Question on USMC 1903

[cfn1803]

I have been re-reading posts about the traits associated with USMC employed 1903s....

What does the term "boned stock" mean?

Regards,

Clay

[Herschel]

To get a smooth shiny finish on the oil treated stock the stock was rubbed with a piece of bone. It was done smooth side to smooth side, not scrapped. Boning could also be done with smooth curved glass. I suppose the bone was what was available that was hard and smooth so that is what was used.

I never heard that the practice was limited to the USMC so I don't think a boned stock would be evidence of a connection with the USMC.

[cplnorton]

I think a better connection to the stock aspect with the usmc is a lack of armory rebuild cartouches. The Marines did not mark the stocks of the 03's that they rebuilt. Most often they even sanded the factory cartouches off leaving a nice virgin stock. Now I do have one rifle that I believe to be a Marine 03 that has a faint AA rebuild mark on the stock. But it is mostly sanded off. I have wondered if maybe the Marines received some stocks during the war or after from either Army resources or some other govt channel and they weren't mixed into the rebuild/repair of 03 rifles before they were mothballed.

[cfn1803]

Great, learn something new every day.

Thanks.

Clay

[chuckindenver]

what was told to me by a WW2 Jar head... ribs were served during chow...we put some of the bones in our pockets..
rubbed the stocks with the bones,. some of the grease and meat was worked into the wood, closing the grain..and giving the wood a nice smooth finish...

[Col. Colt]

That sounds just like a Neandertal - errr - Marine! I don't know about stealing bones from the Mess Hall, but I have a 1939 Springfield Armory made C stock that was obviously original finish and used, reportedly on a Marine Sniper rifle - and except for the "S" and "9" in the cutoff recess, it has NO Markings, anywhere. I don't recall ever seeing another US Military stock with NO Marks and original finish, although my experience is limited.

Probably boned out any US Army Ordnance markings on General Principle - "this is a MARINE Rifle!" CC

[Marine A5 Sniper Rifle]

That sounds just like a Neandertal - errr - Marine! I don't know about stealing bones from the Mess Hall, but I have a 1939 Springfield Armory made C stock that was obviously original finish and used, reportedly on a Marine Sniper rifle - and except for the "S" and "9" in the cutoff recess, it has NO Markings, anywhere. I don't recall ever seeing another US Military stock with NO Marks and original finish, although my experience is limited.

Probably boned out any US Army Ordnance markings on General Principle - "this is a MARINE Rifle!" CC

I have an identical stock. As new condition and no armory assembly inspector stamps. I have posted pictures of it in previous posts. I suspect the Corps purchased a bunch of bare stocks. As for boning itself, any old Marine can explain the Corp's previous obsession with absolute perfection as to finish. I say previous, because what I have seen on Marine bases in the past few years is enough to make an old Marine cry. In my day, when you walked into a Marine building, everything shined with a glow, including the toilets. No more. I tried to reproduce the finish on my belt buckle from boot camp with 1200 grit sandpaper, and there was no comparison. That hand and cloth polished finish exceeded a 1200 grit finish.

I know of no connection of these stocks to Marine sniper rifles. Of the 50,000 or so 03's in the Corps prior to WWII, there were approximately 1,000 dedicated sniper rifles left over from WWI, not accounting for attrition, which was most likely very severe for the 5th and 6th Regiments. I estimate around 250 sniper rifles lost in the war. The lost rifles would be the ones with A5 scopes mounted in #1 mounts, which were used by the two regiments with the exception of 125 rifles.

That is 1 in 5 rifles owned by the Corps being a sniper rifle, which is one very good reason the Corps did not build sniper rifles between WWI and WWII. During this period, the Corps had enough Winchester modified sniper rifles to arm 1/16th of the entire Corps including the Commandant and his secretary. Hardly a need for more sniper rifles. If you see a post WWI sniper rifle supposedly made during this period, pass on it - it is a fake. If you see a WWI Corps sniper rifle in #1 mounts in excellent condition, pass on it, for it is a fake also. The 5th and 6th fought in conditions almost unimaginable, typically had no oil to clean their rifles (they used 3 in 1 oil, and were usually limited to 2 or 3 drops per cleaning when oil was available), no clean cloths to swab them, with rain and combat damage probably pretty evident on every rifle.

Those rifles in stock were destroyed after WWII. For the non-believers, please show me one of the WWI Winchester modified sniper rifles, which comprised the vast majority, if not the entirety, of the existing sniper rifles after WWI. I have seen only a few, and I mean less than five, that were authenticate. A lot of people have paid a whole lot of money for nothing.

By the way, the most used implement for boning was the handle of a toothbrush; and boned stocks have closed pores, making the stock look like shinning glass when linseed oil is applied.

jt:1948:
Sorry, I didn't mean to get so verbose.

[Col. Colt]

I think this is a place where we GET to be verbose!

