Mystery Springfield 30-06 identity
I have a 30-06 with a Springfield action. It was given to me and I know nothing about the history of the rifle. On the right side of the rifle on top of the receiver the numbers 3027449 are visible. A scope was mounted over what looks to be what is left of a peep sight. The underside of the bolt handle has an "R" stamped inside the curve.
No other markings are found on the rifle barrel. There is about 1.5 in of raised hex along the top of the barrel just in front of the sight. The stock is basic wood.
I am curious of the manufacturer and date if possible.
Thanks
Jay
"Whether you can or can not.....you are right"
No other markings are found on the rifle barrel. There is about 1.5 in of raised hex along the top of the barrel just in front of the sight. The stock is basic wood.
I am curious of the manufacturer and date if possible.
Thanks
Jay
"Whether you can or can not.....you are right"
0
-
Not positive without my pubs, but believe it to be a Remington 03A3, WWII era, late 30's, early 40's IF the rear peep sight was located on the aft end of the receiver and not the barrel
...honor is important only when dealng with honorable men.
You asked if I have reverence? I have reverence for truth, but I do not know what truth is. I suspect there are many truths, and therefore, I suspect all who claim to have THE truth. L'Amour0 -
I believe that it is a Remington 1903, circa 1942-3. It has been heavily Bubba-ized.
Neal0 -
Thanks for the info so far. I will try to post a picture. Its a good shooting rifle and I am considering re "sporting" it if would make sense. 0 -
I hestitate to disagree with Neal Myers as his posts indicate he knows his business but I don't know about the term "bubbaized". To me the term "bubba" implies an unskilled person who modifies a rifle. The 1.5" of raised hex you mention could be what is left of a claw mount. The "what is left of a peep sight" could be the rear portion of a claw mount. Another possibility is that that what you are refering to is the base of a Lyman 48 rear sight. Either of these possibilities are hints that the sporterizing may have been by a competent gunsmith. On the other hand the modifications may have been done by "bubba" with mail order parts installed in his garage. Springfields modified by some of the master gunmakers could be worth more than the original. The "basic wood" stock sounds like it is a modified military stock. A picture would sure help evaluate what you have. 0 -
I will take some pics in the daylight and post them to this. Thanks regardless. 0 -
Herschel and Neal--this post is really for you! Yes, Mr. Myers really knows his stuff, but we must conclude that Neal is a purist (nothing wrong with that!) and a collector of military rifles in the very best possible condition, who sees litte or no value in a sporterized military rifle. You have touched on a subject I have often pondered, the "as-issued" vs. "sporterized" debate. Sportsmen find as-issued military rifles to be unwieldy (exceptions like the M1 Carbine exist) and prefer to hunt with a rifle of better balance and lighter weight. But Sporting Rifles also have their value, and in some cases it is considerable! Such notables as Gen. Hatcher and Col. Whelen used sporterized Springfields, and we have the .35 Whelen cartidge resulting from an idea to re-use 1903 barrels by boring them out for a larger diameter bullet. Early gunsmithing companies like Griffin & Howe and R.F. Sedgley produced high quality Springfield sporters that were works of art and which are highly sought after today by both collectors and hunters. A check of the Blue Book will reveal that the value of these rifles is percentage for percentage of condition considerably higher than a comparable unaltered rifle. I further believe that there are gunsmiths alive today that do work superior to Howe & Sedgley, turning out very fine products which are more suited to the modern taste and concepts of what a rifle should be. (Artists are never recognized before their death!) Also, although I am a collector (accumulater?) of military rifles, I do not hesitate to sporterize a less desirable specimen, one of millions made, to meet a customer's needs or to offer for sale to the hunting fraternity. If it's not good enough for Neal's collection it's good enough to procure venison. And I want to tell you...I'm of the age where shaving a couple of pounds off the old smokepole can make a difference walking up steep hills! And, you know, one doesn't necessarily have to cut down an as-issued