Pre-War Rebuild, or something much more?

[SPEEDGUNNER]

I looked at an interesting Springfield Armory 1903 rifle today. The rifle has a serial number that puts it at 1923 production, but has a 9-40 barrel. The entire rifle is parkerized except bolt and rear sight, and it has a walnut "C" stock with a backwards "K" behind the cutoff. Bolt has the serial number of the rifle etched into it. If this rifle has been fired I would be surprised. The metal is as brand new, the stock is a fantastic piece of fiddleback walnut with nary a mark and dry as a bone, and the rifle is so sharp you could cut your finger on it. What is it?

http://i61.tinypic.com/2nq49x.jpg
http://i61.tinypic.com/2ywj141.jpg

I used Canfield, Brophy and all 4 volumes of SRS to try to find out. ALL the rifles around this one were NM or IM, with the exception of 1 USMC rifle.

Here are the details of my research:

Springfield Armory
1903 rifle
serial 1257673.
Receiver date 1923
Barrel date 9-40
1257640 was a National Match
1257675 was an International Match
1257678 was USMC Rifle
1257679 was International Match

The only numbered bolts beside match rifles were done by USMC

International Match rifles exhibited the sporter style stock

Original finish would have been a blue/black parkerizing (like bolt), this one is gray/green.

My conclusion is that this was originally a match rifle, returned to arsenal for
rebarrel, refinish and restocking (hence the K Keystone stock) and then
re-issued, possibly to USMC, for training purposes before war started.

What say you?

[Johnny P]

Didn't the Keystone C stocks come along about mid WWII. Appears stock was added after barrel was changed.

[Rick the Librarian]

Yes, Keystone stocks came well into WWII. Looks like a USMC rifle to me.

[CptEnglehorn]

ill add another vote for marine rifle.

[TDP0311]

I'm looking at those drill holes... do they by any chance correspond to where the Unertl blocks would mount up?

[Kragrifle]

Too widely spaced

[SPEEDGUNNER]

Oh lookee here...with the owners permission I was able to take the rifle apart for a little looksee, what have we here?

http://i61.tinypic.com/oqx9p4.jpg

What is the spacing for Unertl blocks, holes on this one are:
Receiver - 1 1/16"
Barrel - 5/8"

What is this rifle now???

[chuckindenver]

built up by someone other then the military,
notice the dingers on the rear sight base from being removed, and installed by less then a skilled person, holes dont look to be in the right spacing, barrel was not installed by the USMC, finish is a restored current repark and not G.I.
stock looks new, like it was installed a few months ago, finish isnt G.I. on the stock
if this was a USMC mounted scope base set, you wouldnt be able to remove them, the originals were high temp soldered on as well as drilled and tapped,
i say, collectors restore parts gun...

[oakfarm]

9-40 Barrel.....? HMMMM.SA ?

[John Beard]

The rifle is a USMC rifle. The rifle appears to be a made-up vintage service replacement for a WWI sniper rifle, perhaps lost or damaged in combat.

Hope this helps.

J.B.

[John Beard]

9-40 Barrel.....? HMMMM.SA ?

Yes.

J.B.

[SPEEDGUNNER]

Barrel is SA 9-40. What does HMMMM mean? Hard to get enough light for a clear picture.

http://i60.tinypic.com/20rwfa9.jpg

[chuckindenver]

from the pictures posted.
in my opinion, the rifle was not assembled as it is by any branch of the military as it sits..
barrel may have been installed by the USMC...but the rest of the work, was not the quality of any armorer.
unless they built it on a hangover.

[JimF]

. . . . . Hard to get enough light for a clear picture.

I think your problem is that the background is too "white/light".

It's shutting down the aperature, making the subject matter a black silhouette!

Try using an "earth" tone as a backdrop (brown, gray, etc.). --Jim

[TDP0311]

So this rifle was must likely drilled after its time in USMC custody?

[John Beard]

So this rifle was must likely drilled after its time in USMC custody?

The rifle is NOT a proverbial USMC "M1941 Sniper Rifle." But it is a USMC rifle and was probably made into a sniper rifle by USMC armorers to replace a lost or damaged sniper rifle.

J.B.

[chuckindenver]

sorry, i do not agree, ...this is not and has never been a USMC snipers rifle,.
other then 4 holes, that arent drilled in the right place, the quality of work is not that of any armorer,
the bases would have been high temp soldered on as well as drilled and tapped, no punch mark on the barrel ahead of the front base,
bolt serial number looks like it was done on a drunk sat night, finish is not a G.I. finish...rear sight is hot salts blued, and not blackened,
bolt is hotsalts blue, and not blackend,
maybe and a big maybe, the receiver and barrel were USMC..but thats a stretch...
had the stock been USMC, the area were the bolt handle closes would be milled or mill notched slightly,
the rear sight base, and front sight base have been removed by someone with a drift punch,
if it were indeed a USMC snipers rifle, the rear sight base would have tar or at least discolor from tar, as well as the front sight...
other signs of being a USMC snipers rifle are not present..

