Remington 1903 help needed

[Andrew1182]

I realize this isn’t a sniper rifle, but it’s definately vintage. One of my fathers friends brought this by today and asked me to tell what I knew about it and what it was worth. Evidently his father was in the military during this time period and he’s trying to figure out if this was possibly his service rifle over seas.

I got the impression he needs money, so I talked to my dad and he’s going to buy it for a fair price and give it back to him for Christmas, we just need to make sure he’s getting a fair price so he doesn’t feel the need to sell it again?. Any help is greatly appreciated.

I’m posting from my cell phone so all I’m able to do for pictures is share the album link.

 

[FatBoy]

oh shit. strait stock with finger grooves and a cut front sight. What are the stamps on the stock?

 

[pmclaine]

It could be worth a lot or it could be worth a little.

Serial number matters.

Just looking at it, no barrel description, pretty weak picture, in my area you at $600, most other areas probably more than that.

 

[pmclaine]

Okay opened the links.

While the armory was busy building Garands they gave Remington a contract to make 03s for substitute rifles. Remington quickly fell behind because 03 s are a bitching to make. They requested and were granted the ability to use cheaper methods which begat the 03A3.

Yours would either be a full blown Remington 03 or a transitional 03 to A3 the receiver bridge determining.

It's a perfectly safe rifle to shoot heat treat wise.

Inspections stamps will determine if it is all original.

It looks like a nice rifle.

I'm thinking you are approaching a grand in value.

Any traces of red paint or New Zealand stamps maybe more.

 

[Andrew1182]

$1000 was my best guess but my research told me it was a January 42 production and given the condition I wanted to make sure I wasn’t off. There are a number of inscriptions on the stock that I’m unable to make out.

 

[Andrew1182]

oh shit. strait stock with finger grooves and a cut front sight. What are the stamps on the stock?

Some stamps I can’t quite make out:

 

[FatBoy]

@cplnorton

 

[pmclaine]

Those are firing proof "P" on the wrist. If there are two Ps it was likely rebuilt once. Should be other stamps left side of receiver wood. If it was a Remington stock they usually have four inspector stamps just forward of the magazine well door.

as mentioned @cplnorton may have better detail info. A remington may not be his true interest though as the Marines likely had few if any Remington 03s.

 

[Dan M]

The handguard has been replaced. Here are a pair of my LL Remingtons in original condition to compare. The bolt should have a large R under the bolt handle and the extractor should be R marked with a gas escape hole.

 

[Dan M]

The receiver finish color looks right. Here is another early Rem from the collection. The handguard profile for an early Remington should resemble a WW1 M1903.

 

[sandwarrior]

Okay opened the links.

While the armory was busy building Garands they gave Remington a contract to make 03s for substitute rifles. Remington quickly fell behind because 03 s are a bitching to make. They requested and were granted the ability to use cheaper methods which begat the 03A3.

Yours would either be a full blown Remington 03 or a transitional 03 to A3 the receiver bridge determining.

It's a perfectly safe rifle to shoot heat treat wise.

Inspections stamps will determine if it is all original.

It looks like a nice rifle.

I'm thinking you are approaching a grand in value.

Any traces of red paint or New Zealand stamps maybe more.

That is a full blown O3-A1. It's the 12,000th something off the line. Not worth less than $800 if serial numbers all match. In it's condition, I would say more, but I can't see the bore and how it functions. But, it looks pretty solid. This rifle came out of the factory right at the start of WWII. I have one that is sporterized in that early 3 million serial number. By Remingtons records yours was produced in January 1942.
https://www.remingtonsociety.org/1903-and-1903a3-production-and-serial-no-table/

Mine was made in February 1942.

Had to make corrections...apparently, I can't read a graph before I've had coffee...

 

[Andrew1182]

That is a full blown O3-A1. It's the 12,000th something off the line. Not worth less than $800 if serial numbers all match. In it's condition, I would say more, but I can't see the bore and how it functions. But, it looks pretty solid. This rifle came out of the factory right at the start of WWII. I have one that is sporterized in that early 3 million serial number. By Remingtons records yours was produced in January 1942.
https://www.remingtonsociety.org/1903-and-1903a3-production-and-serial-no-table/

Mine was made in February 1942.

