 production period
I was lucky enough at a local gunshow this weekend, to find a 1903 Remington serial #3039141 which I immediately purcased for $750. Not a 1903 modified, but the just like a Rock Island except for the "R" markings, high hump handguard (without the fixturing slot), boxed RLB carouche, finger grooves, original gas relief hole in addition to the "Hatcher Hole", black parkerizing. The barrel is 12-41 and gaged TEG=0, MW=1.0. with a bright and shiny bore and correct head space. The whole rifle is in excellent condition!
This rifle does have a boxed BA-WL rebuild cartouche stamped over the Boxed RLB, however, only the magazine feed plate and butt swivel are not "R" marked.
I had previously only seen these rifles in the collector books, never in person. The seller had 3 of these rifles, with the same features for sale, all lined up on the table. The serial numbers were 3022xxx, 3039141 (now mine), and 3051xxx. The 2 that I didn't buy had 1-42 marked barrels and the muzzle wear on the one with the next best stock was 4.0+. According to my resources, the 2 higher numbered rifles were produced in March '42 and the earlier one in Feb '42.
I suspect the Remington 1903's and 1903 modified's were produced concurently by Remington. My question for the resident experts is: What are the highest serial numbers observed of original 1903 Remingtons with all the early production features of the Rock Island and what is the current collector value of these rifles? The other 2 may still be available and I have the contact info of the seller. They reportedly came out of an estate sale.
You just never know what treasures will be encountered at the gun shows! That sure made my weekend!
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. |
|
-
05-05-2009 08:08 PM
# ADS
Friends and Sponsors
-
Just to straighten out your terminlogy, there was no difference between the Remington M1903 and the Remington M1903 (Modified) The difference is a collector term which is technically not correct. The Army used both names interchangeably.
If you did purchase a correct Remington in that serial range for $750, you got nothing less than a steal, especially if the stock and other features are correct. The BAWL (Benecia Arsenal) stamp is a new one, however.
If you mean the grasping groove stocks, the latest I have seen was a couple in the 3,044,000 range. New features were "blended in" and there are plenty of later rifles that had earlier features. For example I once had a Remington M1903 in the 3,084,000 range with lightening grooves in the rear sight base - a feature I had believed removed by the 3,020,000 range.
Value of the rifle, if correct and with the original finish would be about twice to three times what you paid for it.
Will we see pictures? Any evidence of a red band (see my avatar to the left for a small picrure of my Remington M1903 in the 3,024,000 range; I also have another in the 3,051,000 range and a 3rd in the 40,000 range.
Last edited by Rick the Librarian; 05-05-2009 at 08:48 PM.
People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.
--George Orwell
-
-
-
Advisory Panel
I concur with Rick.
Remington began phasing out early features starting at about S/N 3025000. But, as Rick pointed out, rifles with early features continued to appear widely-scattered much later.
If I may add to what Rick said, most milled butt swivels were not marked. So your rifle may well have its original butt swivel.
And I concur with Rick that you did very well.
J.B.
-
-
FREE MEMBER
NO Posting or PM's Allowed
1903 Remington production period
Nope, no sign of a red band around the muzzle end of the stock. No import marks, no foreign acceptance marks. Looks like it may have been a rack queen at home. The hand guard appears to have been clear coated at some time and doesn't look original the the rifle, but I'm not complaining.
I'll work on getting pictures posted. But I'm not getting the detail out of my present camera to do this rifle justice.
Thanks Rick and John for your response,
Bob