1955 Marine Sales 03

[Rick the Librarian]

One possibility I brought up on another forum was the idea that maybe the rifle had been sporterized and a former owner had tried to restore it. Just a guess, I know.

[Jim Tarleton]

It is odd that the paperwork was not used to enhance the sale, since if the stock is a fake, someone put that document in the stock when the stock was replaced, meaning the stock humper knew it was there. The seller probably did not know about the document, and probably isn't the humper.

Is faking documents that easy? That one looks very good, even though every letter and line on the document is faded except the serial number. Good 1955 pens?

It is a beautiful piece of wood. It is a shame someone tainted it by stamping it with fake stamps.

Jim

[John Beard]

It is a beautiful piece of wood. It is a shame someone tainted it by stamping it with fake stamps.

Jim

How does one taint a fake stock by stamping it with fake stamps? I believe that fake stamps are legitimate when stamped into fake (i.e., reproduction) stocks.

J.B.

[John Beard]

Thanks for the input so far. John, no surprise on the stock, felt it just did not look right.
I took the rifle apart and I am now questioning the barrel also, there is a small S and small P stamp close to the chamber end, no signs of any welding that I can see. However there is a small area about 4" down from the muzzle where it lookks to my untrained eye that the barrel may have been bent and straightened. The external spiral machining marks at that point look stretched or cloudy. A cleaning rod with patch goes thru evenly with no change in drag at that point and a visual look in the bore does not show any darkness or odd area at that point so am not sure. No signs of heat being applied anywhere.
Brings us back to the receipt, I am adding the scan of the unaltered receipt in case that helps shed any light on this.
Thanks

Thanks for your reply!

I have no doubt that the at least the receiver is an authentic USMC issuance. And the bill of sale looks legitimate enough. And the bill of sale's legitimacy is enhanced by the seller's failure to use it as a sales tool. If he had faked the bill of sale, one can rest assured that he would have waved it in your face.

The stock is a recent reproduction. No doubt about that.

The only question remaining is whether the barrel is original to the receiver. And that's easy enough to determine. Please disassemble the rifle and post some photographs of the bare barrel in front of the rear sight base.

Thanks!

J.B.

[Calif-Steve]

There was a very well documented case of an M1C(?) in the Garand Collectors Assoc. magazine 2-3 years back. That Garand came with very good paperwork and fooled almost everyone. It was a fake. Not many people (me included) are familiar with 1955 USMC paperwork. For that matter, not many people are familiar with 1955 US Army paperwork. A firearm is subject examination by experts who have years of experience. Nothing like that exists for paperwork fraud. When I was in the Army Reserve I had a Senior NCO who used to cut his own orders for Annual Training. He would turn it in to his boss and off he would go for 2 weeks of paid vacation. He did that for years! No, far easier to fake paperwork then the gun.
But, why fake paperwork up and not use it? Why the humped up stock? More to this story then we know.

[Jim Tarleton]

How does one taint a fake stock by stamping it with fake stamps? I believe that fake stamps are legitimate when stamped into fake (i.e., reproduction) stocks.

J.B.

Some, maybe many people, are not as adept as you, John, at recognizing reproduction stocks. When these stocks are further enhanced with fake stamps, they draw more money from these individuals than just a well finished reproduction stock if passed off as authenticate. To stamp a reproduction stock certainly taints it for me.

Fake stamps are never "legitimate", just as counterfeit $100 bills aren't, and never should be. I have heard all the "restored car" comparisons and other reasons, but when authenticity is the goal, a fake stamp has no place on any stock.

I have restored some very nice "parts" 03's with some very low serial numbers with some quality real parts that I refinished. They look very good. I took a couple to a local gunshow, and was offered some pretty decent money for a couple of them. When I told the prospective buyers they were parts rifles, the offered price dropped. I suddenly had the suspicion that my work would eventually be passed off as original. The funny part is that I had more money invested in one of the rifles than anyone was willing to pay, even before they knew it was a parts rifle (a very LN CN1908 RIA). I kept the rifles, as I never actually intended to sell them.

Just my humble opinion.

Jim

[Chuckindenver]

hmmm,
i agree on most of whats been said, heres my take for what its worth.
bolt, barrel, and stock were likely added by someone other then the military.
stock is likely a genuine Keystone, and likely a new unissued stock, that was stamped by someone other then the military.
drawing number is in the wrong area, and the late C stocks were not stamped as such,
the Proof P is a add on as well, however, outstanding wood, id gladly swap a nice early C stock for that stock.
the barrel, just has a light coating of phosphate, and doesnt match the receiver, the genuine USMC barreled rifles iv seen were reparked as well as the receivers,
bolt is a Remington bolt, and likely added for safety.
agree, likely the rifle was a semi sporterized rifle, with that paper, and not stored in the rifle as you found it.
had it been stored in the butt for that long, likely it would barely legible.
if you suspect the barrel as being bent and straightend id look down the bore with a scope, and see whats up, look for stretch marks, dark spots, ect.

[Calif-Steve]

You suspect the Keystone stock is real. How many "03" Keystone stocks were made? I thought they made "03-A3" stocks.

[togor]

How does one taint a fake stock by stamping it with fake stamps? I believe that fake stamps are legitimate when stamped into fake (i.e., reproduction) stocks.

J.B.

A good repro stock can stand on its own merits as a reproduction. Adding stamps to pass it off as USGI detracts, IMO. I have a couple Greek returns that chuck put a new finish on and which I put in Kokolus stocks. With a few stamps I could probably pass them off as arsenal reworks. But a lie is a lie and it cheapens whatever it touches.

[Rick the Librarian]

I agree -- I've gotten some grief on other forums, but I don't believe in "adding" "reproduction" stamps stamps on ANY stocks, reproduction or original. As Togor said, a nice reproduction stock can stand on its own merits.