M1903 USMC Sniper stock Leather Shim at Rear of Reciever - Continued

[Col. Colt]

In stonger light, I can certainly see that this could be an Armorer/NM Rifle type modification.

The stock itself, and the handguard, appear to be a matched set, with S or 9 (or both) markings in evidence.

Note that it has no rebuild or proof cartouches, only the Drawing number on the butt, and the "S 9" in the cutoff cutout. The number inside the hand guard is also indistinct, but could be an S or 9.

Both the inletting in the stock and the leather D shaped "shim" measure around .100, as best I can tell with simple dial calipers.

It did not let me upload all pictures. I'll see what I can do to get the rest up. CC

[Col. Colt]

Here are some more images:

[wolley]

Is this a "C" stock?

[Col. Colt]

Yes, it is the pre-War Springfield Armory "C", a little trimmer than the WWII versions. It does not seem to have been used originally to build a rifle at Springfield, as it has no sign of it ever having a "P" Proof mark or cartouche anywhere on it. It is dated S 9 or Springfield production, 1939, which could make sense for Marine sniper use, perhaps as new parts direct from SA inventory for the National Match program of the Marines. All of this is just rambling speculation, of course.

Both handguard and stock seem to match perfectly in finish and age. It has some wear and scratches, and was notched (well done, but by hand, looks more "field" than "shop") at some point for a turned down (perhaps a replacement A4?) bolt. (I will check this when I find the reciever I want to use.)
But the cut out in the top of the handguard say it was on a USMC Unertl Sniper, at some point in time. Perhaps the bolt was replaced in the field, for some reason? If it is a forgery, and the patina says it is not, it is a darn good one. I have looked at thousands of old rifle stocks in my lifetime, and this one seems original.

(My original SA marked 1903A4 stock was reported to be from the estate of a former armory type, who had "rescued" several stock sets when the government started destroying the rifles. Perhaps this stock survived in a similar manner.) CC

[Mike D]

I notice the stock bushing is of the later design. When was that change made?

Mike

[John Beard]

The recess in your stock around the rear trigger guard screw is a normal inletting feature. It appears that someone made a leather shim and stuck it in to improve the bedding.

Your handguard is not a standard USMC sniper-modified handguard.

Thanks for the pictures!

J.B.

[chuckindenver]

i agree with J.B. the genuine handguards iv seen the cut is straight, and have a sharper rise at the back, and have a nice milled surface,with no chatter marks from a sander, stock shouldnt have a cut for a bolt handle as well.
nice piece of wood though, it well be great for a replica shooter.

[Col. Colt]

Yes, Chuck, that is what was bought for, and I'm sure it could serve well. It surprised me how much nicer the pre-War Springfield produced "C" stock feels in the hand than the later, mass production contracted Keystone, etc, stocks do. Similar to the difference between earlier M1 Garand stocks vs. the postwar models.

J.B., I compared it to two other stocks and the inletting at that spot seemed deeper and less "machined" on this example, for lack of a better term. But I will fit it up to a barrelled action and see if there is any forend pressure. Since CMP does not allow shims, that could be important in making the rifle accurate. I really appreciate your knowledge and assistance on items like these, that many of us seldom get to see or handle even once - experience counts!

Gentlemen, if it is somehow a faked USMC handguard, I am not sure how they got such a perfect match and apparent patina "look" between the two pieces of wood. But I'm sure the the current state of the art in wood forgery for fun and profit is quite advanced. I could probably ask for my money back from the seller, if we are very certain it is a fake. Is there no possibility that these handguards were hand produced at more than one time or location, with differences resulting? Should I return it as a fake and demand my money? The stock and handguard were represented as being genuine. I would hate to let a fraud artist slide - but I would also hate to give up a decent 1939 Springfield C stock in the process, too. Worse, I would hate to falsely accuse someone, if they were honest and we were just looking at an uncommon variation.

Thanks to all, CC

[John Beard]

Yes, Chuck, that is what was bought for, and I'm sure it could serve well. It surprised me how much nicer the pre-War Springfield produced "C" stock feels in the hand than the later, mass production contracted Keystone, etc, stocks do. Similar to the difference between earlier M1 Garand stocks vs. the postwar models.

J.B., I compared it to two other stocks and the inletting at that spot seemed deeper and less "machined" on this example, for lack of a better term. But I will fit it up to a barrelled action and see if there is any forend pressure. Since CMP does not allow shims, that could be important in making the rifle accurate. I really appreciate your knowledge and assistance on items like these, that many of us seldom get to see or handle even once - experience counts!

