Looking for opinions. I traded for a Springfield 03 that someone cut the barrel to 18" and put on a different stock. Otherwise in nice shape. I want to re-barrel to 6.5x55 or 7x57 and build a custom rifle. Not interested in 30.06 because I have several. Any ideas or opinions? I am in the info gathering stages. Thanks
Re-barrel Springfield 03
- Thread starter kerreckt
- Start date
- Status
stonecutter2
Member
It's already sporterized and in a different stock. Go for it and make it your own 
The 03's receiver is excellent for rebarreling into whatever you want.
The 03's receiver is excellent for rebarreling into whatever you want.
Float Pilot
Member
I like the 1903 actions as well. I have a couple custom rifles built on them. The 7x57 and the 6.5x55mm Mauser cartridges are my personal favorite cartridges, but both are a wee bit short for the long magazine box of the 1903 action.
My next 1903 action project will be a 338-06 ( aka 338 A-Square)
One of my current 1903s is chambered in 25-06 which is a real zippy shooter.
We did one for my buddy in 280 rem ( basically a 7mm -06) and later he did the Ackley improved shoulder.
I have also chambered one for 35 Whelen.
One of my shooting friends at our local range did one in 6.5mm-06.
I also have a Late run Remington made 1903 ( not 03-A3) that was re-chambered for 300 Win Mag using a 2 groove military barrel that a gunsmith named WHITEHEAD made back in the late 60 or very early 70s. He contoured the military 2 groove barrel and polished the heck out of the action before he did a very nice blue job.
My next 1903 action project will be a 338-06 ( aka 338 A-Square)
One of my current 1903s is chambered in 25-06 which is a real zippy shooter.
We did one for my buddy in 280 rem ( basically a 7mm -06) and later he did the Ackley improved shoulder.
I have also chambered one for 35 Whelen.
One of my shooting friends at our local range did one in 6.5mm-06.
I also have a Late run Remington made 1903 ( not 03-A3) that was re-chambered for 300 Win Mag using a 2 groove military barrel that a gunsmith named WHITEHEAD made back in the late 60 or very early 70s. He contoured the military 2 groove barrel and polished the heck out of the action before he did a very nice blue job.
Last edited:
There are literally an infinite combination of barrel chambers, twists, profiles and lengths you could install onto an '03. Just about everybody that makes a barrel, cuts threads for it. I would be sorely tempted to send it off to PACNOR and have them true it up and install one of their barrels. To take full advantage of the action length, I would be tempted to chamber it in 280 Remington or Ackley instead of 7x57. Or 6.5-06 A-Square instead of 6.5x55.
tark
Member
I've got a low number SA O3 (283XXX) that was proofed when it was made, went through WW1 and fired enough rounds to warrant re-barreling and rebuilding at San Antonio Arsenal and was proofed AGAIN
This was required for all re-barreled rifles. It was then put into storage. It looks brand new but it is a mismatch of parts, including a later bolt with a swept back handle. Why they rebuilt a low numbered gun I will never know, but the SAA stamps and the mismatch of later parts provides clear evidence that it WAS rebuilt.
Point being: One never knows about those low numbered guns. And I don't care how many times it was proof tested, it is fed loads that develop 39,000 PSI.
This was required for all re-barreled rifles. It was then put into storage. It looks brand new but it is a mismatch of parts, including a later bolt with a swept back handle. Why they rebuilt a low numbered gun I will never know, but the SAA stamps and the mismatch of later parts provides clear evidence that it WAS rebuilt.Point being: One never knows about those low numbered guns. And I don't care how many times it was proof tested, it is fed loads that develop 39,000 PSI.
To make it easier and avoid any loading issues I would keep the new barrel something based on the 30-06 case. A classic example would be the .280 or .270. Changing cases sometimes changes the case dimensions and may cause you some feeding problems.
That is very prudent. There are two issues with all of the single heat treat 03's. Firstly, the problem was not the heat treatment. The single heat treatment would have produced a perfectly satisfactory receiver, (caveat: for the period) but Army was behind the time in buying instrumentation for their factories. Instead of buying pryometers, workers were required to judge steel temperature based on their eyeballs. Eyeballs cannot hold the temperature tolerances required for heat treatment of those steels. Basically the workers were using Medieval production methods because it was cheaper, and the Army was not investing in their Arsenals.
This is a book review from Jan 1926 Transactions of the American Society for Steel Treating.
Making Springs for Motor Vehicles
Canadian Machinery, 12 Nov 1925, page 15
The author of this paper discusses the benefits that have come to the manufacture of springs in the motor car industry from metallurgical research. Springs today stand four or five times the work of those a few year ago because the “skill” and “guessing” of the forger has been replaced by heat treating furnaces with temperatures maintained at the proper degree by pyrometers. The Dowsley Spring and Axle Co., Chatham, Ont., a subsidiary of the Ontario Products Co., is taken as an example of a thoroughly modern plant, and its work discussed. There are 145 men employed in the plant and production averages about 55 tons of springs a day, a single spring weighing anywhere from 17 to 44 pounds.
The plant is so arranged that material follows a straight path from storage to shipping room. Until a few years ago all springs were heat treated in small oil-fired furnaces. Today this method had been discarded. A continuous heat treating, forming, and quenching process has been evolved, which is practically automatic and eliminates the human element. As an example of what careful- heat treatment has done toward prolonging the life of springs, the results of test of springs made by the hand method and those by the continuous heat treatment method are interesting. Some years ago 40,0000 deflections were about the average before failure, now 120,000 is a low figure.
You can see in this the early vacuum tube era (1925) that a changeover from eyeballs to temperature gauges has really improved the fatigue lifetime of springs.