Had to make corrections...apparently, I can't read a graph before I've had coffee...

The bore is perfect and it functions as new. It’s in excellent condition.

Thanks for the input guys.

 

[Dan M]

Nice rifle with original finish...the stock is more than likely original. It just looks like it was scraped down. Check the left side of the stock to see if there is anything left of the final inspection stamp. It should look like the image below:

 

[pmclaine]

That is a full blown O3-A1. It's the 12,000th something off the line. Not worth less than $800 if serial numbers all match. In it's condition, I would say more, but I can't see the bore and how it functions. But, it looks pretty solid. This rifle came out of the factory right at the start of WWII. I have one that is sporterized in that early 3 million serial number. By Remingtons records yours was produced in January 1942.
https://www.remingtonsociety.org/1903-and-1903a3-production-and-serial-no-table/

Mine was made in February 1942.

Had to make corrections...apparently, I can't read a graph before I've had coffee...

Not an A1. No C stock.

Just another 03 with less history than a WWI RIA Or SA.

The cool one side are LL Red Stars ( see picture above) or NZ returns.

All the other ones probably stayed stateside in training.

It a nice shooter perhaps a great example of Remington 03 production to fill a collector niche.

Make mine USMC RIA or SA.

 

[cplnorton]

as mentioned @cplnorton may have better detail info. A remington may not be his true interest though as the Marines likely had few if any Remington 03s.

Hey just saw this. I'm decent at the Remingtons, but as pmclaine called it, I'm more into stuff that was used by the Marines. I'm sort of a one niche pony. lol

I think the questions have mostly been answered though. Value to me would just be a shooter. Which every area is different. In my area the Remingtons don't sell that well, and a nice shooter Remington takes a while to sell for $700 or $800.

 

[sandwarrior]

Not an A1. No C stock.

Just another 03 with less history than a WWI RIA Or SA.

The cool one side are LL Red Stars ( see picture above) or NZ returns.

All the other ones probably stayed stateside in training.

It a nice shooter perhaps a great example of Remington 03 production to fill a collector niche.

Make mine USMC RIA or SA.

I read somewhere, as I'm not an "all-in" '03 collector, that Remington just fitted them with the stocks that they were able to obtain that were in stock in the various armories at the time they started making them. Is that not true? Certainly different from original production and continuing production through the 20's, though.

 

[pmclaine]

I think Remington fit Remington stocks. On rebuild they might end up with whatever wood was on hand.

An A1 referenced a rifle in a pistol grip C stock or in some cases a semi pistol grip scant stock.

Documented "built at an armory" A1s are tough to find in their original config but lots of rebuilt rifles ended up in C stocks becoming A1s.

I love the C stock. I think it more comfortable to shoot than a straight.

I was surprised to hear from @cplnorton that the USMC considered the A1 a red headed step child and avoided the C stock.

As an aside an A2 was a rifle set up to be used as a subcaliber artillery trainer.

 

[sandwarrior]

I thought the A2 was a proof test?

Anyhow, the more 1903 threads come on here, the more I wish I had procured a bunch of these when they were $100 apiece. Even the shot out, abused and bubba'd ones back in the day could be converted to a "competition" version of some sort without going hog-wild on the dollars back then.

 

[pmclaine]

I thought the A2 was a proof test?

Anyhow, the more 1903 threads come on here, the more I wish I had procured a bunch of these when they were $100 apiece. Even the shot out, abused and bubba'd ones back in the day could be converted to a "competition" version of some sort without going hog-wild on the dollars back then.

Everyone ohhs and ahhsss over Pre 64 Winchester Model 70's.....

An '03 in my opinion is an over engineered better built Model 70 the maker of which was not concerned about profit.

But in the big picture both are just rip offs of the Mauser.

Although much nicer ones....Ill take the 03 or Win Bolt release over that Mauser block of steel on the side of the receiver any day.

 

[cplnorton]

I was surprised to hear from @cplnorton that the USMC considered the A1 a red headed step child and avoided the C stock.
.

Oh yeah they hated them. The only thing they were ever used for were on the NM team rifles, and even many team rifles were purchased with C stocks and converted to S stocks.. Other than the teams they wanted nothing to do with them. Prior to WWII and the Marines were desperate for M1903 stocks. They found out through the Army the only thing they could get were the C's. They actually requested to both the Army and Navy that they go through their broken piles of unserviceable stocks and find ones that had 2 or less breaks and send them to them.

