1903 Help, … John, Rick, Anybody?

[Nick Adams]

Permit me to clarify further. The most logical explanation is quite simple.

Someone took a 1942 Remington M1903 and simply replaced the barreled receiver with the 1927 SA barreled receiver. It's that simple. Perhaps the Remington barreled receiver had a bad barrel. One can only speculate why the replacement was made. The replacement was most likely made by a company armorer during the latter part of WWII. If the replacement had been made at an arsenal or depot, the parts would be quite mixed and the rifle would exhibit an overhaul inspection stamp, which it does not exhibit. In addition, one must also not overlook the possibility that the replacement was made in recent years down in Bubba's basement workshop.

Hi John, …

Well, you had me until that last sentence.

No, this rifle has all the ear-marks of a professional build or assembly. Both the metal and stock are in VG-to-excellent condition.

And given the provenance from my gunsmith friend from whom I bought it, as was described in my O.P., his father acquired it decades ago from the DCM, not recently. It wasn’t something his father or anyone else “Bubba-ed together” in a dark corner of a basement.

Your earlier statement that, “The replacement was most likely made by a company armorer during the latter part of WWII,“ meaning a Remington armorer, is most likely correct as to how this 1903 came into being.

How it eventually got to the DCM is a different question.

[John Beard]

Hi John, …

Your earlier statement that, “The replacement was most likely made by a company armorer during the latter part of WWII,“ meaning a Remington armorer, is most likely correct as to how this 1903 came into being.

Correction. A military company armorer (i.e., a GI), not a Remington company armorer.

J.B.