Gentlemen, if it is somehow a faked USMC handguard, I am not sure how they got such a perfect match and apparent patina "look" between the two pieces of wood. But I'm sure the the current state of the art in wood forgery for fun and profit is quite advanced. I could probably ask for my money back from the seller, if we are very certain it is a fake. Is there no possibility that these handguards were hand produced at more than one time or location, with differences resulting? Should I return it as a fake and demand my money? The stock and handguard were represented as being genuine. I would hate to let a fraud artist slide - but I would also hate to give up a decent 1939 Springfield C stock in the process, too. Worse, I would hate to falsely accuse someone, if they were honest and we were just looking at an uncommon variation.

Thanks to all, CC

I chose my words carefully. I stated that your handguard was not a standard USMC sniper-modified handguard. I cannot rule out the possibility that your handguard was modified by the USMC for sniper use at a different time and place than usual. I noted the aged appearance. I am also aware that non-standard practices were commonplace in the USMC. They improvised extensively and seldom seemed bound by hard rules and procedures. But, the burden of proof rests between the buyer and seller. I certainly do not suggest or imply fraud.

USMC sniper handguards were modified by machine. While I have noted some minor variation indicating the likelihood of more than one production run, your handguard was clearly not modified on the machinery used to modify the authentic handguards I have seen. I concur with Chuckindenver in that respect. I, therefore, reserve judgement regarding your handguard's authenticity.

If you were looking to restore an authentic USMC sniper rifle, then perhaps you need to keep looking for another stock and handguard that's less questionable. If, on the other hand, you merely sought to build up a functional replica, what you have appears more than adequate.

With regard to your stock, you can make and glue a hardwood shim in your stock that would be completely undetectable and restore the proper fore end pressure. While some may frown on such practice, you're merely restoring the functionality in your stock that was originally present.

Hope this helps. Thanks again for taking the time to make and post pictures!

J.B.

[chuckindenver]

i would say, look at pics of a few genuine examples, and make your own assesment, as J.B. said, anything is possible with Marine use of weapons, if they needed it, they made it happened.
many moons ago, i had a in the wrap, USMC handguard, held on to it for a long time, until i built a rifle for a USMC museum, it was worth using on that rifle.
the cut for the sight base was even, straight and likely done by a machine rather then by hand, as well as the sweep cut for the clearance.
if you building a replica for shooting it shouldnt matter, if you have a genuine USMC sniper, id do some more research.

[Col. Colt]

Thanks so very much gentlemen. Since I am not restoring a "known" USMC Sniper, and building for Match use only, this set should serve the intended purpose. I have no desire to create a "fake" that might be misrepresented at a later date, as well, so slight "non-standard" features serve my purpose well there, also.

Thanks for your patience in explaining the possibilities regarding Marine procurement of parts, as they needed them. That makes a lot of sense, and I have read that the "improvise, adapt and overcome" was more than a battlefield slogan for them! The seller I got the set from had good feedback, and it is likely he believed what he had was genuine, and it still might be, though non-standard. The stock itself is very nice, save the bolt handle cut - another anomoly that might have an interesting history, if we could only know it.

Both of you are treasures to our hobby - and your time, patience and respectful manner are a great credit to you, and help preserve the legacy of our martial past. Thanks, as always. CC

[Col. Colt]

UPDATED INFO: Two more interesting items of information.

First of all, the bolt cutout in the stock EXACTLY fits a real, GI M1903A4 bolt handle - a perfect, or very nearly perfect fit, very neatly done, apparently in the field. Smaller and closer fit than a "standard" 03A4 stock cutout.

So was this stock used on an 03A4? Probably not originally - no cartouches, or proofmark, 1939 SA stock, and the cut for an A4 bolt handle had to be added by hand for an A4 bolt. Did some Marine Armorer fit a replacement A4 bolt to an "M1941 USMC Sniper" for some reason - field repair, more scope clearance? Maybe the stock and handguard came from two different rifles? Possible, but color and wear match is exact, markings seem to indicate both came together ("9").

