New to Milsurps and rifles in general.

Wow, I couldn't vote because I love them both. As to advantages, the 03-A3 comes with a pretty good aperture sight. The k-31 has open sights, but a clamp on scope mount is available that allows a scope without D&T'ing, and altering the rifles collectibility, and future value. I don't have the exact number, but only 500K+ K31's were made, whereas millons of 03's were produced. You'll probably want both.

I haven't been shopping for K31's, but did see that Mach 1 Arsenal has some for sale for about $500.

Finding a full military M1903 took me decades, and to find one that I wanted to shoot, I had to build this rifle up from parts:





These are as issued, they came from the military:









There are few things more vicious to shoot than a straight grip 03. I think the trigger pull was 12 1/2", which was fine when the average man was 5' 7". Those buggers will make a fat lip on yourself in less than a magazine!!. I spent decades, and I mean decades, finding pistol grip "type C" stocks, and they are much better for shooting. In either, I fill up the cleaning kit recess in the stock with lead pellets to reduce recoil.

It is my opinion that the best receivers for the 03's is the nickel steel. After study, (decades again) I am of the opinion that the plain carbon steels used in the double heat treat receivers are crap. The steel Springfield Armory used in these things were stocks purchased during the first World War. I have found no record of material inspection and certification, and it is WW1 steel. Which is awful stuff.People don't appreciate how primitive things were in the pre vacuum tube era. Based on the records of SA and RIA, I have found nothing to indicate that the major purchases of steel were bought on anything but reputation and low bidder. This is one reason, post war, the single heat treat receivers could not be "heat treated" because their material compositions varied all over the place. Those double heat treat receivers were made of the same steels until the end of production. SA did not need to purchase any more steel till they ran out of their WW1 inventory, which was about 1927.

This will create a lot of buzz among the Double heat treat cultists, as they believe the rah-rah published by Hatcher that the double heat treatment created the strongest, more durable receivers that were ever, and will ever, be made by human hands!!! (channeling Hatcher) All human achievements pale in comparison to the mighty Army Ordnance Bureau and it's products!

Maybe the second best receivers are those made by Remington and Smith Corona. That is the M1903A3 rifles.At least the materials are vacuum tube era, they were 8620 which is not in any sense a super steel, but at least it is adequate, and the process controls were 20 years more mature.







I never shot an 03 as well as an A3. Even though the sights are more adjustable in the 03, and I have a P.J. O'Hare micrometer, I could never shoot a group as tight as with an A3. And, don't expect any of these rifles to be 1 MOA. I have shot enough 20 shot groups in NRA competition with the things to realize that 2 MOA is pretty good. After you bed the action in the stock, because the original bedding will be shot and the barrel will be touching the upper band, instead of the fore end wood, with an A3 you will probably have to swap front sight blades to get the thing to shoot to elevation with the rear sight.

This is a hard one to find:




It took a lot of tinkering to get my 03's and A3's to shoot well, but you know, all I had to do with a K31 is lightly tighten up the stock screws and shoot the thing. Of course I had to drift the front sight to zero the thing, but these rifles are amazing!





these might have been prone groups. Regardless, the K31 is an amazing rifle, well built, and if you have the brass, easy to reload. I bought 200 lbs of WC852 and have shot up most of it, my lot is slow, and it shot well in the 7.5 X 55. I also tested IMR 4350, a slow powder, and it shot well.

I will say the K31 buttstock is too short and I put a slip on recoil pad to push that cocking piece out away from my face.

I don't think prices on either of these is going down, and if you see one, get it. If you end up with both, there will be nothing wrong with that.

If I was looking at them both on a table and the cost was the same? I would grab the A3.

WB

TheFlynn01 said:

How come? What sells it for you?

Click to expand...

I'm not Wildbillz but for me the availability of spare parts should something break. You can find most any part for an 03 that you might ever need. That, and 30-06 ammo is available everywhere.

TheFlynn01 said:

Wow Slamfire, thank you for all the info. It is good to know! I am shocked at how long it took to get a good Springfield. I would love something that I can more pull out and shoot. What does MOA mean exactly? Also are they hard to reload?

Click to expand...

