1903-a3 what are your thoughts on this one?

[snake284]

Just for the record, the SN will tell you if it is possibly a brittle receiver or not. It is said that be suspect of any Springfield 03 Receiver with a SN below 900,000 could be brittle. And any Rock Island SN lower than 300,000 can be brittle. If your SN is lower than 900,000 for a Springfield or 300,000 for a Rock Island, it should be avoided for shooters.

 

[GBExpat]

For reference, here is a pic that I got years ago of one such "drill rifle" barreled receiver w/bolt from the CMP webpage.

 

[fguffey]

Snake284, I am not a fan of Springfield, they produced 800,000 + rifles that were suspect, Rock Island produced 200,000 plus that were suspect, that is 1,000,000+ rifles, to me that is/was unacceptable, the 03 was make by the same Springfield that sent out troops to Cuba with the 30/40 Krag, bottom line on the Krag, IT FAILED MISERABLY, then in about 1942 Remington and Smith & Corona took over the production of the 1903, some were stamped 03 then they were stamped 03A3 or 03A4.

The problem with the serial number in the advertisement is, it does not exist no mater how cute the attempt to present it as being something it is not, I was asked by a rebuilder to help him in a lawsuit he was involved with, after listening to him for close to an hour I cautioned him to make sure the other side did not contact me for my help, because, I told the rebuilder he was guilty, and when he went to court he was found guilty over the wording and omissions in his advertisement as in overhaul and rebuild, at best he was replacing some of the moving/worn parts AND with a little training he could have gotten away with it, bad habits caught up with him.

F. Guffey

 

[Vern Humphrey]

What's your basis for saying the Krag failed? The cartridge is so close to the .303 Enfield and the 7.62X54 that they're difficult to tell apart. The rifle was one of the slickest handling ever produced.

But the Army was impressed with the clip loading system of the Mauser, and the Krag was not easily adapted for clip loading.

And while a few Springfields blew up in service, the same is true for both Enfields and Mausers -- but we don't know how many of those rifle blew up, because only the US Army kept records on blow-ups. And for all the bally-hoo, the Army never replaced the low number Springfields -- they were kept in service until they wore out. Then they were arsenal-reconditioned and placed in war time storage, with new rifles being issued to the unit as replacements -- and that was more of a ploy to keep Springfield making rifles during the '30s.

The Marines didn't even do that -- they wanted their reconditioned low number rifles back. There were men who landed on Guadalcanal carrying Springfields.

 

[fguffey]

"and the Krag was not easily adapted for clip loading" that is not the only thing Springfield had difficult with, they could not figure out a way to build the rifle with two locking lugs, and everyone believed them when they said the rifle did not need two, so, they eliminated one of the two it had when they started building the rifle.

F. Guffey

 

[fguffey]

and the 303 British rifle failed miserable in Africa against the Mauser or to be politically correct, the farmers of the OFS shot the Mauser better than the British shot the 303 so training was in order to improve marksmanship, and as an after thought the British cutoff the supply of Mausers going south, that would be the rifle the OFS farmers shot better than the British shot the 303.

And outside of the USA, England and Canada everyone used the Mauser, why? The British not being able to shoot the 303 as good as the OFS cause them to start an effort to replace it, and I am thankful, from their efforts we went to war against Germany with the M1917, a British design on their equipment, and there was no effort to fire Springfield after WW1??? After 23 years of WWHUA Springfield had to talk fast, I could not think of anything more embarrising for Springfield than to be forced closed by a British design rifle on equipment designed to build the P14. As a side note nickel steel was used by Browning/Winchester in 1895, Springfield could not find Winchester just a short byggy ride down the pike, they could not find Browning, they could not find the patent office, Browning found nickel steel and it's strentgth in the patent office, Springfield found nickel steel after the war was over, and their was a good reason to fire Springfield.

F. Guffey

 

[fguffey]

and as a side note not all low numbers failures were reported, one very curious member of this forum, was curious, he had the opportunity to exchange a LN receiver for another (deemed safe) receiver, again curiosity got the best of him, so he hit the receiver with a hammer, the receiver was rendered scrap, something like the Deacons Master Piece, nothing before, then all of a sudden, the thing lay in one big heap.



http://www.ibiblio.org/eldritch/owh/shay.html



F. Guffey

 

[mshootnit]

time for an update... showed the rifle to a very respected collector in my area the the fellow told me he knew what he would do if it was him... so I am sending the rifle back. I think it looked nice and may have made a nice shooter for me or someone or possibly been an ok candidate for an 03-a4 copy, but these are not what I intended to order. this has been an education. I could not find any evidence of the weld on the bottom of the receiver ring so I don't think on this particular one they got very far onto the ring, but the visible cut weld on the cutoff made the difference for me. If they had repaired that to be invisible I may have kept it. Thanks for the input. So now the question is where is a good 03?

