1903 - 1903a3

[red_zr24x4]

I'm kicking around the idea of picking up a 1903. I remember hearing about the early ones having weak receivers, internet myth?
Where is a good source for learning about these? Which is better? Smith Corona? Springfield? Winchester?
I see Sarco has a bunch of parts, I wouldn't be opposed to buying a sporter and returning it to mil-spec.
Thanks for an info.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

I'm kicking around the idea of picking up a 1903. I remember hearing about the early ones having weak receivers, internet myth?
Where is a good source for learning about these? Which is better? Smith Corona? Springfield? Winchester?
I see Sarco has a bunch of parts, I wouldn't be opposed to buying a sporter and returning it to mil-spec.
Thanks for an info.

Sarco has a good deal on on 03A3 right now...
Original G.I. 1903A3 Springfield

 

[Leo]

Weak bolts were the problem with early rifles, it was recognized by the US Army and they made steps to correct it. Failed bolts would pretty much take the side of a mans face off. Bad deal. By the time the 03-A3 was out, such problems were not found. The early models had all parts machined, and the later models had many parts replaced with stamped sheet metal, but that did not weaken the action in any way. The 03-A3 rear sight peep style sight was superior to the notch of the early rifles. I really prefer "C" (defined pistol grop) stock that is found on later models. Great old firearms. If you are recoil sensitive, they do kick with authority. In WWI, the average soldier was 5'8" and less than 140 lbs. Those boys did a great job with those rifles, we should be able to also.

 

[red_zr24x4]

Sarco has a good deal on on 03A3 right now...
Original G.I. 1903A3 Springfield

Thanks for the link, my brother told me they had some, but all's I could find were the display guns and the "pacific" guns.

 

[jinks]

I'm kicking around the idea of picking up a 1903. I remember hearing about the early ones having weak receivers, internet myth?
Where is a good source for learning about these? Which is better? Smith Corona? Springfield? Winchester?
I see Sarco has a bunch of parts, I wouldn't be opposed to buying a sporter and returning it to mil-spec.
Thanks for an info.

From: M1903/M1903A3 | Civilian Marksmanship Program

M1903*

WARNING ON “LOW-NUMBER” SPRINGFIELDS

M1903 rifles made before February 1918 utilized receivers and bolts which were single heat-treated by a method that rendered some of them brittle and liable to fracture when fired, exposing the shooter to a risk of serious injury. It proved impossible to determine, without destructive testing, which receivers and bolts were so affected and therefore potentially dangerous.
To solve this problem, the Ordnance Department commenced double heat treatment of receivers and bolts. This was commenced at Springfield Armory at approximately serial number 800,000 and at Rock Island Arsenal at exactly serial number 285,507. All Springfields made after this change are commonly called “high number” rifles. Those Springfields made before this change are commonly called “low-number” rifles.
In view of the safety risk the Ordnance Department withdrew from active service all “low-number” Springfields. During WWII, however, the urgent need for rifles resulted in the rebuilding and reissuing of many “low-number” as well as “high-number” Springfields. The bolts from such rifles were often mixed during rebuilding, and did not necessarily remain with the original receiver.
Generally speaking, “low number” bolts can be distinguished from “high-number” bolts by the angle at which the bolt handle is bent down. All “low number” bolts have the bolt handle bent straight down, perpendicular to the axis of the bolt body. High number bolts have “swept-back” (or slightly rearward curved) bolt handles.
A few straight-bent bolts are of the double heat-treat type, but these are not easily identified, and until positively proved otherwise ANY straight-bent bolt should be assumed to be “low number”. All original swept-back bolts are definitely “high number”. In addition, any bolt marked “N.S.” (for nickel steel) can be safely regarded as “high number” if obtained directly from CMP (beware of re-marked fakes).
CMP DOES NOT RECOMMEND FIRING ANY SPRINGFIELD RIFLE WITH A ”LOW NUMBER” RECEIVER. Such rifles should be regarded as collector’s items, not “shooters”.

CMP ALSO DOES NOT RECOMMEND FIRING ANY SPRINGFIELD RIFLE, REGARDLESS OF SERIAL NUMBER, WITH A SINGLE HEAT-TREATED “LOW NUMBER” BOLT. SUCH BOLTS, WHILE HISTORICALLY CORRECT FOR DISPLAY WITH A RIFLE OF WWI OR EARLIER VINTAGE, MAY BE DANGEROUS TO USE FOR SHOOTING.

 

[dooshie]

 

[Iroquois]

03A3 rifles were made for WWII, and all should be ok to shoot. However, there were some made with only 2 grooves of rifling, and are not as accurate. New barrels are available.

 

[TheDude]

https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...tguns/367158-remington-1903a3-rifle-deal.html



Here ya go.

 

[BluePig]

https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...4057-great-war-weapons-tribute-doughboys.html
This post had some info on my M1903 that I did some research on.
The issues with the low number 03s really comes down to the way that the receivers, bolts and in some cases barrels were heat treated.
Heat treating process was really more the skill of the worker than it was functional manufacturing.
It depended on the judgement of the worker to discern the correct color of the steel at proper temperature.
It could vary from day to day and from worker to worker.
It didn't really start to show up till around 1917 thru 1929 when the rifles really started getting used heavily.
Add in the quality of ammo being made under wartime production, soft brass and you have a real issue.
The factories started doing a double heat treat, but the solution came about when the factories started using nickel steels in 1928.

If you really have your heart set on a 1903 (not an 03A3) to shoot, I would look for a Remington 1903. They made a run of 03 off the old machinery from Springfield and Rock Island before the production of the 03A3 started up.
You shouldn't have any issues with those.

 

[Savage99]

OK, here goes. What the CMP quote said is the best advice I have seen in this post. The low number guns were heat treated by visual reference. Some of the recievers were "over" hardened. This and other circumstances are what caused the failures. Any high number '03 is just fine to shoot whether it is Rock Island, Springfield, or Remington. Some of the best National Match rifles were built as high numbered '03s. The two groove barrels are just as accurate as a four groove barrel. The two groove barrels were faster to produce than the four groove barrels. The '03A3s have better sights on them and a longer sight radius. You will probably have a better chance of finding an 03A3 at a reasonable price. Either type of rifle is very nice to shoot.

 

[red_zr24x4]

Thanks everyone.
Thinking of picking up one thats been sporterizered and restoring it back to mil-spec. Parts seem reasonable at sarco.