You can pull out and shoot all of them. I am picky and want best accuracy I can get out of a rifle, therefore I ended up bedding a lot of military rifles. Never needed to do with a Swiss rifle. Mosin Nagants, the bedding is so bad, that the receivers actually bow when the screws are tightened on new Soviet era rifles!

MOA is minute of angle. One MOA is one inch at 100 yards, two inches at 200 yards, three inches at three hundred yards, four inches at four hundred yards. There is an infinite amount of self deception in the accuracy of firearms, owners typically shoot enough groups till they get a good one, and then they claim the weapon is capable of one MOA, because they shot a one MOA group. It is the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy. However, of the military rifles that I have owned, Swiss rifles are exceptionally accurate, but they are not target rifles. It used to be the standard of accuracy was one MOA, but the internet has driven that to half MOA, and I expect, with continued exaggeration, all will be claiming quarter MOA. Three shot groups of course, because shooting ten rounds in a half or quarter MOA is difficult, and no one shoots 20 rounds sub MOA. Unless they are really, really good.

These are by the same shooter, different years, prone with a sling, with irons. He is nothing compared to the great internet marksman who don't embarrass the lesser beings by shooting in matches.

Beautiful rifles by the way!

Click to expand...

Thanks.

I have heard mention of this heattreated thing, what is that all about? I have no idea on what is or isn't real with that issue

Click to expand...

You will have to look up the serial number spread for Rock Island receivers, but the single heat treat receivers are all the SA receivers under 800,000. Basically the heat treat is a century old misdirection of the real problem. The real problem were Arsenals that had chaotic production lines, out dated equipment and processes. While it is easy to beat up the Army on this, Congress provided very little in terms of military funding, and the Ordnance side of the house had a very low status within the Army. So it was terribly underfunded. I have heard the Arsenals were still using Civil War era machines on the production lines. What we do know is that there was one pyrometer at SA because it is referenced in pre WW1 SA reports. It was used for springs. Where ever else heat was applied, temperatures were evaluated by eyeballs. And, in the forge shop, workers were paid piece rate which created a perverse incentive. If the forge shop workers cranked up the heat, they could stamp out parts faster, and get paid more! Incidentally there is no evidence of the use of pyrometric cones with the forges or heat treatment machines. What toppled the whole thing was two 1903 receivers fragmenting at an Ammunition maker during the ramp up to the American involvement in WW1. That entity had real metallurgists and being outside the Ordnance Bureau, could not be shouted down by Army Ordnance. This affair caused a complete shutdown of the 03 production lines at Springfield Arsenal in the middle of the greatest shooting war in human history to date. Which would have been a scandal, but the Army managed to prevent that information from getting out, and it is such a muted affair, that even today, no one notices the blip in rifle production and the implications. What did happen was a complete over haul of the production lines, a creation of a Metallurgical Department in SA, which was 10 full time workers, and a lot of test and inspection of product. Unfortunately in my opinion, SA stayed with their 1890's plain carbon steels instead of upgrading to 2340, a period nickle steel.

The steel used by SA was a 30 point carbon steel, this chart has a 40 point, but the nickle steel is the same.



Anyway, instead of upgrading to an alloy steel, SA decided to use a much more time consuming heat treatment on their "Class C" steels, and called the subsequent receivers "double heat treat". The heat treatment was superior to the simple heat and quench on the "single heat treat" receivers, but the heat treatment was not the problem. It was the lack of temperature gages when heat was applied. If you want to understand what a problem this is, watch the show "Forged in Fire" The knife makers there are under pressure, they are eye balling the temperatures of their billets, and virtually every show someone's knife fragments because the steel was burnt.

There are single heat treat trolls who deny there is anything wrong with single heat treat receivers. Just as there are double heat treat cultists who believe that those receivers are the ultimate achievement of humanity.

For Springfield Armory, the double heat treat range was from serial number 800,000 to 1,275,767. Receivers above 1,275,767 are the nickle steel receivers.

RIA Single Heat Treat serial number less than 285, 507

This receiver is a Rock Island nickle steel receiver, approximate serial number 403,000, and based on the serial number, this is a receiver that was not finished at Rock Island before that production line shut down. It was shipped to Springfield Armory and made into a rifle. Of course, that rifle was made into this sporter.



