Springfield 1903 Sporter Question

Go for it. I wouldn't go shorter than 20", however. That length will make for an ear splitting muzzle blast.

Ditto what Tark sez. Photo(s) please!

22" is the sweet spot, as far as ballistics, balance, and a rifle that neither looks too long in the barrel, or too stubby.

Good plan, from my standpoint.....and sure would enjoy a photo of the finished product.

4v50 Gary said:

Who did the sporterizing? If it was Springfield Armory, I wouldn't touch it (but would restore it). If it was by a private gunsmith, go ahead.

Click to expand...

Depends on the gunsmith to me. Adolph Minar, Frank Pachmyar, Sedgley, Griffin and Howe, and a few others would be rifles I would prefer to leave as is.

Something knocked together by the kitchen gunsmith is another story.

Kevin

If it was a pro-build Springfield, it would probably be obvious. The end of the barrel being covered with holes, dovetails and dings doesn't really point to that, although that could have come later. Wouldn't it be something to stumble on one of those guns Strawhat mentions? A Sedgley Springfield sporter? DANG!!!

4v50 Gary said:

Who did the sporterizing? If it was Springfield Armory, I wouldn't touch it (but would restore it). If it was by a private gunsmith, go ahead.

Click to expand...

I didn’t realize SA did sporterizing. Is there a good source to identify if a rifle was done by them or not. I picked one up a few years back and haven’t done much research on it.

FWIW, here's a typical interwar Armory sporter.



There's a pretty good piece on high-end '03 Springfield sporting rifles here:

https://sportsafield.com/2021/the-1903-springfield-sporter/

Offfhand probably has several beautiful examples.

Federal Law (National Firearm Act of 1934 if I remember correctly) mandates the barrel to be at least sixteen inches long. Sounds okay on that score, but as tark mentioned, twenty inches is loud. Sixteen is loud enough to cause birth defects in laboratory rocks.

Sixteen inches also is goofy looking in general. If you have a specific reason for doing so, go ahead, it's your rifle. Also, one loses some velocity with a short barrel.

Around twenty is the shortest I would go; esthetically it passes and efficiency wise it passes.
The .30-06 Springfield round has a healthy case capacity. That make a longer barrel - generally - more useful.

Barnfixer said:

I did a little research this weekend at a couple shops that do smith work. Looks like the barrel will end up a little under 22”. The grandson is leaning towards a burnt bronze finish on the metal. They did confirm a local guy did the original mods a long time ago. I’m wondering if I should suggest trigger work.

Click to expand...

I'm a huge fan of burnt bronze, and it might look a little weird though if the gun is still wearing a walnut stock..... Then again I always thought parkerized in Walnut looked kinda weird, a lot of guys love that.

On the trigger work, I would at least inspect it. One of the easiest places to screw up when working on firearms is trying to do a trigger. If repair or improvement is desired, cruising eBay usually turns up Timney sportsman triggers for 70 to 100 bucks which might be worth a look, They usually require some modification of the stock and bottom metal though.

I will simply add that a 21" 30-06 with Garand loads is very pleasant to shoot. I have such an M1917. 47 grains of 4064 and a 150 it's a pussycat. Basically a heavy. 300 Savage. With full power loads it's a little blasty, but not unmanageable.

Had a Savage 110 carbine I put together with an 18" barrel. Long story short, way too loud and blasty. Fireball after dark was pretty cool though. Bob it off at 21 or 22 inches, coat it, reinstall sights, and you're good to go.

Mac

I have to say, I'm sorry to see that. The earth-colored Ceracoating (if that's what it is), and the thumbhole stock, don't look right on that vintage a rifle. If they couldn't have gone with traditional bluing, even Parkerizing would have been better. But what's done is done, and after all it's their rifle. But sad. (And I can't imagine what they paid for this.)

I love it. A old war horse still in action.

A new life for the bang stick may it last another century.

Barnfixer said:

Looks like the barrel will end up a little under 22”.

Click to expand...

I think a 21-22" barrel looks the best, but that is just me. 16" looks very stubby to me. Also, ballistics are still decent in the 21" +/- range. I rarely cut a barrel shorter than 22" for any reason.

It’s NOT the way I’d have done it.

The scope is mounted WAY too high. Ruins the cheek weld of the 60’s style thumb hole stock.
A lower set of scope rings would partially fix that.
The coyote brown metal and polished bolt clashes with the classic Springfield action and blued striker.
A black semi-gloss cerracoat would have been a better choice, IMO.
That stock LOP is WAAAY too long too, unless of course the new custodian is 6’8” tall.

But, the barrel muzzle clean up seems to have been successful.

I still prefer the O3-A3 as it came from Springfield.

Shot at 9:30 was first shot sighter. 100yds from bench.
155gr A-max, Federal brass, CCI 200 primers, 48.0gr H4895. 3.330” OAL.
(My M1 match load)
First 5-shots on the way home from CMP-South after purchase!