May 12, 20233 yr #1 Just brought this home. I hope I can get some help with a few questions from the experts. What is the probability that this is a USMC rifle? The only obvious traits (given my my limited internet-based understanding) are the bolt serial number and the Hatcher hole. I note there are no vice marks on the barrel in front of the receiver and no rebuild punch marks near the serial number. There are no markings on the stock other than the J in the cut-off recess. The serial number on the bolt is on the side, not the top (bolt handle has to be up to see the number) - any significance to this? The barrel date has no dash between the month and year. Is this normal for the date? The bolt and barrel seem to be consistent with a 1942 arsenal rebuild. Is the J marked stock consistent with a 1942 arsenal rebuild? Is there anything interesting about this stock?
May 12, 20233 yr Author #2 I forgot to mention that the bolt is stamped R1 in top of the handle and here is a picture of the only stock mark.
May 12, 20233 yr #3 As to Marine use ever in that receivers history or not I do not know. What I do think is that the whole rifle has been refinished post build in a light park. Typically receivers needing a new barrel were stripped then re finished and then barreled…(the barrels came finished from the various makers). To have everything from front sight blade to bands and butplate matching is suspect. While a nice solid rifle I do not think it is original to the period and so all bets are off.
May 12, 20233 yr #4 You mention “arsenal rebuild”. Arsenals typically added a P Proof to the stock as well as the arsenal marking plus inspection person. The rifles were then coated in cosmoline for storage or shipping. None of this is visible on this example. With a SA Oct 1942 barrel it is even more unlikely the rifle went into Marine hands as they were on Guadalcanal when the barrel was made and had decided the M1 would immediately replace the M1903 in Marine service, so they wasted no more effort on the 1903 and stocks of Marine rifles were given to the US Navy. Arsenals were not the only place that could rebuild though. Base or direct support units could and did rebuilds with parts on hand and returned the weapons to units they supported. This example shown shows fresh two contrasting color uniform finish, zero use or handling marks, no cosmoline or stains from it and to me just does not look original to any 1940s date.
May 12, 20233 yr #6 14 minutes ago, USMC_COLLECTOR said: USMC rifles have a hood sight, and usually a finger groove in the stock. All M1903 rifles have hood sights, and every rifle made before, I think 1927, had finger groove stocks.
May 12, 20233 yr #7 Ok. Thanks for clearing it up. 2 minutes ago, robinb said: All M1903 rifles have hood sights, and every rifle made before, I think 1927, had finger groove stocks.
May 12, 20233 yr #8 USMC refurbished M1903 rifles have several similar traits. As mentioned above, vice marks on the barrel is one. A hand-stippled butt plate is another. The Hatcher hole, but slightly roughly done. A USMC marked Sedgley barrel.
May 12, 20233 yr #9 He has not been on since last September, but @cplnorton would be a good guy to ask about USMC rifles, their rebuilding and the traits of their rebuilds.
May 13, 20233 yr #11 Hey thanks for the nice compliment M1 Garandy. I love Marine rifles. :) Are you sure this one doesn't have the barrel vise marks under the handguard, forward of the rear sight base? Just to dissect it. The serial range is great for a USMC rifle. The repark and the fact that the bolt is still blued, are consistent with Marine rebuilds. Marines used a finish they called pertrude on bolts, which was a form of bluing that made the bolt cycle smoother than using parkerization. The barrel date is great for a Marine rebuild, as the Marines bought a lot of SA barrels that range about 5/42 to 11/42. But they really usually do show vise marks on the barrel from being changed in this era. But I've seen some they are very faint. The buttplates of the WWII era Marine rifles were hand stippled, but pre WWII the Marines actually would checker flat buttplates with a milling machine. Some of the checkering they cut with milling machines is sometimes crude, such as this one. I think this buttplate is one that was milled by the Marines out of a flat buttplate. The J marked stocks without grasping groves were a Marine Contract stock. The Marines did not like the Army C stocks and much preferred straight S stocks. But they could not get anymore S stocks off SA so they actually contracted a civilian company to make stocks for them. This J marked stock is a Marine contract stock. The Marines started to drill the Hatcher hole on all rebuilds post the fall of 1938. Though off topic that modification has been attributed to Julian Hatcher, he never had anything to do with it. Someone incorrectly attributed it to him back in the day and it just stuck. The Marines started to number the bolts in the fall of 1938 as well. Usually they numbered them on the top of the bolt body, but I have seen them just like yours that is on the side that is only visible when the bolt is cycled. Honestly the whole rifle looks very consistant as a normal Marine rebuild of that era. The only thing that really seems to be not present is the vise marks, but even though they should be there, I've seen a few they were so faint or barely there. That would not be a deal breaker for me on this rifle thinking it's a Marine rebuild. I do think it's one. The only thing else I can add that might have some history of this rifle, is the Navy rifles. In 1941 the Marines adopted the M1 Garand. Even though they actually reveived quite a few M1's before Pearl Harbor was attacked, the Marine Corps started to grow exponentially in number post Dec 7th, and they were desperate for rifles. They tried to get M1's off the Army, but could not get them in number, so they actually turned to the Navy for rifles. The Navy had a lot of M1903's used for training, and they really did not need a rifle that could fire. The Navy could use a dummy rifle for training and free up real rifles for the Maines, so the Navy turned over to the Marines in early 1942, 35,000 M1903's. The Navy rifles turned over to the Marines were in terrible shape and most needed rebuilt, so they passed thru the Philly Depot on the way to being issued stateside for the Marines. So these Navy rifles, would look like a Marine rebuild, because the Marines rebuilt them. Also the Navy rifles were in the Marine serial ranges bc during the 1918/19 timeframe the Navy was receiving shipments of rifles at the same time as the Marines. So the serials are often pretty intertwined with each other. The Marines used thes M1903 rifles until about Feb 1943 and started to turn them back over to the Navy. Also the Marines turned over all their spare M1903 parts to the Navy starting in Jan 1944. The Navy had two repair depots that also rebuilt M1903 rifles, and not much is known about what their rebuilds look like. But they certainly had a huge influx of Marine M1903's and Marine spare M1903 parts which could show Marine traits coming into their depots. So anytime you have a rifle rebuilt after the Navy rifles came in early 1942, there is always a chance the rifle was a Navy rifle rebuilt by the Marines. So in summary, I do think this one was rebuilt by the Marines. Or at least the whole rifle screams Marine. Whether it started out a Marine rifle, or a Navy rifle, is anyone's guess. Most of the Marine M1903's were turned over to the Navy starting in Feb 1943, including the ones the Marines received off the Navy the first few months of 1942. But yes the rifle definitely looks very consistent with a Marine rebuild. It's a beautiful rifle. :)
May 13, 20233 yr Author #13 cplnorton - thank you for the thorough reply. You motivated me to disassemble the rifle and look again. I cannot see anything I would call a vice mark ahead of the receiver. There are some marks of some kind 2/3 of the way towards the muzzle. See attached hi rez photos.
May 13, 20233 yr #14 Steve, great summary on the rifle. I’m learning new stuff all the time. Glad you commented. Regards
Create an account or sign in to comment