This might be of interest, I did not know what I had, the same individual who told me about my RIA receiver being finished post war, identified this bolt as a rare nickle steel RIA.

Both good, soild choices. If you decide to go the 1903, try to find an A3 with a receiver sight. You can get bolt-on Swiss-made diopter target sights for the K31, but prepare for sticker shock -- they aren't much use off the known-distance range anyway.

The K31 is certainly a better priced option at present, but you've missed the window for the $200 Big-Five specials. I think K31s are still selling for about half the price of an '03 in similar condition, but that said, the 1903 is my favorite Mauser-based bolt gun and wouldn't hesitate to recommend one.

Swiss 7.5 is easy enough to reload, but if you can find a deal on Swiss milsurp ammo it's great stuff.

I love and own examples of both rifles, but neither one would be my first (or even 10th) choice for a SHTF situation.

The two rifles are close to even in weight and length, but to me the '03 has better balance. This is offset by significantly less perceived recoil with the K31 (in my opinion).

With original military loadings the Swiss GP-11 round was actually a little more powerful than the 30-06, but more modern loads give the '06 a considerable edge. Ammo availability is much better with '06 if you use the "can I buy it at Wal Mart" test, but if you shop online, 7.5 Swiss is readily available at about a dime more than '06 per round for equivalent noncorrosive, reloadable, brass cased ammo.

There are advantages to both rifles, but if you're looking for a good, shootable rifle in "as issued" military condition, your $800ish budget probably means the K31 is the only realistic choice.

OR

You could look at another (better) option and consider getting a CMP Garand!

http://thecmp.org/sales-and-service/m1-garand/

Ive had many '03s, 03a3s, and a K11 (Precursor of the K31).

The '03 rear sights are very over complicated and at this point, the fragile adjustment and locking screw threads are usually worn to the point that they wont hold zero. Add to that the questionable steels in the early guns and bedding issues and I recommended skipping them unless you want to research them extensively and fully dissassemble and inspect any example you plan to purchase.

The 03a3 is a much better proposition for the casual shooter. Easy to use peep sights and good steel makes them safe and accurate rifles, even the ones with 2 groove barrels.

The K11 I had was a very high quality rifle, and supurbly accurate, but the sights were not as intuitive as the a3, ammo is pricier and more difficult to come by, and I dont consider the action particularly strong. The 2-stage trigger also took some getting used to.

So, all 3 CAN be nice shooters, but, for me, I would seek out an a3. Good luck!

I voted K-31 ( I would include the other Swiss models K-11, Gew 11 and Gew M96-11 also, and prices tend to run lower on these). The sheer and simple reason, is they are less complicated for a new shooter. The rifles imported to the US were in truly remarkable condition for military surplus. Other than a few with cracked stocks to look out for, they are pretty much grab and go. Springfields are a bit more complicated. There are a lot of things to look out for, not the least of which are guns with low number receivers which may be unsafe with modern loads, and guns assembled from parts or even cut down drill receivers that are unsafe or of poor functionality. If it's too good to be true, it probably is.

Get yourself one of the Swiss models after a cursory inspection of rifling and stock, get some PRVI or Military GP-11 ammo (gunshow find only). You will not regret it. Save the Springfield (or M1917) for after you've done some more research and you can buy from a trusted source.

Just did a search on ammoseek, and 7,5 Swiss ammo was as low as 70cents a pop. Not as cheap as the cheapest '06, but comparable in price to ammunition of comparable quality. As for reloading, the 7,5 is relatively simple to reload with a few caveats. The chambers on the older swiss models and the K-31 are slightly different. A K-31 sizer is specific to that rifle, a "standard" 7,5 sizer die will size for all swiss models, but overwork brass fired in a K-31. The seating depth is also finicky for the K-31. These problems are not difficult to overcome, post in the reloading section when you get close to that point. Otherwise, it uses standard "american" .308" diameter bullets (not to be confused in any way with .308 Win CARTRIDGE by a casual reader) from 125-180 grains readily, with common powders such as IMR4064 or Varget. PRVI brass is high quality and reloadable, so save it as you fire.

TheFlynn01: To your brother's comment, If WROL (S**F) were to take place, the problem might be finding food and drinkable water, and for me and my wife,
>>>keeping our critical pharmaceutical deliveries continuing or restarted<<<.