They stated they would rather taken broken Straight stocks and fix them, than the "Army C." They called them the Army C stock in a almost derogatory term.

Even though they state many times they don't want them, they never state the exact reason "why" they want nothing to do with them.

But interviewing some WWII Marines who were involved in the Armory, they stated something that was sort of a clue. The Marines very much believed in the bayonet. They put such an emphasis on the bayonet as a weapon, in many of the same ways they did the rifle itself.

When you try to do bayonet thrusts with a C stock, it is not as easy to do as with a straight stock. Some WWII Marines have told me in interviews this is why the Marines were so found of the Straight stock. The Bayonet was seem as just as important as the rifle, and with the C stock they couldn't use it as effective.

Now is that the official reason why they denied it so many times, and only took C stocks when there was absolutely no other choice? I don't know. I can't prove it because they never oficiially say why the didn't like them. But it might be a logical answer on why they don't.

 

[pmclaine]

Oh yeah they hated them. The only thing they were ever used for were on the NM team rifles, and even many team rifles were purchased with C stocks and converted to S stocks.. Other than the teams they wanted nothing to do with them. Prior to WWII and the Marines were desperate for M1903 stocks. They found out through the Army the only thing they could get were the C's. They actually requested to both the Army and Navy that they go through their broken piles of unserviceable stocks and find ones that had 2 or less breaks and send them to them.

They stated they would rather taken broken Straight stocks and fix them, than the "Army C." They called them the Army C stock in a almost derogatory term.

Even though they state many times they don't want them, they never state the exact reason "why" they want nothing to do with them.

But interviewing some WWII Marines who were involved in the Armory, they stated something that was sort of a clue. The Marines very much believed in the bayonet. They put such an emphasis on the bayonet as a weapon, in many of the same ways they did the rifle itself.

When you try to do bayonet thrusts with a C stock, it is not as easy to do as with a straight stock. Some WWII Marines have told me in interviews this is why the Marines were so found of the Straight stock. The Bayonet was seem as just as important as the rifle, and with the C stock they couldn't use it as effective.

Now is that the official reason why they denied it so many times, and only took C stocks when there was absolutely no other choice? I don't know. I can't prove it because they never oficiially say why the didn't like them. But it might be a logical answer on why they don't.

As you know....no sense trying to figure out why the USMC does what it does.

It just does, and it does work.

 

[Dan M]

I read somewhere, as I'm not an "all-in" '03 collector, that Remington just fitted them with the stocks that they were able to obtain that were in stock in the various armories at the time they started making them. Is that not true? Certainly different from original production and continuing production through the 20's, though.

Remington produced their own rifle stocks. During overhaul just about any type of serviceable stock could be fitted.

On another note, the scant grip C stocks were devised and then produced from left over WW1 era S Stock blanks stored at RIA... there wasn't sufficient material to manufacture C stocks from those blanks and the scant grip was a way to utilize a large surplus of seasoned stock blanks. Other contract scant stocks were produced later. Never cared for scant grip or c stocks manufactured by Keystone or American Bowling & Billiard... too much material on them and in my opinion clumsy and club like.

PS- the only rifle that was manufactured with a scant c stock would be the M1903A4.

 

[pmclaine]

Remington produced their own rifle stocks. During overhaul just about any type of serviceable stock could be fitted.

On another note, the scant grip C stocks were devised and then produced from left over WW1 era S Stock blanks stored at RIA... there wasn't sufficient material to manufacture C stocks from those blanks and the scant grip was a way to utilize a large surplus of seasoned stock blanks. Other contract scant stocks were produced later. Never cared for scant grip or c stocks manufactured by Keystone or American Bowling & Billiard... too much material on them and in my opinion clumsy and club like.

PS- the only rifle that was manufactured with a scant c stock would be the M1903A4.

Agreed.

I have a NOS pre war Springfield C still wrapped in rosen paper along with a drawing numbered handguard.

Its going to be the basis of my USMC telescopic scoped 03 build.

The pre war C are "refined", "elegant".

 

[Dan M]

Well stated!