Springfield, because barrelled actions have often been available from CMP and surplus dealers, and it's unrealistic to think that all of these should be restored to full military dress. I have indeed seen some "Bubba-ized" sporters, but very few that couldn't be made into something better with a little time and skill. This kind of dovetails with my oft expressed opinion on this Forum (and not the most popular opinion) about rebluing firearms. If it's less than 80% and the owner is unhappy with the way it looks, why not? There are plenty of nice, original, collectable specimens out there to collect, and it's HIS gun. None of us can take them with us---eventually someone else will own all of them---but why not have it the way YOU like it while it's yours? So, there's room for all of us here in the wonderful world of guns--which is a nice thing. As for jaybird's sporterized Remington-Springfield, I'll bet that it is indeed a "good shooting rifle", and personally I'd rather have it than some current factory models. What are your thoughts, gentlemen?[:D] 0 -
Der Gebirgsjager, About the only thing we disagree on is when the finish is poor enough to justify rebluing. I am a strong believer in doing what one wants with his property but really hate to see a collectors item with 75% finish reblued. If I were to have a custom rifle built today I believe I would start with a pre-'64 model 70 Winchester or some other bolt action that is more modern (faster lock time, placement of safety, trigger, etc.) than a 1903. In reality, I can't afford, or at least am unwilling to spend what a custom rifle costs. I hunt with a 1903 NRA Sporter that came to me with checkered stock and recoil pad. Prior to that I hunted with a pre-'64 model 70 Super Grade in .270 Win. cal. and before that a pre-64 model 70 Featherweight in .243 cal. I have found that the deer in Arkansas can't distinguish one of these calibers from the other when they have been shot with it. 0 -
Say, Herschel, I guess we're only 6% apart on the bluing then--and really, that's pretty close. Problem with your Arkansas deer is that they can't read , or they'd be like our Oregon deer and know that Col Boddington says nothing less than a .338 Win. Mag. can kill them. I guess your deer are behind the educational curve because the Clintons ran the school system there for awhile? [;)] 0 -
Hmmm, looks like I hit a nerve there.
However, I'm afraid that I can't apologize to Bubba. That's because I WAS Bubba! It's an embarrassing story, one I don't usually discuss, but it involves me & a nice USGI M1 carbine that I converted into a pretty, but almost worthless, plinker. But, that was in my youth, & I have since learned a lot about the value of history, &, in particular, the value of historical guns.
Between the end of WWII & the early '60s, there were lots of surplus military rifle available, & the prices were low. On the other hand, factory hunting rifles were relatively expensive. So, it was only natural that many shooters would buy a Springfield or Mauser & take it out for target shooting or hunting. All the guns magazines featured articles on "sporterizing" military rifles, & that encouraged a lot of owners to alter their rifles. Some owners, as Der Gebirgsjager points out, had their rifles sporterized by extremely talented craftsmen. Of course, few shooters at that time had any concept of the collectibility of their guns; who knew?
Those of us who collect military guns don't necessarily look down on altered guns; we just recognize that they have been altered to the point that they are either shooters, or collectibles based on the skill of gunsmiths. Even I own one: a Springfield 1903 with a cut-down stock & a Williams peep sight.
Herschel & Der Gebirgsjager have made a lot of good points; I can't argue with anything that they said, with the possible exception of "percentage of blue". I have recently seen USGI M1911's with 0-50% finish selling for premium prices; not long ago, no one would have considered them anything but "shooters". But, I accept that owner is the one who should decide whether to keep a gun original or alter it.
To avoid controversy in the future, I will use the term "altered from military configuration", rather than "Bubba-ized".
Neal0 -
[:D] You get the last word, Neal, as befits a gentleman of your caliber! (nice term for a gun forum, eh?)[:D]
Oh--no nerve hit; just an opportunity to explore things on an esoteric and ethical level rather than technical.0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
10 comments