1903 Bolt/Evtractor Question

[Denny Gibson]

I am building a 1903 sporter in 30-06 ... with the extractor removed the chamber depth reads fine ... but the bolt refuses to slip over the case rim and lock in place. Marking on the extractor suggests the case face is hitting beyond the adius of the chamfer (guide). I've tried two different bolts with the same results. Anybody encountered this before?

Thanks,
Denny

 

[Denny Gibson]

1903
Springfield A1

 

[entropy]

The 1903 is a controlled feed Mauser-type action. The bolt is supposed to pick up the round and slide it up into the extractor while feeding from the magazine. It is NOT supposed to be closed on a round dropped into the chamber. This can wreck the extractor. Trying to close a bolt on a round without an extractor installed? Never tried it myself.

 

[Denny Gibson]

without the extractor the bolt closes fine ... I had to remove the extractor to set headspacing (only made that mistake once) ... would it make a difference if the round started with n the magazine?

 

[Denny Gibson]

Entropy ... you're exactly right ... when the round is put in the magazine everything works slisk! Thank you sir!

 

[entropy]

You're Welcome. Glad it's working fine now.

 

[AlexanderA]

I had to remove the extractor to set headspacing (only made that mistake once) ... would it make a difference if the round started with n the magazine?

You don't need to remove the extractor to check headspace. Simply place the rim of the headspace gauge under the claw of the extractor. As entropy said, the extractor on a Springfield is not supposed to snap over the rim of the cartridge. Rounds feed in under the extractor.

 

[Denny Gibson]

AlexanderA ...I learn something new everyday ... a lot of times from this very forum ... thanks!

 

[AlexanderA]

The extractor on a Krag does snap over the rim of the cartridge. But then, the Krag was originally designed for single loading, with the magazine normally held in reserve. Single loading with an '03 Springfield (or '17 Enfield) is difficult. The rounds have to be carefully placed under the lip of the extractor.

The '03 Springfield was revolutionary in this respect. It represented the first true magazine-fed weapon for the U.S. army. Krag cartridge belts, like Trapdoor Springfield cartridge belts, had individual loops for the rounds. Beginning in '03, cartridge belts were designed for clipped ammo.

(Incidentally, the snap-over extractor returned with the Garand.)

 

[Denny Gibson]

That's interesting (I'm something of history buff, myself). You just have to snap the round into the magazine ... not as easy as my Remington 700s but not bad. I enjoy shooting off-hand rifle matches where the weapons are (mostly) older military weapons and loaded one shot at a time ... several 1903s are there (along with various Mausers and other guns I've never heard of ... some pretty interesting iron being excercised inn these events!

 

[Jim Watson]

Note that the 1903 has a magazine cutoff so our steely eyed marksmen could hold the contents of their magazines in reserve until accurate long range fire galled the enemy into a charge. Whereupon a mere flip of the lever would bring up five rounds to be fired as fast as the bolt could be stroked, then replenished by clip.

So the gun is meant to run single shot over a loaded magazine, the extractor snapping over the rim. (See the bevel on the front of the extractor?) Mine does, so smoothly and easily I cannot hear or feel the snap.
I wonder if the OP has a replacement barrel without enough extractor notch.

 

[entropy]

Note the Mauser 98- the gun that action is patterned after- doesn't have a cut off. The US Ordnance Corp insisted on the cutoff as a holdover from the Age of Empires, when single shots could be used until the natives massed such as Roarke's Drift (or Little Big Horn) Shows how little the Ordnance Corp understood the Mauser action. Yes, single rounds can be loaded, extractor snapping over the rim, but it can snap the extractor; I've replaced several. The Mauser contolled feed extractor just wasn't designed to be used that way. I'd be willing to bet few '03's cut-offs were used, and by WWII, few soldiers new how to use it.

 

[Jim Watson]

Agree, but since the OP's won't do it at all is a sign something is out of spec.

There are a lot of Mauser sporters with beveled extractors to allow single loading.

 

[AlexanderA]

Note that the 1903 has a magazine cutoff so our steely eyed marksmen could hold the contents of their magazines in reserve until accurate long range fire galled the enemy into a charge. Whereupon a mere flip of the lever would bring up five rounds to be fired as fast as the bolt could be stroked, then replenished by clip.