 

[Vern Humphrey]

that is not the only thing Springfield had difficult with, they could not figure out a way to build the rifle with two locking lugs, and everyone believed them when they said the rifle did not need two, so, they eliminated one of the two it had when they started building the rifle.

The Krag was not designed by Springfield. It was designed in Norway. And it never had two locking lugs, not even in the design stage.

Later on, American gunsmiths, sporterizing surplus Krags would lap the bearing surface of the locking log, setting the bolt back for enough so the safety lug would also bear -- but that's not as good an idea as it appeared at the time.

 

[fguffey]

"with two locking lugs, and everyone believed them when they said the rifle did not need two, so, they eliminated one of the two it had when they started building the rifle" When Springfield started on the Krag it came to them with two locking lugs, one was a locking lug the other was a guide that served as a locking lug when the bolt was rotated, the bolt handle served as a safety lug as you pointed out getting the bolt handle and the locking lug to hit at the same time required time, time Springfield did not have if they were required to get into a hurry, like an emergency as when war breaks out.

As when war brakes out? Springfield did not have a plan or a clue, if not for the M1917 we would have gone to war (again) with the 30/40 Krag and the 47-70 had they been available. The British tooled up to build the 303 and lucky for us they made arrangements for us to modify the P14 303 to the M1917 30/06 and in my opinion was very wise to selected Remington. Winchester and Eddystone to build their rifles, again the British had problems in the beginning with the new creation, they went with nickel and changed the powder, it did not take them as long to look at as it did Springfield, they found nickel steel 14 years after Browning/Winchester, and remember, Winchester was one of the builders of the P14.

Springfield could have hired J Browning but I do not believe it would have worked out for Springfield, Springfield was building single shot rifles, Browning was building a machine gun, it was used against American miners in Ludlow, Colorado, it was called the potato digger.

F. Guffey

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Are we on the same sheet or paper here?

The Krag works just fine -- I shoot mine quite a bit. It's every bit as good as an Enfield.

As for World War I, you may recall our President was Woodrow Wilson, a Democrat. The Democrat Party then as now was a coalition party -- and the members of the coalition had to have their due. As a result, people like William Jennings Bryan (who made the "Cross of Gold" speech) wound up in the cabinet. Bryan was a pacifist -- and resigned when we finally were forced into war.

Wilson ran for re-election in 1916 on the slogan, "He kept us out of war."

Now just how would the Army draft troops, and Springfield go into overtime making rifles under those circumstances? We were unprepared for political reasons -- and Springfield Armory had nothing to do with it.

And Browning did build a machinegun for the Army -- in fact the Potato Digger had been used in the Spanish American war. And when war was declared against Germany, the Army asked Browning for a heavy machinegun, and he produced the water-cooled M1917.

Troops in France were issued the miserable French Chauchau, so Browning produced the M1918 Browning Automatic Rifle. And when the war ended, he was working on a medium machine gun, the M1919. And then at Pershing's request, he designed the M2 Browning, orginally intended for anti-tank use.

 

[Orlando]

mshootnit, Is AIM going to take care of the issue?

 

[fguffey]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWpU8sX10_4

I like the direction this is headed, I see a correlation between zombies and the person running the furnaces at Springfield again I do not make excuses for Springfield's behavior with the furnaces and quality control, and I said hiring J. Browning may not have worked out for Springfield, I believe he would have fired most of them.

Zombies/Democrats? The problem with Springfield rifles were found after being issued. Springfield could not trace a failure to a week, day or hour, minute or second, some failed some did not? and they knew nothing about apples, they did not make test billets along with the receivers to test for brittle, yield pressure and Resistance to being crushed or bending.

And there was Springfield after the war fixing old problems and not being asked to participate in building new designs, it goes back to Springfield not being able to find the Patent office. John Browning, Smith and Wesson and other successful manufactures of arms spent as much if not more time at the patent office as they did at their plant.

I do not know how long it took Springfield to look at something before someone told them what was wrong, they started double heat treat in 1918, they found nickel steel in 1927,, 13 years after it was used in the P14, that would be 31 years after Browning/Winchester used it in the 30/30 Model 94,and Browning would not allow the Model 94 to be released in 94 because it failed to handle smokeless powder to Browning's satisfaction, Browning was not a zombie.

Reminds me of the black smith hammering out horse shoes, he flipped one over into the sand then someone from Springfield went over and picked it up....and dropped it as fast as he could, the black smith asked the man if the shoe was hot, the man replied "NO SIR!!! It just does not take me long to look at it"

And john Garand designer of the M1, John Garand was from Canada.

