I have a Rock Island Arsenal 1903. I am not educated about these rifles other than What I can get from google. Could you guys help me understand the history and value of this weapon thanks for your time.
- Thread starter trauma1
- Start date
Lots of history on that rifle.
Few rebuild marks. Three proof fires. High Standard 1944 used for rebarrel.
Likely it saw two wars.
The green parkerizing intrigues me as its kind of a signature of Navy/Marine rifles.
What does the butt plate look like?
Do you have any pictures of the barrel under the handguard?
How about a picture of the action screws?
@cplnorton might have some SRS info on your serial number to possibly find some detailed history.
Thats a good looking honorable rifle. Dont mess with it please.
Few rebuild marks. Three proof fires. High Standard 1944 used for rebarrel.
Likely it saw two wars.
The green parkerizing intrigues me as its kind of a signature of Navy/Marine rifles.
What does the butt plate look like?
Do you have any pictures of the barrel under the handguard?
How about a picture of the action screws?
@cplnorton might have some SRS info on your serial number to possibly find some detailed history.
Thats a good looking honorable rifle. Dont mess with it please.
Last edited:
The 3 P stamps suggests at least 2 re-barrels and the "AAD" rebuild stamp on left suggests it was rebuilt at Augusta Arsenal in GA during WWII or immediately after WWII, which is likely where it got it's 1944 barrel. So lots of US military history there, but its a very non-original rifle that has been re-barreled twice and refinished, but what hurts its value is the "low serial" range, thus is not recommended for shooting.
Last edited:
Looked at pics again.
Not likely to be Marine/Navy.
Surprised its never been modified for added gas relief, formerly known as a Hatcher hole, now going by a new nomenclature.
No signs screws were ever staked.
Interesting rifle.
Not likely to be Marine/Navy.
Surprised its never been modified for added gas relief, formerly known as a Hatcher hole, now going by a new nomenclature.
No signs screws were ever staked.
Interesting rifle.
The "low number" warnings are being given less emphasis these days amongst scholars but thats a gamble each owner has to take on his own.
Death or maiming being the result of guessing wrong.
Thank you for your response. I will definitely not be messing with it. I will get more detailed pictures and post them.
I shined the Bat light in order to try and have @cplnorton view your thread.
He knows these things pretty well.
Ill be interested in his impressions on your rifle.
Get some pure linseed oil, food grade flax seed oil if you have a health food store nearby, and rub that stock down.
The oil will float some of the grime, blood, sweat, and tears away and make that rifle look even more a work of art.
Thank you, what is the other stamp underneath the AAD? I think it is SADAL
Attachments
Nice fine checkered butt plate, man our manufactures used to build beautiful things.....now we can't even supply ourselves with rubber gloves.
SA DAL is usually the armory inspectors stamp but I don't usually see it in that format.
I might be thinking out my ass with that.
Every rebuild I've seen (or own) out of Augusta has that green park.
The rebuilds I have from Springfield are gray park.
So far.
SADAL best guess is Springfield Arsenal Daniel A. Leary.
Stock stamped DAL best of my education are Daniel A. Leary who we know did work for SA.
vr
Last edited:
At the Archives I found a lot of info on the low number receivers.
But in a nutshell there were about 30 failures total that caused the low number receivers to be condemned. Over half of them were actually during WWI. Almost all 30 were defective ammo related. There were hangfires that would wreck the rifle as the user would open the bolt after hearing just a click and it would explode, some lots of ammo had excessive pressure that was past the 70,000 PSI safety limit of the receiver, then some soldiers were shooting German ammo out of them.
This one to me looks like a traditional WWII Army rebuild. But it's sort of an interesting story of how a low number came to be rebuilt in WWII. The Army never pulled low number receivers from service as what is the common held belief. They actually didn't do anything to the low number rifles unless the barrels were worn out and the rifle went in for rebuild.
So if the low number rifle never needed rebuilt, it stayed in service the whole time. Many tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands served the whole time. But between 1928 and 1940, any low number receiver for the Army that went in for rebuild was replaced with a high number receiver. The low number receiver was either put into storage for war reserve or was destroyed.
The Marines never pulled low number receivers at any point. All they did was not fire rifle grenades out of them. That was the only restriction and that too was even lifted by 1938.
But in 1940 the Army lifted the ban on using low number receivers in rebuild, probably because they needed rifles for the upcoming war. So they started to assemble low number rifles for the war effort.
