1908 SA questions

[dokcop]

I'd like opinions on the correctness of the following 1903 rifle, currently for sale here locally:

#338,9xx. SA 05 barrel (no month, no "A'). No evidence of front sight alterations per Beard/Ferris book. Front sight has correct witness marks and appears unaltered. Rear sight knobs correct. Strong JFC cartouche, block P with assembly number above. small s stamp on face of stock. Very nice rack marks on butt. Hand guard grooved but without clips or s stamp at top rear and matches stock perfectly. No mortise in buttplate recess for spare parts kit. One crossbolt in uncracked low wood stock. The rifle is in superb, 90% plus condition, with an excellent bore (<1.0) and chamber (<2.0) and most of the original nitre blue on the floor plate and TG, barrel, bands and buttplate. Receiver markings are sharp and clear, and receiver is turning to a pretty patina that looks a bit like casehardening. It will not be possible to disassemble the rifle without a commitment to buy.

I'm a bit nervous about (1) the 05 barrel, which I associate with rebuilt RB rifles and 0303 alterations; did they use them as late as early '08? (2) the one lug stock, variously reported as initiated in late '08 to as late as 1910; (3) the low wood stock in conjunction with the no-clip hand guard. The owner (naturally) insists that the rifle is correct and points out the vague nature of the changes 1908-1910 and the intermixing of various features in that period.

This is a very nice but reasonably pricey ($2800) rifle. Opinions, please.

Thanks in advance. Dokcop.

[Rick the Librarian]

1) I've never seen a "05" barrel on that late of a early rifle. I have seen it used as a replacement going through the early 30s. I would expect by that point to have found a very late 1907 or very early 1908 barrel.

2) The one-bolt stock is not out of line for that date. I have a 230,000 range rifle, all original, with a one-bolt BHM stock on it. Generally, I have heard that one-bolt stocks were introduced about 1908 - certainly not 1910.

3) The handguard clips were added (according to what I have read), also about 1908 - so the rifle could have been on the "cusp" for that as well.

If I was going to be suspicious of anything, it would be the 05 barrel. However, I would defer to my friend John Beard for his opinion.

One question - is the stock bolt forward (under the forward receiver) or to the rear (near the bolt handle) of the stock?

[John Beard]

Based on your description, the rifle is consistent with a rifle that was overhauled at Springfield Armory about 1910.

The rifle's receiver was serialized in early 1908, well after resumption of new rifle production. So it should have been fitted with a current production 1908 barrel and a high-wood, one-bolt stock. It's conceivable that the rifle could have been originally fitted with an S.A./05 barrel, but NOT a low-wood stock. Also, the sight line clearance groove in the handguard was not added until September, 1909, almost two years after the receiver had been serialized.

If the rifle was returned to Springfield Armory for overhaul and re-barreling in early 1910, then it could have been fitted with a low-wood, one-bolt stock marked "s" on the fore end tip and with no mortise in the butt trap for a cleaning kit. The handguard would have had a sight line clearance groove, but no clips. And an S.A./05 barrel would have been an unlikely, but legitimate replacement.

One thing I have learned since our book was published is that the 1907-1910 alteration program was divided into two distinct phases representing two different and distinct budgetary expenses. One pot of money was set aside for altering new unissued rifles still in Ordnance Stores, and a second pot of money was set aside for altering rifles which had been issued and had to be recalled for alteration. The first pot of money came from funds budgeted for new rifle production, since the rifles were still new/unissued and just needed to be altered. The second pot of money came from funds budgeted for "overhaul," since the rifles had been issued and would now require repair and replacement parts and refinishing in addition to alteration. And Springfield Armory had to keep the two sets of rifles segregated and absolutely ensure that the money was spent for the budgeted purposes.

Since the rifle you found apparently came in for overhaul and re-barreling in 1910, then it would have fallen in the "overhaul" category and an altered S.A./05 barrel salvaged from a used rifle would have been a legitimate replacement. The low-wood stock and later handguard would also have been legitimate replacements.

A nice original 1910 overhauled rifle has value and is certainly collectible, but $2800 seems a bit much.

Hope this helps.

J.B.

[dokcop]

Based on your description, the rifle is consistent with a rifle that was overhauled at Springfield Armory about 1910.