So the gun is meant to run single shot over a loaded magazine, the extractor snapping over the rim. (See the bevel on the front of the extractor?) Mine does, so smoothly and easily I cannot hear or feel the snap.
I wonder if the OP has a replacement barrel without enough extractor notch.

I have to disagree. By the end of Krag production, the tactical philosophy had changed so that the magazine was kept habitually "on." (Even the position of the magazine cutoff on the Krag was reversed in the later models.) The magazine cutoff on the '03 Springfield was a holdover. Its main use was in drill, when the rifle's magazine was empty, and the bolt hanging up on the follower would be awkward. (The cutoff prevents the bolt from catching on the follower.) Interestingly, the '17 Enfield does not even have a magazine cutoff. For use in drill, soldiers were supplied with an accessory follower depressor that was used for the same purpose.

'03 Springfields and '17 Enfields are clip loaders, with ammunition invariably issued (and carried) in clips rather than single rounds. Single loading would require soldiers to unclip the ammo, a time-consuming process.

The British dispensed with the magazine cutoff on their SMLE during WWI. That's what the little asterisk (*) in the SMLE Mark III* stands for. Single loading was found to be totally impractical.

 

[Jim Watson]

It may be a holdover, overcome by changes in tactical doctrine, but it is there and the extractor is made to allow single fire.
The point being the OPs gun does not work as DESIGNED and he might want to get it fixed.

If you didn't have the little gadget to allow your 1917 to be cycled empty, a penny would work.

 

[AlexanderA]

If you didn't have the little gadget to allow your 1917 to be cycled empty, a penny would work.

M1917 magazine depressors are a collectors' field in themselves. Those made by Eddystone are marked with an "E", those made by Remington are marked with "R", but for some reason those that go with Winchesters are marked with "A". Apparently Winchester used a subcontractor. There are also unmarked examples, and similar (but different) devices used with Pattern 14's.

 

[Jim K]

Sorry, AlexanderA, but Jim Watson is correct; the original intent was that the cut-off be used for single shot firing until conditions (like an enemy cavalry charge) made firing from the magazine necessary. One side of the cut-off was even polished bright so an officer or NCO supervising the firing line could easily identify soldiers who were using the magazine. Contrary to common belief today, though, the cut-off was not intended to "save" ammunition in general, only to hold the magazine load in reserve. And, that meant that the rifle was intended in those times to be used as a single shot and the extractor would snap over the case rim when used that way, leaving the magazine load untouched until needed.

It does sometimes take a bit of force to close the bolt on a manually-chambered round, but that is normal for the '03.

Today, with infantry rifles having 20 and 30 (or more) round magazines, it may be hard to believe that five rounds was once considered a formidable magazine load and a reasonable "reserve" for facing an attack.

Jim

 

[entropy]

It was designed not to do so, by Peter Paul Mauser. The us Ordnance Corp F'd with it and insisted on the cut-off due to clinging to outdated doctrine. (Something it continues to be guilty of, and has since it was formed.) The early Tec-9's can be converted to an SMG by flipping a piece out of position also, it doesn't mean it was deliberately designed to do that, or that it is a good idea.

 

[Slamfire]

If you can't close the bolt one a round in the chamber, then there is an interference between the extractor and the barrel shank. The M1903 was designed so that a round could be placed in the chamber and have the bolt closed. I recommend placing all rounds in the magazine and feeding from their, and that includes all claw extractor rifles, such as M70's, Mausers, etc. The reason is that the extractor has to spring over the cartridge rim. Like any other spring, it will fatigue fracture in time, the more and longer you stress it. I have shot thousands of rounds out of M1903's and I had an extractor break over a round in the chamber. From their on, fed everything from the magazine that I could.

As much as I liked the Mauser system of only feeding from the magazine, I found I had failures to chamber in rapid fire with my Mauser match rifle with the standard military claw extractor.





Somehow, someway, I was bumping the round in the magazine forward of the bolt in rapid fire. The round would go into the chamber but I could not close the bolt. After a number of alibi's I gave up and rounded the extractor bottom corner with a Dremel tool.

This is the standard Military Mauser extractor, one that will not let the bolt close on a round in the chamber.