There is not one documented failure of a low number receiver in the Army past 1927. In fact they discussed this around 1944 detailing that no one had seen any fail after the last of the surplus WWI defective ammo was used up. Rock Island which was the main rebuild depot for the Army, and had rebuilt hundreds of thousands of M1903's, actually declared low numbers safe in 1944 and argued that point to Ordnance.
Ordnance followed suite declaring the same, saying they were entirely safe as long as they headspaced correctly and could fire a proof round. Ordnance continued this same stance even as late as 1952 declaring low numbers safe.
The Army even in 1927 at the height of their worries on the low numbers, weren't concerned with the receiver just failing on it's own. They were concerned how it would react to defective ammo. So the decision to pull the receivers for rebuilds, wasn't because they felt the receivers would just grenade under normal circumstances. They were concerned how they would react to excessive pressure or defective primers.
It is interesting to note too, they still had the same heat treatment issues with high number receivers. One of the biggest misconceptions are just because you have a high number, people think they are entirely safe. They had many problems with high numbers heat treatment being too brittle, which is dangerous. So that is one take away I preach about. Everyone has a false sense of security on high number receivers, which that is not what the documents state.
In fact the funny thing. The Service rife with the most failures and most soldiers and Marines injured, wasn't a M1903 at all. It was a M1 Garand. lol A lot of M1's were not safe at all. In fact the main engineer at SA stated he couldn't sleep at night because of all the safety issues with the M1 Garand.
There is a huge story on the safety of the M1 Garand that would crack people up if it ever came out.
But It's really a roll of the dice anytime you pull that trigger on a low number, high number, or really any rifle in general. Make sure your headspace is correct, as it's more likely to survive intact if you encounter a defetive round. But please do not be fooled into a false sense of security just because you have a high number receiver. It can fail just the same as a low number if the if the conditions are right.
The additional gas relief hole in the side of the receiver, which is a safety measure, has always been called the Hatcher Hole. Nicknamed because everyone thinks Julian Hatcher came up with it. But that doesn't seem to be the case at all. I honestly cannot find any real involvement of Julian Hatcher with the low numbers. His brother was on the 4 man panel that decided because of ammo safety concerns they should replace low number receivers in 1927/28. But Julian Hatcher which is so famous for low numbers today is entirely MIA in anything official I see. He simply wasn't a integral part of it like we all believe he was. He's mostly famous becuase he wrote a book on this topic, which some is completely opposite of Ordnance's stance on the subject. Then he was also a editor at the American Rifleman Magazine which made his opinion back in the day seem more authoritative.
But the actual guy who was involved in the research of the "Hatcher Hole" was a LtCol Borden. So I have been calling it the Borden hole lately as it seems he is really the one who should get the credit.
The Army did drill "Borden holes." They started to do it on all new manufacture and rebuilds post the spring of 1937. But only Springfield Armory did it. So if the rifle was rebuilt at any depot other than SA, it never got one.
It also looks like SA only drill the Borden hole in rebuilds from the spring of 1937 to the start of the war. I really can't find any mentions of the drilling any during the actual war.
But SA drilled tens of thousands of them on rebuilds so they are not entirely rare to see on Army rifles.
But in a nutshell there were about 30 failures total that caused the low number receivers to be condemned. Over half of them were actually during WWI. Almost all 30 were defective ammo related. There were hangfires that would wreck the rifle as the user would open the bolt after hearing just a click and it would explode, some lots of ammo had excessive pressure that was past the 70,000 PSI safety limit of the receiver, then some soldiers were shooting German ammo out of them.
This one to me looks like a traditional WWII Army rebuild. But it's sort of an interesting story of how a low number came to be rebuilt in WWII. The Army never pulled low number receivers from service as what is the common held belief. They actually didn't do anything to the low number rifles unless the barrels were worn out and the rifle went in for rebuild.
So if the low number rifle never needed rebuilt, it stayed in service the whole time. Many tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands served the whole time. But between 1928 and 1940, any low number receiver for the Army that went in for rebuild was replaced with a high number receiver. The low number receiver was either put into storage for war reserve or was destroyed.
The Marines never pulled low number receivers at any point. All they did was not fire rifle grenades out of them. That was the only restriction and that too was even lifted by 1938.
But in 1940 the Army lifted the ban on using low number receivers in rebuild, probably because they needed rifles for the upcoming war. So they started to assemble low number rifles for the war effort.
