Just took some more close up photos of...

[Fred]

Duane, it brings me a lot of pleasure to be able to share the photos with you and that you like them. Thanks!
I plan on putting this rifle up for sale really soon. Hate to see it go, but it's kind of a duplicate in the rifle cabinate and so I'm wanting to use the cash for it to buy something else.

[bombdog]

Fred, You have so many beautiful Rifles and I just wanted to thank you for taking the time to share pictures of them with us on a semi-regular basis. I, for one really appreciate it.

I used to have a few Springfield 03s but sold off my collection 30+ years a go. I wish now, after seeing yours, that I would have hung on to them.

Again, Thanks so much!

What Duane said Fred, beautiful rifle...
bombdog

[Fred]

Hey THANKS bombdog!

[louis]

Same here great photos and a great background to boot!!!

[Fred]

I'm glad you enjoy the photos Louis! You'd think that with all of this land around me, I'd be shooting at targets. However I don't. It upsets the horses. Besides, after living and sleeping in and firing all of the neat weaponry on a tank for 2 1/2 years (the reason I'm nearly deaf now), I don't find it very exciting to do so anymore. Heck, I've never even Fired any of my 03's. Now THAT's a shame.

[dirtdigger]

Great rifle, and great pics. Does anyone know when in 1917 the second stock bolt was added? thanks.

[John Beard]

Thanks for sharing!

I have a rifle within three thousand of yours that is convincingly a Doughboy bring-back. It came with the original sling, bayonet, scabbard, and breech cover. And it's in about the same condition. Seeing yours makes me appreciate both of ours!

Thanks again for taking the time to make and post pictures!

J.B.

p.s.,

And to dirtdigger, the date was April, 1917.

[Emri]

Thanks for sharing!

I have a rifle within three thousand of yours that is convincingly a Doughboy bring-back. It came with the original sling, bayonet, scabbard, and breech cover. And it's in about the same condition. Seeing yours makes me appreciate both of ours!

Thanks again for taking the time to make and post pictures!

J.B.

p.s.,

And to dirtdigger, the date was April, 1917.

John,

What is the SN of yours ?? Mine is 780693. That makes 3 of them I know of in original condition. I've seen Fred's ( in pics ) and mine. Maybe you can bring yours to B'ham next March for me to see. If Phillip comes, I'll bring mine and we can educate him on what he is looking at.

Nice rifle Fred, thanks for the new pics, they are very good quality. Telephone cameras have come so far that they make my digital SLR Pentax really out dated.

Emri

[Fred]

Thanks for sharing!

I have a rifle within three thousand of yours that is convincingly a Doughboy bring-back. It came with the original sling, bayonet, scabbard, and breech cover. And it's in about the same condition. Seeing yours makes me appreciate both of ours!

Thanks again for taking the time to make and post pictures!

J.B.

p.s.,

And to dirtdigger, the date was April, 1917.

John, I'm happy that you like the pictures! I really enjoy taking them.

It seems to me that correct 1903's and even incorrect 1903's that were manufactured in 1917 are much more difficult to find than those made later in the war. Those that were sent to Europe for the war must've been exposed to a great deal of battlefield wear and tear that necessitated their overhaul and upgrade. These three mentioned, yours, Emri's and mine, are about the only three that I can think of that are still in original configuration.
Honestly, I've seen more correct and original pre war 1903's than I have from 1917. Maybe I need to get out more.
Interestingly, when I think about it, the C7 bolt that I now have on the 1917 rifle is the one that came on the Rod Bayonet 1903 and the bolt that came on the RB 1903 was in fact the very bolt that is now on this rifle and that is of the correct type for it. What are the odds of THAT happening?
I'm going to regret putting this rifle up on Gunbroker in a day or so, (maybe tonight) but it will be replaced with an 1896 Krag rifle that I've been wanting to get back from a buddy of mine for decades now. Its stock and hand guard are both made of Italian Walnut which are in Mint condition. That stock was made and meant to be a Field Replacement and so is Mint. The rifle that it came on was sold through The American Legion post in North Kansas City to my grandpa in 1924. I've seen the typical 1898 Italian Walnut stocks, but never an 1896 type made of such wood. Bill Mook handled it whenever he came up to K.C. to sit with us behind our tables and thought that it was pretty interesting. He of course had at his home an entire rack of Late Model 1898 rifles with Italian Walnut stocks.

[John Beard]

John,

What is the SN of yours ?? Mine is 780693. That makes 3 of them I know of in original condition. I've seen Fred's ( in pics ) and mine. Maybe you can bring yours to B'ham next March for me to see. If Phillip comes, I'll bring mine and we can educate him on what he is looking at.

Nice rifle Fred, thanks for the new pics, they are very good quality. Telephone cameras have come so far that they make my digital SLR Pentax really out dated.

Emri

My rifle is SA S/N 750598 with S.A./11-17 barrel. But our two rifles are different. My rifle is casehardened. Your rifle is double-heat-treated. I bought my rifle many years ago at B'ham. March sounds good. Them ribs is smokin'!

J.B.

[John Beard]

The scarcity of 1917 M1903 rifles is probably driven by an order issued to SA from the Chief of Ordnance in 1919 to destroy the receivers of all rifles coming back from France that were manufactured in 1917. They didn't miss many.

J.B.

p.s.,

The order did not cover USMC rifles.

[Fred]

Wow, well now it makes sense why they're so very scarce. Thanks John for that bit of Very interesting information!

[Fred]

The scarcity of 1917 M1903 rifles is probably driven by an order issued to SA from the Chief of Ordnance in 1919 to destroy the receivers of all rifles coming back from France that were manufactured in 1917. They didn't miss many.J.B.p.s.,The order did not cover USMC rifles.

Then could it be surmised that those very few 1917 made 03's that appear to have survived the order to destroy all returning rifles made in 1917 could have possibly been used by the Marines? That'd be an interesting possibility for Steve Norton and some of the other USMC enthusiasts to think about.

[John Beard]

Then could it be surmised that those very few 1917 made 03's that appear to have survived the order to destroy all returning rifles made in 1917 could have possibly been used by the Marines? That'd be an interesting possibility for Steve Norton and some of the other USMC enthusiasts to think about.

Such a supposition would not be accurate. The USMC did indeed receive rifles in 1917, and some of them survived. But some Army-issued rifles survived also, relatively speaking.

J.B.

[Fred]

Thanks John.