So, there is not enough clearance somewhere in the extractor cut of the barrel to allow the extractor to move outward. This is something that will take thought as you don't want to remove material and expose the sidewall of the case, whatever metal removal must take place should be done very carefully.

 

[Jim K]

The Mauser was intended to be magazine fed, but they can be fired single shot and the bolt should close on a hand inserted round, though it takes a bit of force. The Springfield M1903, on the other hand, was definitely designed to allow single round feeding and anyone who has actually used one can easily see that. The difference is not in the manufacturers of the rifles, but in the different tactical doctrines of their respective armies. The Germans emphasized rapid magazine fire in support of the machineguns, where the US emphasized individual accurate riffle fire in lieu of machineguns. Neither doctrine is wholly wrong or wholly right.

Jim

 

[Malamute]

Ive never had the slightest trouble single loading 1903s.

Id suggest those advocating "all the mauser style extractors cant/shouldnt blah blah...." rethink their position. The Ruger 77s have done it fine for many years before the MkII came out. Perhaps Mr Mauser designed it to work a certain way, but that by no means prohibits further development and improvement of the general design and improved usability. I have zero hesitation single loading a mauser with properly beveled extractor, and certainly none regarding single loading a 1903.

 

[AlexanderA]

Are there any documented instances of single loading (that is, not using the magazine) with '03 Springfields in combat? (Sgt. York, the most famous shooter in WWI, used a '17 Enfield.)

 

[entropy]

Ive never had the slightest trouble single loading 1903s.

Id suggest those advocating "all the mauser style extractors cant/shouldnt blah blah...." rethink their position. The Ruger 77s have done it fine for many years before the MkII came out. Perhaps Mr Mauser designed it to work a certain way, but that by no means prohibits further development and improvement of the general design and improved usability. I have zero hesitation single loading a mauser with properly beveled extractor, and certainly none regarding single loading a 1903.

The reason I don't advocate it is I've had to replace the broken extractors resulting from single loading.

 

[Jim Watson]

And we don't have the spare parts we used to. But the OP's rifle still doesn't fit.

 

[Malamute]

And we don't have the spare parts we used to. But the OP's rifle still doesn't fit.

This is true, however extractors aren't hard to find. In a short internet search I found 6 companies that show in stock, and prices from $14.95 to $23.50. Complete bolts as low as $40, stripped bolt bodies from $8 to $30-ish. I bought 5 stripped bolts at a gun show not long ago for $40 or $50 I believe. I believe those prices are far below what a Ruger 77 bolt or related parts cost from the factory, as a comparison. I'm a believer in having basic spare parts around for things I like to shoot. I think I'm set for this and part of the next lifetime for Springfield parts, and don't have much money in any of it.

Yes, parts can break, even using them as they were designed. I replaced the extractor spring in a Colt AR carbine years ago, but it didn't deter me from using it the same way as what likely caused the part failure. I keep a spare around now. Not trying to be a smart aleck, jusy saying, whats the heartburn in using something the way it was designed (by the people that actually redesigned it for their use), when parts are easily available and very easy to replace? Are we stuck with Mausers original design or his overlooking a benefit? Most bolt action designs today are derived from Mausers design, and virtually all changed aspects of it in some way. All commercial Mausers have beveled extractors from what I understand, it was a common change when sporterizing, and I cant figure out, with quality parts, to single load, why its an issue, or why we would be stuck with late 1900s design without any progress in design or use.

FWIW, I have had a 1903 jam or stick shells in the magazine to the effect that they were slightly below bolt level and wouldn't feed. Knowing I could single load it with no problem if need be is nice, in retrospect. I was hanging out in very good grizzly country. It cleared with little effort, but if I hadn't the luxury of those few moments to figure it out, things could have been different. Ive also had a commercial Mauser in 375 H&H with a magazine problem. No gun is entirely bombproof, and the Mauser action isn't supernatural or perfect as originally designed.

I don't believe theres any rash of broken extractors from single loading, or it wouldn't have been part of original use and training. So they changed use and training, and it was a holdover from earlier designs, that has little bearing on the question. It was made to single load, it was regularly done, part of weapon design/redesign. They seem to take it pretty well overall, parts can be replaced easily and cheaply. Not seeing the problem.