My four AKs and the Other 7.62x39 rifle, my newish CSA VZ-58, wouldn't help us procure more insulin, statins, beta blockers, aspirin 81 etc......would they?

If you had whichever series of the Springfield with the aperture sights (or the M1917 Enfield), you might enjoy longer distance shooting more than with the K-31, as cool as those guns are.

TheFlynn01 said:

Hello and thanks for coming by! I want to get a milsurp rifle, and after all the looking and hunting my eyes and heart are set on a Swiss K31. It just seems like a really well made rifle that would be fun to shoot and maybe hunt with if I get the chance.

My brother, who is a big AR15 guy, thinks a old bolt gun is a waste of time and money. Yet since my heart is set on one he thinks I should try to get a Springfield 1903a3 or some other variant. He thinks both are poor guns for a S.H.T.F. situation but I figured I would see what other gun owners might think.

I do know the Springfield's are pretty expensive upfront but I would assume the .30-06 ammo would be easier to get and source? Yet in today's age we can get anything shipped to us. the 7.5 x55 Swiss looks like a nice round and might be fun to try and reload. However, I admit I am new to all of it. So I hope to get some good info.

Thanks for reading!
Mike.

Click to expand...

MilSurp...?!?

And God spoke all these words:


(Obscure, but it's in there somewhere...)






GR

TheFlynn01 said:

How come? What sells it for you?

Click to expand...

I like the look and feel of them. They will shoot better then I can.

On the practical side? As some one said, Ammo availability. The 06 is one of the most common round here in North America. Spare parts are still available for the 03/A3 some still in the packing grease. A reasonably handy guy can rebuild one from the ground up with out a lot of training. The 03/A3 have a rich history here in the US so it fills a collectors requirement.

WB

Honestly I would never recommend and old military surplus rifle as someone's first long gun. The older guns tend to be heavy, unwieldy, and much more expensive today than modern alternatives. They will require more work on your part to shoot well (neither is particularly good for optics). A few people will get MOA accuracy, but do not expect that from any rack grade rifle you find at a reasonable price. Also understand the good old days of cheap ammo is today, just not in these chamberings. You will not get dirt cheap blasting ammo for any of them, much less inexpensive target fodder.

I certainly do not want to discourage anyone from buying and enjoying any gun. They can be fun to own and shoot (I've got a bunch of them and enjoy immensely). More often than not I've found the newer generation shooters who gravitate immediately towards milsurps are doing so mostly from video game exposure. That doesn't make it a bad idea, just some realistic expectations should be in order. Many of the novices I've spoken with become somewhat frustrated with the older battle rifles in short order from expensive of ammo, length, weight, ergonomics, accuracy, and recoil. Especially so if they venture into hunting. Modern designs flat out fit and work better, for less money. Punching holes in paper is a lot more pleasant in smaller calibers and costs substantially less. Taking a standard hunting rifle like an American 223/6.5/308 or something similar is more likely to make that early morning or late evening shot. And out-of-the-box minute of angle accuracy is boringly predictable and easy to accomplish if target shooting at any range is your goal. The whole 'end of world' type ideas people may have are not a topic of discussion on THR, but I think most anybody will agree that a common gun with readily available parts, good optics, and plentiful ammo will always be a better choice than something every military in the world deemed obsolete more than 80 years ago.

If you desperately still want to go the milsurp route, be reasonable in your expectations and get something with good parts and gunsmith availability plus common ammo. The 1903 is probably a much safer choice than the swiss from that standpoint. Plus resale is better should you decide to move on to something else later on.

I've got an 03, an 03-a3 (both dated 1943), a K-31 and a Garand.
The K-31 is slightly more accurate but the ammo is a little harder to come by,
Anyway, I'm a history nut, The American guns just have more history... .