There is not one documented failure of a low number receiver in the Army past 1927. In fact they discussed this around 1944 detailing that no one had seen any fail after the last of the surplus WWI defective ammo was used up. Rock Island which was the main rebuild depot for the Army, and had rebuilt hundreds of thousands of M1903's, actually declared low numbers safe in 1944 and argued that point to Ordnance.
Ordnance followed suite declaring the same, saying they were entirely safe as long as they headspaced correctly and could fire a proof round. Ordnance continued this same stance even as late as 1952 declaring low numbers safe.
The Army even in 1927 at the height of their worries on the low numbers, weren't concerned with the receiver just failing on it's own. They were concerned how it would react to defective ammo. So the decision to pull the receivers for rebuilds, wasn't because they felt the receivers would just grenade under normal circumstances. They were concerned how they would react to excessive pressure or defective primers.
It is interesting to note too, they still had the same heat treatment issues with high number receivers. One of the biggest misconceptions are just because you have a high number, people think they are entirely safe. They had many problems with high numbers heat treatment being too brittle, which is dangerous. So that is one take away I preach about. Everyone has a false sense of security on high number receivers, which that is not what the documents state.
In fact the funny thing. The Service rife with the most failures and most soldiers and Marines injured, wasn't a M1903 at all. It was a M1 Garand. lol A lot of M1's were not safe at all. In fact the main engineer at SA stated he couldn't sleep at night because of all the safety issues with the M1 Garand.
There is a huge story on the safety of the M1 Garand that would crack people up if it ever came out.
But It's really a roll of the dice anytime you pull that trigger on a low number, high number, or really any rifle in general. Make sure your headspace is correct, as it's more likely to survive intact if you encounter a defetive round. But please do not be fooled into a false sense of security just because you have a high number receiver. It can fail just the same as a low number if the if the conditions are right.
The additional gas relief hole in the side of the receiver, which is a safety measure, has always been called the Hatcher Hole. Nicknamed because everyone thinks Julian Hatcher came up with it. But that doesn't seem to be the case at all. I honestly cannot find any real involvement of Julian Hatcher with the low numbers. His brother was on the 4 man panel that decided because of ammo safety concerns they should replace low number receivers in 1927/28. But Julian Hatcher which is so famous for low numbers today is entirely MIA in anything official I see. He simply wasn't a integral part of it like we all believe he was. He's mostly famous becuase he wrote a book on this topic, which some is completely opposite of Ordnance's stance on the subject. Then he was also a editor at the American Rifleman Magazine which made his opinion back in the day seem more authoritative.
But the actual guy who was involved in the research of the "Hatcher Hole" was a LtCol Borden. So I have been calling it the Borden hole lately as it seems he is really the one who should get the credit.
The Army did drill "Borden holes." They started to do it on all new manufacture and rebuilds post the spring of 1937. But only Springfield Armory did it. So if the rifle was rebuilt at any depot other than SA, it never got one.
It also looks like SA only drill the Borden hole in rebuilds from the spring of 1937 to the start of the war. I really can't find any mentions of the drilling any during the actual war.
But SA drilled tens of thousands of them on rebuilds so they are not entirely rare to see on Army rifles.
Last edited:
This rifle is basically in its as built WWI configuration. It's not "original" as it first came out of the Armory, as it has been through arsenal reconditioning. What is interesting and unique is its a long serving military item unmolested since leaving service. It might not be pristine WWI era condition but its collectible, value if any, is that it's a real long serving rifle in its intended condition. My advice don't mess with it.
Thank you very much for your response. I will not mess with it. I think it will become a family heirloom.
is there any data base to track its history?
There is "The Springfield Research Service"
Enthusiasts scour the archives and they note mentions of any serial of certain type guns the 03 being one.
It has huge gaping holes in the record but surprisingly people often get hits.
If you go to the CMP site theere is a sticky to requests a look up of the published SRS.
You can also join SRS and for a fee have them research your rifle.
Often the info is pretty spare sometimes just - "Rebuild Anniston Arsenal 1956".
Sometimes it will have a unit affiliation.
Sometimes all you get is info regarding rifles of the closest serial numbers and you may be able to extrapolate data from that.
Others pay for a Freedom of Information Request regarding their SN and they will on occasion get information. People have been doing that with the CMP 1911s. Generally the info they get is that it was turned over by the Army to CMP on such and such a date.
I also have a Rock Island in the 70,000 serial number range. Mine was re-barreled with a 1919 barrel, so I assume that was the year it was re-barreled. Mine was made in 1906, so yours was most likely also made that year.
