M1903A4 Sniper

This is the forum to discuss your classic US military rifles from the beginning of the age of smokeless powder through WWII.
Post Reply
User avatar
dromia
Moderator Emeritus
Posts: 1843
Joined: Tue Aug 26, 2003 1:37 pm
Location: UK
Contact:
Contact dromia

Post by dromia » Mon May 07, 2007 3:37 pm

It definitely looked like a rebarrel to me and the mixed patina had me wondering about its total originality but then I'm no expert on anything so what would I know?

I have to say that after reading Martin Peglers book "Out of Nowhere" I'm not convinced he's much of an expert either so his stamp of provenance carries no weight with me.

However it was a great rifle to shoot and foggy scope not withstanding it was accurate, not as good as a No 4T but a nice shooting experience all the same. :evil:

Is Pegler still at the Royal Armouries Joe?

I'd heard he'd left under a bit of a cloud about writing his "Out of Nowhere" book on Armouries time, I'd also heard that he's moved to France.

Please correct me if I'm wrong as I'd hate to do the man an injustice. :cool:
ImageImage
Top
User avatar
ThePitbullofLove
Contributing Member
Posts: 185
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2004 10:24 pm

Post by ThePitbullofLove » Mon May 07, 2007 5:00 pm

Looks that way to me, Joe.

The 03A4 barrels, from the factory would never show the wear in the front sight area like this one does. You can see where a front sight assembly appears to have once been attached and later removed.

However, the "Remington" does appear to be properly offset, and if the serial number is visible with the sight base on, then it does appear to be a real receiver.

It could be the case of a genuine sniper that had a poor barrel (they did use corrosive ammo), and was rebarreled by a subsequent owner to make a good shooter.

Here's a pic showing the front sight assembly-

http://images6.fotki.com/v74/photos/2/2 ... 27f-vi.jpg[/pic]

Note it's in the same place on the barrel where the "lost finish" is on the 03A4.

http://images104.fotki.com/v466/photos/ ... IMG-vi.jpg[/pic]

Thus ends my daily speculation...conclusion? It's a rebarrel with a standard 1903A3 barrel.
...............................................
life is the crummiest book I ever read,
there isn't a hook,
just a lot of cheap shots,
pictures to shock,
and characters an amateur would never dream up-Guerwitz-1994



Image
Top
User avatar
joseyclosey
Moderator
Posts: 3918
Joined: Mon Oct 06, 2003 2:48 pm
Location: UK

Post by joseyclosey » Tue May 08, 2007 12:49 pm

Adam, its news to me about Peglar leaving the Armouries, and i have not seen his "Out of Nowhere" book. Do you have a copy i could look at?

Brian, thanks for the extra pics, i think your conclusion may be right. ;)

Joe
Top
sunray
Contributing Member
Posts: 102
Joined: Wed Jun 22, 2005 7:46 pm

Post by sunray » Thu May 31, 2007 1:31 am

"...No rifle was ever marked 1903A4..." Rumour has it that there were a few. Very few if said rumour is correct.

"...rebarreled by a subsequent owner to make a good shooter..." Possibly, but it drops the value in half. Makes it a bubba'd '03A4.
Spelling and grammar always count.
Top
A square 10
Leading Member
Posts: 481
Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2004 12:30 pm

Post by A square 10 » Mon Sep 17, 2007 8:56 pm

this may end up being [like the enfields-never say never] but most think that none were marked A4 - its pretty easy to see why some might want it to be so but i think it may prove to be a legitimising tactic in the end , there would not have been a real big need as they had already offset the info , and there were no colectors clammering for data and substantiation in those days , i think it would have been scoffed at if someone might have sugested the collectors will be pissssed without it , and offsetting did confirm it at the time ,
Top
Post Reply

Return to “US Military Rifles”