Second of all, in going through the large number of M1903 photos I have gathered off the Internet, I found an apparently correct and original USMC sniper rifle that has the same (or at least very similar) "Unertl" handguard contours as my proported to be USMC stock set detailed above. See attached photo set. I will have to find the post they came from. CC

[Col. Colt]

More images:

[Col. Colt]

And still more images:

[Col. Colt]

And, a few more of this apparently original USMC Sniper, notice that the handguard cut is quite shallow, and without a defined, sharp, "upcut" toward the rear. :

[chuckindenver]

pictured rifle doesnt appear to be genuine, couple issues.
trigger guard screws arent staked in place, bolt is brite polished, scope is a little to late.
however.
the guard may be genuine, it does differ greatly from yours.
it has a straight flat mill cut, all the way until about 2 inches from the sight clearence.
hole is nicely cut.. but real hard to tell from the pictures for sure.
also, no black tar around the rear sight base, common on USMC sniper rifles that i have seen.
JB knows what the black covering is..if i remember right it was some sort of tree sealer..for lack of a better discription.
the serial number puts the receiver right at the end of production, and alot of those receivers were sold just as a receiver.
unless there is some sort of proof that the rifle is a genuine sniper. i say doubtful.
the few Genuine A1 snipers iv seen, had blackened bolts, scopes had serial numbers below 2000 , guard screws were hard staked in place.
if indeed the rifle is a USMC sniper, its never seen combat, the last one i saw, looks like it was used to beat alligators with.
the others were pretty rough as well, even though they had been rebuilt.
couple other things to look for.
scope base screws should be hard staked, and by that time, high temp soldered as well, at least the front base.
should also have a punch mark just ahead of the front scope base, from the armorer that installed it.
stock may or may not be a USMC stock, they used what worked. iv seen combat pics of a grasping groove stock being used, could be thats what the shooter liked, or that the original was broken in field, and thats what they had on hand to put the rifle in service.
iv not seen any genuine snipers with a star mark as well, from what i was told, the USMC didnt mark the muzzle, and only marked the barrel on the bottom side ahead of the rear sight base, but havnt seen enough genuine rifles, to really validate that.
this was told to me by a man that worked on them during Korea, he also has a genuine Snipers rifle, with the features iv listed.
the rifle pictured is a nice rifle though...

[John Beard]

Your USMC internet sniper rifle is fake as a $3 bill.

J.B.

[Col. Colt]

And that is why we need you gentlemen to keep us straight.
The 03 Springfield is a fairly new interest to me, despite my age, due to my being left handed. So the M1 Garand, and the M1A have been my Darlings until very recently, as they neatly avoided the bolt manipulation problem.

It is obvious a well meaning neophyte (like me) could be at considerable risk in this world of fakers and forgers. My primary interest is historical, and the 03's primary source books are incomplete and don't even agree. Without people like chuck and JB, many of us could easily be "taken".

I continue to humbly learn, gentlemen. Sorry for the false photos - no one in my locale has ever displayed a verified USMC Sniper to even look at. I can see that, should I ever decide to afford one, I will seek professional help before committing to a purchase.
As always, thanks for the lesson. CC

PS - NOTE TO EVERYONE - The Lesson about the knowledge required to be sure of your purchase here is important. If you are not sure of what you are buying, get a professional opinion - 1903s are a pretty complex subject. (Garands are well documented, by comparison!) I think I will go be quiet and comtemplate for a while.......CC

[chuckindenver]

with the USMC snipers rifle..a good guide to use..if its crispy pretty...more then likely its bogus, even museum rifles are rough.
you used to be able to do a digital tour through the Remington arms museum, and there you will see a few genuine Marine sniper rifles, from the 1917 to the M40A1s..
the USMC used those rifles, and did so hard. they killed the enemy with them, they were a tool made to do just that.

[John Beard]

And that is why we need you gentlemen to keep us straight.
The 03 Springfield is a fairly new interest to me, despite my age, due to my being left handed. So the M1 Garand, and the M1A have been my Darlings until very recently, as they neatly avoided the bolt manipulation problem.

It is obvious a well meaning neophyte (like me) could be at considerable risk in this world of fakers and forgers. My primary interest is historical, and the 03's primary source books are incomplete and don't even agree. Without people like chuck and JB, many of us could easily be "taken".

I continue to humbly learn, gentlemen. Sorry for the false photos - no one in my locale has ever displayed a verified USMC Sniper to even look at. I can see that, should I ever decide to afford one, I will seek professional help before committing to a purchase.
As always, thanks for the lesson. CC

PS - NOTE TO EVERYONE - The Lesson about the knowledge required to be sure of your purchase here is important. If you are not sure of what you are buying, get a professional opinion - 1903s are a pretty complex subject. (Garands are well documented, by comparison!) I think I will go be quiet and comtemplate for a while.......CC

My comment about the fake rifle was not intended to be critical.

We are all students. Your desire to learn is highly commendable. And if I can help, I will be glad to do so. I receive regular requests to authenticate rifles.

J.B.

[chuckindenver]

i spent some time on Springfields museum vertual page...you might takes some time and look at the rifles they have..
if nothing else..its good eye candy.