I shoot mine with cast lead bullets at reduced velocities. Sweet trigger and pretty accurate. Have fun with it.
I shoot mine with cast lead bullets at reduced velocities. Sweet trigger and pretty accurate. Have fun with it.
Thank you. It is amazing what good condition these rifles are for their age.
Guys, I need your help.
pls. tell me if the price is good for this 1903.
www.arme-cartry.com
pls. tell me if the price is good for this 1903.
SPRINGFIELD 1903 ROCKISLAND - Arme-Cartry
Carabine SPRINGFIELD 1903. Fabrication ROCKISLAND. Daté Juin 1942. Bon état ainsi que le canon. N° 342827. Photos contractuelles.
1600 euros is way more in American than that would sell for here.
It's a cool historical rifle with the German proofs but otherwise a rebuilt RI with mixed parts.
03A3 bottom metal, replacement stock.
RI stopped building 03s in the 20's.
It's value would be enhanced if it was listed in the SRS files. I may post the serial number over on the CMP Forum and see if there are any hits.
The barrel looks rough, that might be a $600 - $700 rifle where I shop. The proofs might interest someone as a "niche" if it was lent for foreign service.
It's a cool historical rifle with the German proofs but otherwise a rebuilt RI with mixed parts.
03A3 bottom metal, replacement stock.
RI stopped building 03s in the 20's.
It's value would be enhanced if it was listed in the SRS files. I may post the serial number over on the CMP Forum and see if there are any hits.
The barrel looks rough, that might be a $600 - $700 rifle where I shop. The proofs might interest someone as a "niche" if it was lent for foreign service.
Thank you very much for the quick reply. I will look somewhere else.Don’t want to spend that much money on a rifle that’s not worth my hard own cash.
Are you in Europe?
Im unsure what their market is like for 03s.
I am spoiled. I have a shop local that usually has a half dozen or more in the rack.
Affirmative, I live in France. We have 2 shops that sell WWII surplus rifles, the other one sells their 1903 an insane price of 2000 euros.
You can often export from the US for much less than that. Just remember that if your country goes through another anti gun fit and starts mandating that you deactivate stuff in order to keep it, please ship us our rifles back. 
Hell, include yourself in the box and come along at that point.
Hell, include yourself in the box and come along at that point.
BTW, I have heard that there is a term "blue gun" in France referring to guns that the Germans who "didn't need them anymore" left behind and the folks who ended up with them never bothered to tell the state they had them. Is this rumor one you have heard? If so, I think that is cool.
Hahaha, I wish I could come to the land of the free but I’m not brave enough to get shipped in a box with a rifle in it.You can often export from the US for much less than that. Just remember that if your country goes through another anti gun fit and starts mandating that you deactivate stuff in order to keep it, please ship us our rifles back.
Hell, include yourself in the box and come along at that point.
Never heard of the blue gun term but there are loads of left over guns In the attics that were not declared to the authorities.
This was one of those stories.......
About Uncle Matty
Learn about exciting story of Private Martin Teahan of HQ Company, 1st Battalion, 508th Parachute Infantry Regiment, (PIR) 82nd Airborne Division.
unclemattycomeshome.com Too bad it involved that piece of shit Milley that basically stole the gun from the family.
I dont know if the family actually wanted the rifle but Milley told them it was US Gov Prop and they could not have it.
Hello CMP!
Too bad the family could not get the rifle of their uncle. Same in Viêt Nam, grunts can bring back home war trophies as long as they are not US government property or a selective fire weapon.This was one of those stories.......
About Uncle Matty
Learn about exciting story of Private Martin Teahan of HQ Company, 1st Battalion, 508th Parachute Infantry Regiment, (PIR) 82nd Airborne Division.
Too bad it involved that piece of shit Milley that basically stole the gun from the family.
I dont know if the family actually wanted the rifle but Milley told them it was US Gov Prop and they could not have it.
Hello CMP!
I brought back a bunch of Lebels from Afghanistan, to include one that had the rank and unit of the guy who carried it engraved in the buttplate in Dari.
Wow, that WWI era musket still in use nowadays, I’ll be damned. lol.
Not much, just in old stockpiles still. They ran out of ammo for them.
No wonder, they are hard to come by.
That is a tidy sum for a run of the mill 1903. That said, French rifles seem to bring the money over here. I’ve been looking for a MAS 36 for a while, but can’t justify the price.
Similar threads