[chuckindenver]

this is the correct, spacing and location of a USMC scope base, the grey spots on this receiver.
you have to look close,
even without measuring them, you can see.

[John Beard]

Chuckindenver and I agree to disagree.

Now the reader must choose! :icon_scratch:

J.B. :hello:

[chuckindenver]

id like to see a Unertel base installed on that rifle...
the marks on my rifle, were outlined from a WW2 vintage base.
guess im wrong eh? and the pictures lie? common really?
since when did the USMC use a drift punch to remove a rear sight base? and why would they do so if they installed the barrel? you see the same pictures as me.
the serial number markings on the bolt, are not only in the wrong place, but just about the worst iv seen.

[John Beard]

id like to see a Unertel base installed on that rifle...
the marks on my rifle, were outlined from a WW2 vintage base.
guess im wrong eh? and the pictures lie? common really?
since when did the USMC use a drift punch to remove a rear sight base? and why would they do so if they installed the barrel? you see the same pictures as me.
the serial number markings on the bolt, are not only in the wrong place, but just about the worst iv seen.

I made no suggestion that the rifle was fitted for Unertl bases. I was well aware that it was not. And if you believe that all USMC sniper rifles were fitted with Unertl bases, then you have more education coming.

The serial number markings on the bolt look just like lots of other goofy serial number markings that I have seen on USMC rifles.

J.B.

[chuckindenver]

please....educate all of us on a 1903 USMC snipers rifle with no optics...
and please...post pictures... im waiting with an open mind..
for the record, i agree with part of J.B,s observations..barrel and receiver may have been USMC...the holes, bolt, rear sight base, and front sight base, were likely done and installed by someone other then any military branch.
without better pictures of the buttplate, and stock, anything else would be a guess, and a stretch.

[John Beard]

Please let me be abundantly clear that my judgement is based on what I see in the pictures. A personal examination of the subject rifle might be completely mind-changing. Be that as it may.

My education came at great expense. Copies of documents from the National Archives, for example, have an amortized cost of $1 per page. I, therefore, feel no obligation to post those documents online for all to peruse. Gathering and sorting meaningful data, likewise, comes at great expense in both time and money. Similarly, I feel no obligation to post that data online for all to critique. But, I regularly respond to personal requests for more information, frequently with the understanding that the information be kept confidential. And this thread is no exception.

As I said in my earlier posting, the reader must choose. No criticism of anyone is implied or intended.

J.B.

[Weasel]

The hole spacing on the receiver is to much. The correct spacing for the holes are .560 for bbl and .860 on the receiver center to center. The correct blocks are the Unertel "O" and "E" blocks. At least that's what the books say anyway and that's what's on mine. That's just my half cent.

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x97/mach-won/bases.jpg

[SPEEDGUNNER]

John Beard, trying to PM you and your box is full. Thanks.

[John Beard]

John Beard, trying to PM you and your box is full. Thanks.

Reply sent.

J.B.

[Promo]

Besides the discussion if it being a USMC sniper rifle or not, if you have the chance to - buy it as a rifle for shooting! It's a nice USMC rifle, at least that is the minimum part what all here seem to agree upon.

[Col. Colt]

Who says that every single "Sniper Rifle" the USMC ever had used Unertl bases? What about those fielded BEFORE WWII? According to the much maligned Joe Poyer in his 2012 book "Collecting the American Sniper Rifle 1900 to 1945" on pages 42 and 44, the Marines both used and tested Winchester/Lyman A5s and probably other scopes before, during and after WWI and before WWII. The published photos are most interesting.

I am a rank amateur at the 1903, but I seem to remember reading elsewere as well (Major Plaster's?) that the USMC having sniper rifles in WWI and also during the Banana Wars in the 1920's and 30's - and they would have had to have some other scope and whatever mounts they came with - say a Lyman/Winchester A5, or some other makers - as the Unertl was not available yet. CC

[John Beard]

SPEEDGUNNER,

Now your mail box is full and I cannot PM you! Please clear some room for a reply!

Thanks!

J.B.

[Marine A5 Sniper Rifle]

I don't believe it is, or was, a sniper rifle. It appears to me to have been a USMC R&P team rifle (scoped or not). The base hole spacing is common for the Unertl or Win A5 scope bases. Only one of the better known smiths of the day used an odd base hole spacing, and that is because he made his own bases. He also used a different sized screw than did most others. Typically, a smith will "touch" the tops of the tapped holes with a file to remove the slight burr left by the tap. Whoever tapped this rifle did not do so. Doesn't mean it wasn't a USMC armorer.

I have often heard about the early USMC sniper rifles having their bases soldered on, but I have yet to see known originals done so. I don't see the purpose for soldering. A properly tapped rifle is very solid as mountings go. Soft soldering could damage the base case hardening to some extent (discoloration but not temper). Since tinning produces a slightly uneven surface, fitting the base and soldering it would not be a simple task if done correctly.

I don't believe any of the WWI USMC sniper rifle bases were soldered. If anyone can demonstrate the case for soldering, I am all ears.

jt