The rifle's receiver was serialized in early 1908, well after resumption of new rifle production. So it should have been fitted with a current production 1908 barrel and a high-wood, one-bolt stock. It's conceivable that the rifle could have been originally fitted with an S.A./05 barrel, but NOT a low-wood stock. Also, the sight line clearance groove in the handguard was not added until September, 1909, almost two years after the receiver had been serialized.

If the rifle was returned to Springfield Armory for overhaul and re-barreling in early 1910, then it could have been fitted with a low-wood, one-bolt stock marked "s" on the fore end tip and with no mortise in the butt trap for a cleaning kit. The handguard would have had a sight line clearance groove, but no clips. And an S.A./05 barrel would have been an unlikely, but legitimate replacement.

One thing I have learned since our book was published is that the 1907-1910 alteration program was divided into two distinct phases representing two different and distinct budgetary expenses. One pot of money was set aside for altering new unissued rifles still in Ordnance Stores, and a second pot of money was set aside for altering rifles which had been issued and had to be recalled for alteration. The first pot of money came from funds budgeted for new rifle production, since the rifles were still new/unissued and just needed to be altered. The second pot of money came from funds budgeted for "overhaul," since the rifles had been issued and would now require repair and replacement parts and refinishing in addition to alteration. And Springfield Armory had to keep the two sets of rifles segregated and absolutely ensure that the money was spent for the budgeted purposes.

Since the rifle you found apparently came in for overhaul and re-barreling in 1910, then it would have fallen in the "overhaul" category and an altered S.A./05 barrel salvaged from a used rifle would have been a legitimate replacement. The low-wood stock and later handguard would also have been legitimate replacements.

A nice original 1910 overhauled rifle has value and is certainly collectible, but $2800 seems a bit much.

Hope this helps.

J.B.

Rick/J.B. Thanks to you both for your reliable, informative and succinct responses. Clearly there is material for another book in the 1906-1910 '03 era (hint, hint...)

In the past I have walked away from nice rifles in the <300,000 range specifically because of the presence of the stock bolt (which in the case of this rifle is located just forward of the bolt handle). Knowledge is power...

I have a nice '07 rifle with the BHM cartouche. Is the identity of this inspector still unknown?

Again, many thanks for the valuable information. I hereby nominate it for "sticky-hood."

Dokcop

[Rick the Librarian]

For what it is worth, I have a similar rebuild and I paid a LOT less than $2800 for it. #313439 with a SA 5-15 barrel. The stock was interesting - an earlier "script" GRG stamp overstamped with a crisp JSA. One bolt but an earlier RB modification.

With the price of totally original M1903s in the stratosphere, there is nothing wrong with a nice pre-WWI rebuild. I believe I paid somewhere in the $800 range for it.

IMG_0549 (1024x195).jpgIMG_0555 (1024x303).jpgIMG_0558 (909x1024).jpgIMG_0562 (2).jpgIMG_0567 (577x1024).jpg

[dokcop]

Nice rifle. I believe you could easily add the digit "1" to the front of the price you paid if you were up here in the Great Snowbound Northeast. The early guns are addictive, aren't they?

Regards, Dokcop

[Rick the Librarian]

Nice rifle. I believe you could easily add the digit "1" to the front of the price you paid if you were up here in the Great Snowbound Northeast. The early guns are addictive, aren't they?

Regards, Dokcop

"Addictive" ain't the word for it!! Pre-WWI M1903s are works of art in my opinion.

[John Beard]

B.H.M.'s identity remains unknown.

J.B.

[dokcop]

early '03s

"Addictive" ain't the word for it!! Pre-WWI M1903s are works of art in my opinion.

When my wife raises a critical eyebrow about "accumulating" yet more guns, I patiently explain that I am not a old wannabe redneck gun worshipper but a Connoisseur of Fine Early Twentieth Century Industrial Art...

[Rick the Librarian]

Would also suggest reading Patrick MacManus' story "Gunrunning" in his book The Grasshopper Trap for ideas on sneaking guns past a suspicious spouse! Hilarious!!

[dokcop]

B.H.M.'s identity remains unknown.

J.B.

Thanks again, John.