Possible USMC 1903?

[bczandm]

I ran into this 1903 yesterday and couldn't pass it up. It was super cheap and it needed to be rescued! It has a few problems that I'll outline in a minute, but I am now starting to think that it might (?) have some USMC "signs" but not sure. I am interested to see what everyone here thinks.

The bad:
*Stock has been sanded or is very worn, it shows signs of someone trying to add very poorly done checkering and then was worn over time. I'd guess it's more wear than sanding.
*Upper hand guard has been sanded recently and bare wood is showing over the entire hand guard, of course it does not match the rest of the stock
*all sling hardware has been removed from the stock and is missing
*it's starting to turn brown in some areas of the receiver, but barrel and bolt are very nice
*I'd guess the front sight has been replaced

Suspected issues that might indicate USMC history:
*It has a greenish color bluing that does not seem to be worn parkerizing. It does not show well in the photo, it looks more brown in the photos
*I think it has the hatcher hole...but not 100% sure what that looks like
*The serial number has been etched in the bolt, older and worn but it's there
*Serial number might be in the right range? 360,731
* Replacement barrel is 9/27
*the guy I got it from said it came from the Navy, not sure why he thought that but I'll try to find out
*I'll note the butt plate has NOT been stimpled

I'll get more photos posted in a day or so.

Bolt Etching:
http://i61.photobucket.com/albums/h7...psgv054bol.jpg

Receiver:
http://i61.photobucket.com/albums/h7...psrccoasf2.jpg

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.

[browningautorifle]

Lots of people marked the bolt with a matching number to keep things from being mixed up. This receiver is very low numbered, that won't keep you from rebuilding though. I don't think there's any sure "Signs" that it was USMC issue...

[Detroit-1]

There has been a lot of debate about shooting low# 03's. If it was me I would not shoot it. Even the military in the 1930's tried to scrap all low # 03's. Research it!

[m1903rifle]

There has been a lot of debate about shooting low# 03's. If it was me I would not shoot it. Even the military in the 1930's tried to scrap all low # 03's. Research it!

Is this a Rock Island rifle? If so, it is a high number and safe to shoot if it is in good condition other wise.

[bczandm]

I have no need to shoot it, I have a WWII rebuild that I can shoot and it shoots well. I am more interested in the thoughts on the USMC use. Sounds like browningautorifle is thinking not but would like a few more opinions and reasons why yes or no so I can learn. From my VERY limited knowledge it seems like a possibility given the color, bolt number and serial number range. If not no big deal, I'd just like to understand why!
I did call the fellow I bought it from and he said it came from NAS air station New York, Floyd Bennett Field if that helps at all. He bought it sometime in the 60's. He said he shot it once right after he got it and never shot it again. He also noted that the stock is just the way it came when he bought it- some signs of an attempt to checker it and a stripped (of finish) handguard, all the parts to mount the sling are missing.
Thanks in advance,
Bob

[m1903rifle]

I'll ask again.........IS IT A ROCK ISLAND ARSENAL or a SPRINGFIELD ARMORY rifle???? It makes a difference when trying to do you a favor by looking it up in the Springfield Research Service records. It might be listed as a USMC rifle.

[browningautorifle]

360527 is USMC to Nicaragua and 361281 is also. What I said was there are no sure signs...many guns have been altered as you know. As it is, it may have been but hard to say without an actual hit.

[bczandm]

It's a Rock Island. How does one get the SRS list?

[browningautorifle]

The list is in a published book. There are a couple of versions I've seen, probably on line too by now. Apparently RIA and SA used the same serial number blocks for 1903s. 364296 is listed by SRS as being a RIA but it went to the Texas NG.

[bczandm]

The list is in a published book. There are a couple of versions I've seen, probably on line too by now. Apparently RIA and SA used the same serial number blocks for 1903s. 364296 is listed by SRS as being a RIA but it went to the Texas NG.

Thanks Jim, I really appreciate your help.