Then there is Hatcher thinking head space was a/the culprit, with no way to determine head space he created head space by modifying the chamber, he created the 30/06 Hatcher Modified chamber, that would be a 30/06 chamber with the shoulder forward of the parent chamber .080 thousands, +?, cases when fired became fire formed 30/06 Hatcher modified cases. He did not use other rifles, he did not use Springfield 03 rifles selected from random groups and did not get the results he expected. I have fired 8mm57 ammo in an 8mm06 chamber, that is .127 thousands head space and got the results I predicted, a most dangerous practice if the shooter does not understand Hatcher's Hypotheses and why he did not get the results he predicted.

F. Guffey

 

[mshootnit]

resurecting this thread...
I noticed that chronologically after I sent mine back at some point AIM has pulled the scant stock 1903's (or run out?) Anybody know what happened there?
Orlando... It is my understanding they are going to take care of it. They told me to put in a note and send it back.
Thanks again.

 

[Big Bill]

So pricey in my opinion. I can get a nice new Bolt Action Remington 700 with scope for that price.

But, then all you have is a Remington 700 instead of a nice copy of a slice of history.

 

[snake284]

mshootnit, remember, if it's a 1903 Springfield built at Springfield Armory, Serial Numbers below about 900,000 were questionably metalurgically, and below 300,00 if it was built at the Rock Island aresnal.

 

[GBExpat]

Since such slimy behavior (selling reworked DR 03A3s for high prices without mentioning the DR origins) is so unlike the AIM Surplus that I long ago came to respect so much ...

... my guess is that someone there who had no knowledge of the DR Thing made a BAD Deal to buy-up the stock of these rifles ... and then they found themselves stuck between the proverbial rock & hard place, financially ...

... and decided that they would-not-risk or could-not-risk dealing with this in their normally honorable way (providing an honest, complete description and hoping that folks would still pay 800 bucks).

Well, they are still honorable vis-a-vis their Return Policy, thank goodness, but failing to provide a full and honest description so that a buyer can make a fully-informed decision strikes me as quite SOG-like (reference to the reputation SOG earned years ago, they may have cleaned up their act since then).

BTW, last week I emailed them my thoughts on this ... their response:

"the deactivated barrel and welded safety were both removed and replaced by original unissued parts, refinished (refurbished), original unissued stocks replaced the used ones and you end up with the rifle as described. we never mention the dummy barrel as it was removed and replaced. These aren't being sold as all original collector guns, they are sold as a refurbished guns to be fun shooters.

and if the customer is not happy we will get a return set up and refund him. We want him to be happy with the purchase."

Well, if you mention, up front, the DR Origin of the receiver on this rebuilt rifle, you will avoid upsetting your customers who buy one and rightfully feel deceived.

Sad ... but Life goes on ...

 

[GBExpat]

BTW, here is how *I* became aware of the DR Thing.

I had just received the nice-looking Smith Corona that I purchased on Gunbroker (this was ~5-6 years ago). As is my habit with all milsurp firearms, I detail-stripped/cleaned/closely-inspected the piece before firing it ... which in this case was a very good thing, I think.

When I popped the handguard, this is what I saw:



It took a couple of heartbeats for my brain to match what I was seeing with a vaguely-remembered image of a DR barrelled receiver that I had seen on the CMP website (image posted earlier in this thread) ... and then my heart went into my throat ...

... some jackleg had weld-repaired the torch-cut gash in the DR barrel and recut the chamber ... no telling how long that repair would hold before failing catastrophically.

WHEW! Dodged a bullet ... and got a refund.

Actually, a couple of years later I unknowingly purchased another DR Rebuilt 03A3 online (refunded again) before deciding to purchase any future 03A3s only FTF following close inspection.

 

[mshootnit]

wow I can't believe that someone would try to salvage a cut barrel. That's almost ill will toward man. The AIM rifle I had did not use a salvaged barrel (as far as I could tell)

 

[Orlando]

Aim 1903'a had new barrels but salvaged receivers.
Again, they may be perfectly safe but the buyer should be informed by Aim to what they are buying especially at that price

 

[GBExpat]

Again, they may be perfectly safe but the buyer should be informed by Aim to what they are buying especially at that price

My sentiments exactly!

I, for one, have never been convinced that these DR receivers were fatally damaged/weakened by spot-welds at the rcvr-bbl junction ...

... but I want to be informed before deciding if I want to buy the rifle ... "especially at that price".

mshootnit, that 2nd 03A3 that I purchased had had the barrel replaced with an undamaged one ... it may have been new, it was so nice ... but I didn't want to pay ~$600 for a rebuilt 03A3 Drill Rifle with weld tracks around the mag cut-off when the same money would buy me an un-messed-with 03A3.


Nowadays, for $800 you can probably find a very nice original 03A3.

 

[mshootnit]

what do you guys think of the national ordnance 03-a3 rifles which can be found on the used market?

 

[GBExpat]

A matter of personal preference, but I would not buy one. I would stick with original military rifles.

 

[Orlando]

Exactly, there are good all USGI 1903a3's available, stick with them

 

[CZguy]

Yep, good advice.

Patience in finding a good one is the key.