Proof is difficult, and anyone can represent anything anyway they want to sell something, of course. But, in any event, the stock I'm speaking of is an interesting piece.
It is, as I mentioned, marked with the "S" and "9" in the cutoff recess, and has the "Dxxxx" number on the butt, faintly, still. And it is definitely pre-war contour. It was represented to me as an original USMC sniper stock. Why I bought it was to construct what people now call an "M1941 USMC Sniper" (not correct nomenclature, I know) based on it's appearance and having the handguard modified for a Unertl front mount. The wood all matches as to patina and wear, and it looks "right". And it has NO US Ordnance Markings, save the tiny S and 9 visible! A couple of our experts did not think the contour of the relief cut on top of the handguard was the same as some of the known originals - but also allowed as how the USMC does things it's own way, and improvises and overcomes as required. The piece itself looks vintage.

Here's the link to the discussion and pictures for those who have not seen them: http://www.jouster.com/forums/showthread.php?37234-M1903-USMC-Sniper-stock-Leather-Shim-at-Rear-of-Reciever-Continued&highlight=Col.+Colt+sniper

What makes me more sure that some Armorer, and likely a Marine Armorer, put some extra effort into this one was found by accident. As I was pushing the rear trigger guard screw into the stock through the steel tube, it stopped on something. As I looked at the inside of the stock, I noticed that the screw had lifted the corner of a carefully inletted leather shim around the rear hole, obviously a shim to improve tip pressure on the stock. It was initially invisible due to having acquired the same red/brown color as the wood, and was obviously very old by it's condition. Upon removing it I found dry, nearly unoiled wood from a very precisely cut surface for the exact fitting shim. Whoever did it was a craftsman - or did it often enough to do it very well.

I have acquired another absolutely genuine US Sniper stock, this one for an 03A4, from the estate of a US Army Armorer who was reportedly involved in destroying weapons in the recent past, who simply kept several sets of wood and took it home. I do not find that odd - and probably was done by more than one Armorer that loved the weapons he had to destroy, under orders. I am certain nobody made up and correctly marked a 1939 Springfield C Stock in his basement, and aged it this perfectly. And the handguard matches the stock as if they have been together a long time.

And, real or not, it will make up into a dandy replica USMC "Rifle, M1903A1, with Unertl 8x Telescope".

But, to return to the OP's topic - Marine stocks seem to not have markings - very few, and if my stock was used, as it obviously was, it did not get stamped in an Army Arsenal, ever. No circle P, nothing except SA's tiny marks - which were not worth removing, apparently. CC

[cfn1803]

I believe any (new) replacement stock installed by a unit armorer, would have been unmarked (Army or Marine Corps).

If the weapon went through an Army depot rebuild it would get a new proof P (after test firing) and the Arsenal cartouche stamped after final inspection. As far as I know, unless a stock was unserviceable, the Marines, cleaned, inspected, sanded, and oiled all stocks in their rebuild process, as required. New replacement stocks would be un marked and since no inspectors proof marks or cartouches were placed on the stocks by the Marine depot, they would remain unmarked. At the same time, I don't think that the Marines worried about removing any and all existing cartouches or proof marks on a stock for the purpose of "erasing all things Army"...... I think that stocks were rough sanded as required as part of the cleaning/rebuild process, hence, I think it would be reasonable to see a Marine 1903 with traces of some proof marks or cartouches on them.

Regards,

Clay

[chuckindenver]

i have seen more Krag rifles with Boned finish the 1903s...closed grain, dark and smooth is a good sign of it...

[ElWoodman]

cplnorton, please do remember "A.H.A." on some USMC rebuilds.(on those there's just the A.H.A. and nothing else)

[cplnorton]

cplnorton, please do remember "A.H.A." on some USMC rebuilds.(on those there's just the A.H.A. and nothing else)

I actually just re-read what I wrote, it was sort of interesting as I had no memory of writing it. But it was 3 years ago. lol But actually I wasn't far off, which suprises me, as some of the stuff I used to say back then, I can now prove I was totally wrong. lol But the past couple of years we have been pulling all the Marine documents from the archives, so we just have a lot better idea what was going on.

But the Marines leading into WWII, were desperate for stocks. SA had switched over to the Garand and didn't really want to make anymore parts for the 1903. It's sort of a long story and it's probably been a year since I read this whole series of documents on the used stocks, so I know I'm rusty. I would have to go back and figure out where I filed it, to get a referesher. But I think it was the late 30's. But from what I remember they were basically begging anyone for any used stocks that they could spare, even broken ones. I believe they wrote both the Army and the Navy. I think I remember seeing letters to both.

I know I remember reading one document that they detail they will take about anything. Even ones that needed repaired in two spots. And I remember them saying at three repairs, they deemed it unserviceable, but two repairs they could could still make them serviceable. That is how much they needed stocks for the 1903. So I'm sure they were getting a lot of stuff with random cartouches and crap everyone wanted to get rid of. But the Marines did finally get some new stocks ordered after this happened, but that is another story.

On the AHA. I know online and in some books they say that is a Marine rebuild mark, but I really honestly don't think it was. I think I have docuemnts that confirm about every Marine rebuild trait on these 1903 rifles, and I've never seen any mention of that AHA stamp. Also a gorup of us have been cataloging 1903 Marine rifles for several years now and I really don't see evidence of it on Marine rifles. Or at least ones that I don't think were messed with. I personally think the AHA stamp probably wasn't Marine, but I honeslty can't prove it either way. I could be wrong and I never say never with the Marines, but I think I would have found a document by now confirming if it was Marine. So that is my thought process behind why I think it's probably not a Marine trait.