Mk.1 stock w/no Cartouche

[GWS]

I have a Mk.1 s/n 1189246 with a 2-20 S.A. barrel and what I think is the original FG stock. There is a circle P proof behind the trigger guard but no stock cartouche on the left side. By the condition of the stock, there never was a cartouche applied there. as no sanding or refinishing of the stock is evident. I vaguely remember some mention here of this condition on some Mk.1 rifles, but a search revealed nothing. Can anyone help on this? Thanks. Will post some pics as soon as I can.

[Fred]

My Mark I had an inspectors cartouche on its original stock

[GWS]

Here's a few pics. The sight,sight base and barrel have a greenish tint parkerizing, receiver is black and most everything else is blued.3378033781337823378333784

[Dick Hosmer]

FWIW, that is the strangest "P" I have EVER seen on ANY US martial arm.

[JimF]

FWIW, that is the strangest "P" I have EVER seen on ANY US martial arm.

I dunno, Dick . . .

My January, 1918 '03 looks the same. --Jim

[Dick Hosmer]

Could be camera angle, but the top and bottom edges of the 'loop' of the P do not appear to be parallel, and the P does not seem to be well centered.

Granted, I am much more familiar with the earlier serifed style, but do have block Ps on one Krag - which is a Benicia rebuild, a 1913 '03, and my NRA Sporter.

[GWS]

My photos are far short of great, but here's a shot of the proof mark on a 1918 dated '03 I have. It's struck deeper but essentially the same. I also reshot the Mk.1 proof.3378733788 Also see Brophy(The 1903 Springfield Rifles) p.573 proofs.

[Dick Hosmer]

Those look "better" somehow. The Mk1 is a light strike, as well, which may add to the illusion. Plus, having to twist my head may not be helping either! [GRIN]

BTW, wasn't saying it wasn't "right", just that the hit looked a bit strange.

[twh]

Need to see a picture of the left side of the stock that shows the area around the ejection port.

[Dick Hosmer]

Need to see a picture of the left side of the stock that shows the area around the ejection port.

The edge of the ejection port clearance notch is visible in pic #1.

[GWS]

A few more pics: Has correct cut-off, sear and special Mk.1 trigger(not shown) Note milling ripples or ridges in finger grooves- stock is very nice---just no cartouche!33806338073380833809

[GWS]

Here's a couple more pics:33810 Sorry for the duplicate--having problems attaching pics right now.

[louis]

That is one very nice stock. I it my imagination or do I see a remnant of a horizontal box in the area of where there should be a cartouche? I thought I saw it when I enlarged the photo. Either way it doesn't look like someone sanded this stock.

[GWS]

Yes, I see it. There are several "lines" like this in other areas of the stock--maybe open grain? Also, 3 more pics:338163381733818

No marking on forend tip below bayonet attachment. Floorplate has some loss of blue-looks like a stain in pic.

[John Beard]

Seasons' Greetings,

Unless I am badly mistaken, one reason your rifle's stock has no inspection stamp (cartouche) is because it's not a Mark I stock.

Hope this helps. Happy New Year!

J.B.

[GWS]

"Unless I am badly mistaken, one reason your rifle's stock has no inspection stamp (cartouche) is because it's not a Mark I stock."

Could you explain a little more please? Thanks.

[Fred]

To my recollection, Mark I 03's had smooth butt plates.
About the stock, if it IS an Unsanded Mark I stock, I think that the ejection port cut out should have milling or cutting marks in it that can be easily seen from the top looking down.

[John Beard]

"Unless I am badly mistaken, one reason your rifle's stock has no inspection stamp (cartouche) is because it's not a Mark I stock."

Could you explain a little more please? Thanks.

Seasons' Greetings!

It's very simple. An authentic Mark I stock notch doesn't look like that. Dick Hosmer's reservation about the proof mark, therefore, still applies. And Fred is correct that a Mark I rifle does not have a checkered buttplate. I took for granted that Bubba had switched the buttplate.

Hope this helps. Happy New Year!

J.B.

[Mike D]

Here is one that shows some milling marks. GWS' stock sure looks good. I would guess NOS, with a possible fake "P". The rest of the stock looks so crisp, and the age of the relief cut matches.

http://i926.photobucket.com/albums/ad102/m1carbiner/M1903%20Mark%20I%20Stock/03MarkIStock010.jpg

[GWS]

J.B.--You may be right, I'll pull the action out of the stock first chance I get today. Thanks.

[GWS]

The pictures don't lie--this is definitely NOT an Armory mfg. stock! The milling cuts around the receiver are rough, uneven and even chipped a piece out between the cutoff and ejection relief cut. Note the very uneven cut around the front receiver-stock screw.It's obvious now that most of the time and effort was on the outside of this stock and not the inside! Obviously made to decieve! I guess I could sell it for a shooter grade gun and try to find a decent, real Mk.1 stock.........with a Cartouche! Thanks for everyone's help and chalk up another one for John B.338333383433835

[John Beard]

Seasons' Greetings!

I do not believe your stock is a reproduction. You appear to have an authentic Springfield Armory-manufactured stock. I just believe that it was not originally manufactured for a Mark I rifle. More specifically, it appears to be a field replacement stock.

Hope this helps. Happy New Year!

J.B.

p.s.,

Can you post a left side photo of the cutoff recess? Please oblige. Thanks!

[GWS]

" I do not believe your stock is a reproduction. You appear to have an authentic Springfield Armory-manufactured stock. I just believe that it was not originally manufactured for a Mark I rifle. More specifically, it appears to be a field replacement stock."

Here you are John. You say it may be a Springfield Armory replacement stock(which is the first good news today!), but were all replacement stocks this crude on the inside? Parts of it- the buttplate area and lightening cuts up front look pretty good, it's really the receiver and sight base area that look so poorly made. There is what maybe a 'T' in the cutoff notch, a '55' on the butt, and a '21' just back of the triggerguard cut out. My pictures may make them hard to make out. So, would Springfield have marked the stock as a replacement or might this be more a "field job"? Again, thanks for your help and knowledge.3384633847338483384933850

[John Beard]

Seasons' Greetings!

Your stock is convincingly an authentic Springfield Armory M1903 stock. I am unable to comment on the poor inletting. And I cannot rule out the possibility that it may be an authentic Mark I stock, except that it's a bit different from others I have seen.

I have withheld disclosing the fact that not all Mark I stocks have inspection cartouches. So absence of an inspection cartouche is, by no means, a basis for declaring the stock a replacement. I can state with reasonable certainty that the checkered buttplate is a replacement. And the proof mark is certainly questionable. But again, I cannot rule out the possibility that the proof mark may be authentic. Stranger things have happened.

The beaver-chewed inletting above the magazine cutoff is correct.

Before pursuing a replacement stock, I recommend leaving that stock on your rifle. Perhaps another one will surface and prove your stock authentic.

Hope this helps. Happy New Year!

J.B.

[GWS]

Thank you John. Guess I'll keep it together for a while, maybe replace the buttplate.

[Rick the Librarian]

If you want a picture of another interesting Mark I stock that turned up, look at the pictures below - about 9-10 years ago, I examined a Mark I M1903 that came with Pedersen Device - the only one I had seen "in person". The rifle was in all respects an original Mark I except that the stock had been modified from a former no- or one-bolt GRG-marked stock! As I recall, from the discussion at the time, the cut for the ejection port was legitimate although obviously added at a later time when the stock was modified.

33856338573385833859

[Fred]

Neat!

[Fred]

I like your rifle GWS!

[John Beard]

I like your rifle GWS!

Ditto :icon_exclaim:

J.B.

[GWS]

Thanks guys.