1903 or 1903 A3 ?

[Kestrel]

I have a chance to buy a 1903 and a 1903A3. Both of them are in excellent condition. Both have serial numbers over 3 million. Both are Remingtons. The guy wants 700 for the 1903 and 600 for the 1903A3, which I think is awfully high.

I don't know if I even want one, but if I decided to get one, which is the better one to get? Are these better than surplus mausers (such as the VZ-24 and the Persian)?

Thanks for any help,
Steve

 

[Devonai]

Please please PLEASE get yourself the A3. Avoid original '03s like the plague. I know most of them are fine but some of them have blown themselves to bits and some more are waiting to happen.

I'm not just repeating what I've read, either. One of my good friends lost his right eye to an original '03 which decided to blow up.

 

[Jim Watson]

A Remington '03 made probably in 1942 is as strong as an A3 made in 1943 or 1944 and has no relationship to the low number Springfield and Rock Island rifles made before 1918.

I don't pay much attention to prices but that sounds like a lot unless they are strictly original. CMP was selling sound but mismatched genuine US Army refurbs for $300 -$500.

 

[Kestrel]

I thought the heat-treat problems were with the 03s under 800K serial number? It seems one with an over 3-million number would be safe?

Steve

 

[cracked butt]

The 03 you are looking at is definately safe. Its made of the same steel as the 03A3 but is probably finished and machined alot nicer than the 03A3.
I personally like the 03 better- they are a prettier rifle than the 03A3, but the 03A3 has the advantage of an aperture sight and a longer sight radius if your eyesight isn't perfect. The price for the 03 is about the going price in my area for a decent example, the price for the 03A3 is probably $100 too high unless it is in exceptional condition.

The Remingtons never had a problem with brittle receivers- only Springfields below ca. 800,000 and Rock Islands below ca. 286,000.

 

[Kestrel]

Just curious - what's prettier about the 03 vs. the 03A3? Is it the rear sight?

I went back and looked at these rifles. They are both in excellent condition, the 03A3 being in pristine condition. I think I could get the 03 for $600 or the 03A3 for $550.

Thanks again,
Steve

 

[Will Fennell]

I like the '03A3

Steve,
I wanted a Springfield as a pice of history and as a shooter. I got a 03A3[Remington] because of the excellent apeture sights, and have not regretted it a bit. I REALLY enjoy shooting this thing.....it will show you what a good rifle with good sights is really capable of...

I've got a 3", 3 shot group hanging in my gun room from my 03A3....shot at the 200 yard line! I also took a nice 6 pointer last year @ about 75 yards with it......GET THE 03A3!

 

[Jim K]

Davonai,

Can you post the serial number of that rifle and a description of the ammunition being used, plus, if possible, pictures of the blown-up rifle.

The potential for problems with the low-numbered Model 1903's is well known, though some folks refuse to believe it. But a Remington 1903 would be made of the same material as the '03A3 and would be as strong.

Jim

 

[Sunray]

"...some of them have blown themselves to bits and some more are waiting to happen..." Not with a S/N that high. And even at that there were very few low number 03's that blew. Your buddy was likely using bad ammo or bad head space. Not that it's much consolation for losing an eye.
Steve, if you can afford 'em both do it. Covers both periods in one purchase.

 

[mete]

There is a complete discussion of '03 problems in "Hatchers Notebook". Receivers with serial numbers above 800,000 are safe. I use my Mark I without the slightest worry.

 

[JimC]

'03A3 especially if it has a "C" stock.

I had a couple many years ago [ they were around $100 or less then] and let them go thinking there would always be '03A3s around. Surprise!

 

[G.I.Jew]

03A3 rifles have excellent sights. The two-grove rifling doesn't degrade from accuracy.

 

[Devonai]

Well, it's comforting that the problems are limited to earlier receivers.

My buddy's accident was over ten years ago, and it wasn't his rifle that blew up, so I doubt I could track down the pieces. He's also a little sensitive about it since it cost him a career in the Marine Corps.

 

[Kestrel]

JimC,

What is a "C" stock? Neither of these rifles have a pistol grip. Is that correct for these guns?

The 1903 has 42 stamped on the barrel and the 1903A3 has 43 stamped on the barrel.

Thanks,
Steve

 

[JimC]

Steve,

What is a "C" stock?

It was the pistol grip style stock. I'm not up on when [dates] they issued the '03-A3 w/the pistol grip stocks but I know it was the later dated rifles.

I'm sure there is someone here that has info on those dates.

The "C" stocks were also seen on the '03-A4 sniper rifles.

In '63 I had a cherry Remington '03-A3 ser. # 414XXXX w/a "C" stock. The rifle was nearly unfired w/o a single mark on the stocks. I paid $45.00 for it then!

I paid $100 for a very nice Remington '03-A4 in '67 ser. # 341XXXX. It had original rings and mount w/an un-used shim kit. I don't think the Lyman scope was original to the rifle either.

I had another '03-A3 in between the above two that I can't locate the paperwork for. I think it was a Smith-Corona. It was a straight stock as I recall.

 

[Khornet]

03A3

has outstanding accuracy potential, at least if my Remmy is any indication. Personally, I'd go for the A3. Better sights, less romantic, but more useful. $550 is a good price. But it!