AIM Surplus M1903A4

[Pickles]

In poking around on AIM the other day, I came across these Springfield M1903A4 that just came in. I've been researching a bolt action purchase for some time, and had previously settled on a Savage 10FP in .308, but took pause when I saw these.

This Springfield would go along well with my Garand, and should fit the criteria I had set for a bolt action, mainly that it shoot a .30 caliber round and that it also be accurate. I know that I will not have the allure of a totally original rifle with a weathered stock, but I'm okay with that, as I appreciate the aesthetics of the new wood. I did some searching on the topic, but I'm still left with some questions that I hope our community could help answer!

1. Are the M1903's finicky about what 30.06 rounds you put through them? I'm familiar with why I need to find M2 ball rounds for my Garand, ensuring proper pressure to not damage the opp rod, but would I need to be as selective with the M1903 since it is a bolt action?

2. AIM makes some pretty solid claims about the accuracy level, "Not just exceptional in looks and finish, each gun is made to hold to the accuracy standards of the U.S. Military during World War II". Can I reasonably expect, that which fine ammo or decent customer loads, and a practiced shooter, that these 03's would deliver a good level of accuracy?

3. Does anyone have experience with the, "exact copy of the M73B1 scope" that comes with the rifle?


I thank you in advance for any info you can provide!

 

[rcmodel]

Looks like Mitchells Mausers had a hand in it!

That is about as far removed from a real 03A4 as you could get.

With that said, if you don't mind the cheezyness of that fake one, a good scoped 03A3 with a two-groove barrel will shoot MOA with good loads it likes.

rc

 

[DMK]

That's interesting. Obviously they are repros built on original 03A3 receivers. Not C&R eligible. Really pricey too.

AIM has been pretty good in my experience, but I wonder who built them?

You shouldn't have any trouble with shooting any 30-06. The Garands are only finicky because they are semi-autos. The op-rod isn't up to higher pressures. You won't have any problems like that from a bolt action.

I agree with RCmodel. No collectible value. You might as well just scope an 03A3.

Looks like Mitchells Mausers had a hand in it!

It does look like their style, but I don't see anything mentioned on their home page.

 

[DMK]

3. Does anyone have experience with the, "exact copy of the M73B1 scope" that comes with the rifle?

Ya know, that sounds like what they really mean is "We had those masters of counterfeit- the Chinese, make us a scope that is almost impossible to tell from the original just by looking at it".

 

[rcmodel]

each gun is made to hold to the accuracy standards of the U.S. Military during World War II".

Thats not saying much.
The accuracy standards during WWII were not very high, even for real sniper rifles!

rc

 

[rklessdriver]

They are real Remington 03A3 recivers rebarreled and with new optics and mounts all built by NAVY ARMS/Gibbs Rifle Company. The price I was quoted was pretty reasonable IMO ($850.00ish)

I saw a prototype at the big Chantilly gun show earlier this year. I still have the advertising paperwork they were handing out.

Its a nice rifle and as close to a real 03A4 as one could make today without completely faking one. I was told by the Navy Arms rep that the scopes and mounts are made with the orginal tooling. The scope is going to be 1940's technology - useable but don't expect it to perform like a US Optics (or even a decent modern hunting scope for that matter).

O3A3's are not worrysome about 30-06 ammo like a Garand. No need to worry about the pressure curve of hunting ammo in one. I'm sure it will be "picky" as all barrles like a certian round better than others....

More info here:

http://www.gibbsrifle.com/


Will

 

[Jim Watson]

Friend of mine has a real one. The real original M73B1 scope was a government procurement version of the Weaver 330C with a claimed 2 3/4X power, reportedly more like 2.2x and pretty dim even at that with only a 3/4" tube. The crosshair or post reticle did not remain centered as adjustments were made. If the AIM repro is a faithful copy, it is not a whole lot of scope by modern standards.

The Army had no special sniper accuracy standards at that time. The A4 was no different from an A3 except as required to mount the scope. An A3 is a pretty accurate military rifle, but the A4 is no better, except for what you can see with the scope.

 

[W.E.G.]

Cool looking gun.

Lotta cool looking guns you can by for a thousand bucks.

 

[Pickles]

Thanks for the info, rklessdriver, and everyone on the thread, this gives me something to think about. I guess, at this point, I'm still leaning toward the Savage 10fp, with a decent scope.

 

[jpwilly]

Straight from the Gibbs Rifle Company website:

The Gibbs M1903A4 is built using original Remington-made World War II M1903A3 actions and turned-down bolts, which Gibbs obtained large quantities of when it purchase the rifle division of Parker-Hale in the 1990's. Gibbs then utilizes new-made 4-groove barrels made identical to the originals. Each receiver is carefully drilled and tapped using replicas of the original "Redfield" rings and mounts and an exact copy of the M73B1 scope, used on the 1st model M1903A4's. Each barreled action has the original military parkerized finish with polished blue stock furniture, again, identical to the originals.

The stocks are new-made "C" configuration with a linseed oil finish and have replica cartouches similar to the originals.