A lot of people have commented on the sight systems as well. I have experience shooting the Swiss K-31 and the long Rifles to 600 yards with both issue and diopter sights, as well as M1 Garand and AR NMA2 aperture type sights. I do not have experience with the Springfield apertures. My best A target (300mINT) score ever was with a G-11 and issue sights, this despite many more matches fired with the K-31 and diopters. It was only one point off my best score ever with a RRA NM AR-15 with A2NM aperture sights. I have found the Swiss sights to hold up very well vs the apertures on conventional Black aiming circles like the NRA and INT type standard targets. The front sight and U notch are the correct dimensions to get a fine and repeatable hold. The advantage of the aperture type sights is the ability to click in windage. For the average shooter just dinging some steel, or even shooting CMP matches to 200 yards, this is basically a non-issue. I've found the Swiss sights to track very well with the built in elevator over distance given standard GP-11 military ball or the PRVI 174 grain FMJ which mirrors it's trajectory quite well. The longer sight radius on the G-11 type rifles is an advantage vs the Springfields.

I am of the opinion that the front sight of the M1903 was based around the diameter of the military bullseye target.



This is a 5V, the V ring was added later to break ties.





These targets are the basis for the "NM" front sights sold for M1 Garands and M1a's. Use the NM front sight on the NRA decimal and it looks like a lollipop. Shooters who used a center hold or fat tire, used the fattest GI front sight you could find. If you hold a 03 sight, at distance, against the 5V target the post is just at the width of the bull. At 200 yards it is close to the NRA decimal but at 300 yards, tiny, tiny. And it is a tiny, tiny bull at 500 yards.

In my opinion the M1903 sights were very poor combat sights which is why the Marines developed a fat front sight and large rear aperture for their rifles. The battle sight has a 530 yard zero, which was in line with the 300 to 600 yard zero's of contemporary 1900 rifles, but WW1 showed that was too far away.



I had to put an extra tall front sight on this rifle to get it to center at 100 yards

TheFlynn01 said:

what does D&T mean?

Click to expand...

Drilling and tapping in order to mount scope bases on the receiver. Also necessary to mount receiver sights. That action will forever render the rifle as modified from the as-issued condition and reduce the value to collectors. My opinion is to keep the rifle original. If the original sighting system doesn't suit you, there are plenty of more modern rifles that are better equipped sight wise.

There is a tradeoff between the 1903 and 1903-A3 Springfields. The 1903 sight is mounted forward on the barrel. and the aperture is on a ladder arrangement. Putting the sight so far forward makes aiming through the aperture somewhat difficult. However, the -03's are more elegantly finished, using milled parts.

03-A3's were wartime production, and most parts are stamped and not as pretty. However, the sights were improved, and the aperture moved to the rear of the receiver, a position much more conducive to accurate shooting.

Wildbillz said:

If I was looking at them both on a table and the cost was the same? I would grab the A3.

Click to expand...

So would I. My gut feeling is that 03A3's are generally priced several hundred dollars higher than the Swiss rifles.

Collect what you like, not what other people tell you to buy!!!!

Since you like the K31 by all means buy a K31! They are different and unique and not just another bolt action mil-surp. I appreciate my 03a3 for the great piece of history it is but it isn't my favorite shooter. It is actually one of my least shot mil-surp rifles. I myself am partial to the Swedish Mausers for bolt action mil-surp. I have never acquired a K31 but definitely will some day specifically due to its unique action.

When I purchased my first mil-surp rifle all my buddies gave me crap about wasting money on a stupid M1 carbine for ~$100. I really didn't care what they thought, I liked it and loved shooting it! It was like a big boy's 10/22. 30 years later I still have it, still treasure it and still love shooting it... because I bought what I liked and not what my buddies liked. Sure my lowly M1 carbine was a piece of junk compared to my buddies fancy high capacity Calico M960 jam-o-matic of the time! HAHaHaHaHa!!!!



P.S. I will admit to refinishing the stock on my M1 carbine to make it pretty.... OUCH! I was young and dumb! One of these days I will find another Winchester M1 carbine stock filled with bruises, sweat and blood and give my M1 carbine a stock befitting its place in history. Now that I am a bit more mature and experienced I would recommend leaving the old beauties in the condition they came in... to me that is part of their history.

Another thing to consider about surplus Swiss ammo- it may be cheap and available now, but it aint getting any younger. Smokeless powders break down and become unstable as they age. And who knows what storage condition s theyve been kept in for all that time? Heat and humidity will speed up the deterioration of old ammo.

Just another factor to consider.