Each gun comes with a replica of the M1907 U.S. issued leather sling and OD Green canvas carrying case. The result is a firearm that comes out of the box in brand-new condition, ready for shooting, display, reenacting and field use. Not just exceptional in looks and finish, each gun is made to hold to the accuracy standards of the U.S. Government during World War II. "We want our customers to know that they can achieve the same accuracy as World War II snipers with these guns" stated Val Forgett, President of Forgett Militaria, LLC.

Like all replicas and historic remakes, the Gibbs M1903A4 has a number of features that intentionally distinguish it from originals, even by the casual observer. For instance, the barrels are marked with the modern dates of manufacture, unlike original barrels that would have had 1940's manufacturing dates. Gibbs also does not remove the receiver markings, another telling feature to distinguish this historic remake. Finally, the scopes are marked with the Gibbs name and address, unlike the originals, which were marked with Weaver's manufacturer's marks. FFl required for purchase. Please have your firearms dealer contact us to order.

 

[hags]

Replica parts gun for $1K, uh, no thanks.

 

[jpwilly]

Ya know, for what goes into making that rifle $800 isn't bad and it sure loooks good!

 

[theotherwaldo]

I hate the term "parts gun". By my definition, all modern production firearms are parts guns, as their parts are basically interchangeable to the point where they require serial and assembly numbers to keep them straight.

Yep. Elitist snobbery rears its head yet again. But of course, I wouldn't buy that gun. Not because of some odd criteria related to its collectibility.

No, I just think that I could have more fun shooting a cheaper gun.

 

[Lone_Gunman]

I hate the term "parts gun".

Any surplus military rifle that has ever been re-arsenaled is by definition a parts gun.

In fact, I prefer them to be parts guns. When I see a guy selling an M1 Carbine at a gun show that has all correct parts, and he is passing it off as original, it is usually a rebuild he did in his garage the night before the show.

 

[hags]

I hate the term "parts gun". By my definition, all modern production firearms are parts guns, as their parts are basically interchangeable to the point where they require serial and assembly numbers to keep them straight.

Yep. Elitist snobbery rears its head yet again. But of course, I wouldn't buy that gun. Not because of some odd criteria related to its collectibility.

No, I just think that I could have more fun shooting a cheaper gun.

Uh sure, but I was using the term "parts gun" in the commonly accepted vernacular of our time. I think I made myself clear and there's no need for a semantic argument.

Elistist snobbery????? Funny, I was thinking the same thing, I could get a much better, modern gun for the same money or less and there'd be no concern about the quality or worry about parts.

 

[theotherwaldo]

Yep. I wouldn't buy it, for the same reasons as you. I just wouldn't saddle the poor gun with that term.

All too often gun snobs call their own mutts "custom sniper rifles based upon a fine, trusted action" while slamming the same gun as a "parts gun" if it is owned by someone else.

The only time I drag out that sneering term is when someone cobbles together a gun from poorly matched parts and then tries to claim that it's all original.

 

[jpwilly]

I'd buy it (if I had $1K to blow that wasn't spoken for)...don't know why everyone is so afraid of a "Parts Gun"? I've seen plenty of cobbled together rifles. This one looks right and could be lots of fun.

 

[DMK]

I'd buy it (if I had $1K to blow that wasn't spoken for)...don't know why everyone is so afraid of a "Parts Gun"? I've seen plenty of cobbled together rifles. This one looks right and could be lots of fun.

I wasn't saying that it was a bad rifle. Mitchells and Gibson don't sell crappy stuff. I was just saying that you could buy a regular 1903A3 and put a scope on it. You'd have the same thing and could do it cheaper, with better optics.

It's kinda like the companies that take an unissued Mosin Nagant, put a $100 scope on it and sell it for $500 as a Russian sniper rifle.

 

[SharpsDressedMan]

I thnk repros definitely serve many buyers interests, which include having an "example" of a firearm that they otherwise might not have been able to have (legal restriction, price, scarcity, etc). I think, for example, the Colt 1911 and 1911A1 replicas are superior for SHOOTING guns. They are made of superior steels, and you won't destroy the collector value of an original gun. Many people enjoy the semi-auto variants of full auto guns (any AK or M16 lovers out there? ALL of those guns are copies of what was originally full auto, or mutations that followed....), like the Thompson and Uzi's. A nice replica 03A4 will be well received.

 

[Big Matt]

RE: post #3 - Any reason why these aren't C&R? If the receiver is original, and the receiver is considered the actual firearm, why not C&R? Every other C&R gun is typically made up of mismatched parts, etc and still qualifies. Just curious.

 

[jimmyraythomason]

Nothing wrong with an updated classic. Ask Ford how their modern version of the 1967 Mustang fastback is selling.

 

[cougar1717]

I saw this today online before I read this post. This is no different from what Fulton Armory does, which is take receivers and make "new" guns, exept that FA makes Garands and Carbines. There are pro's and con's for doing this and you would probably see a lot more of this if 1903 A3/A4 competitions were at least somewhat popular. The only problem I see is the target market. This rifle does not have the collector value of an original. However, with the updates and manufacturing processes, it probably shoots better. Even so, I think the weak link has to do with dilution. For $1000, an ordinary person can easily get a hunting rifle with a scope that equates, if not exceeds what you get here. So the target market is someone who wants the appearence of an original, but shoots like a modern rifle. I personally don't have interest in them, but that doesn't mean that they won't sell.