The other problem is the low grade of the Class C and Class A materials used in single and double heat treat receivers. These materials are low strength and have a very low fatique life compared to alloy steels. The Army used this stuff primarily because it was cheap and the production engineers at Springfield Armory were used to the stuff, not for any material properties. Today identical materials are used on rail road spikes and cheap rebar, because it is so low grade and cheap. No one in their right mind would use the same materials in a firearms application, unless they wanted to be sued.
So, based on the unpredictability of these low number receivers, you just don't know how long it will be till something breaks. There were so many accidents that in 1927 an Army board looked at these things, reheated samples and found that 33 1/3% would break in an overpressure condition. The board recommended scrapping all 1,000,000 of the rifles, but because it was the cheaper solution, the Army decided to keep the rifles in service. It was cheaper to injure a Soldier, Sailor, or Marine than to replace the $40.00 rifle that injured the man. I don't know your feeling about this, but I consider this evil and unethical behavior. Any service man refusing to shoot this rifle, because of fears it might break, would be subject to a court marshal, but this is a moot point: they were not informed anyway. The Army never really went out and told anyone that their rifles were defective, we did not know the true extent of the problem until the Springfields were out of service, and Hatcher published his Book: Hatcher's Notebook in 1947!
An 03 receiver will feed any case based on the 30-06. The 270 Win would be a perfect combination, and, why not a nice 35 Whelen? The 35 Whelen is an excellent round for anything on this continent. It makes a big hole with a heavy bullet.
Just remember that the 6.5 Swede has a slightly larger base and will require opening up the bolt face.
Acera
Member
But, but, but the gunsmith looked at it and said it was ok....................
Very good post Slamfire.
May need to go post that in the thread about lying/ignorant/un-ethical gun-sellers, as I have heard that a number of times by people who should know better.
.
The Army concluded the danger from firing low numbered Springfields with proper ammunition was quite low (at least one of the blowups was due to firing 8X57 Mauser ammo)
The low-number Springfields were left in service until they were worn enough to return to the arsenal for a re-build. At that time, Army units would be issued a new Springfield, and the rebuilt low number put in War Reserve storage.
The Marines, with a lower budget, decided they couldn't afford that, so rebuilt low numbers were returned to the Corps. Some of the men who landed on Guadalcanal were carrying low number Springfields.
Actually, modern ammo is NOT loaded to higher pressures. The only difference is the crusher system is no longer used, so the MAP is expressed in PSI rather than CUP.
If that is true please explain why modern .30-06 kicks more than GI ball, and has more mv.
Last edited:
tark
Member
351WINCHESTER, that one is easy. Advances in powder technology. The modern, progressive powders reach their peak pressures quicker and hold them longer. But the peak pressure is the same.. The 7.62X25 Tokarev pistol is a perfect example. In WW2 the round got just under 1400 FPS, today it is loaded to over 1600 FPS. Pressure is the same, but the pressure curve is a lot flatter.
Result? More velocity.
Result? More velocity.
tark
Member
In between the World Wars, the National Guard complained about GI ammo. The Army had decided on armor piercing ammo, and the backfall for that cartridge exceed the limits of many National Guard ranges. The Army then adopted M2 Ball, a milder load with less extreme range.
However, the Springfield was designed for and used with ammunition of much higher pressure. And the current SAAMI limit equals the old .30 cal pressures.
The biggest change, however was the development of slower powders, which get more velocity from low pressures.
Their own data indicated that 33% of carefully reheated single heat treat receivers would blow in over pressure conditions. The Army decided to keep the things in service because that the low cost solution, all the rest is cant.
Let's rephrase this, low number Springfields were left in service until they were worn out, or blew up, injuring a Soldier, Sailor, or Marine. If the service man recovered from the injury but was permanently disabled, he was discharged from service and did not receive disability payments or VA care.
Here is a recent example of a low number 03 blowing up. Take a look at face of the shooter, he is lucky not to have lost an eye, or had a big chunk of receiver go through his forehead.
http://www.doublegunshop.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=446106
High vs. Low
Not perzactly. In 1925 the Army adopted the M1 cartridge (not to be confused with the M1 rifle) which had a 173 grain antimonial lead core boattail spitzer. It had a maximum range almost half again the 1906 flatbased bullet, then considered desirable because of WWI doctrine for long range machine gun fire.
That was the ammo that shot out the far end of some ranges.
They procured a large supply of M2 ammo with flatbased bullets comparable to the 1906, but with gilding metal jacket instead of cupronickel.
But by the time WWII was over, there was more AP being shot than Ball.
There was an early AP - not the WWII variety - that ran at much higher pressure than Ball. They accepted a slightly lower velocity to get the pressure down to merely "high."
I read about that on the Shiloh board. One interesting tidbit, the previous owner had shot it routinely with a load of 4895 and a 150 gr jacketed bullet... like the Army did. The load that wrecked the gun was with 5744 light load powder and a cast bullet. Maybe kind of a lot of 5744. There were hints of other overpressure instances with that powder.
Reheating receivers did not work -- that's true. But the point is, the Army DID keep low numbers in service, and there was no resulting blood-bath.
However, blowups were quite rare. We know, for example, that Mausers and Enfields have blown up -- but the Germans and British didn't keep records, so we don't know how the Springrields compare with those rifles.
In any case, if you find a low number Springfield today, it has almost certainly been shot to the point where it required a total rebuild -- which indicates THAT rifle is probably safe.
On the other hand, blow ups have occurred -- but as another poster pointed out, in many cases there are questions as to WHY they blew up.
Winchester Model 70s, Remington Model 700s and Weatherbys have blown up, too -- usually due to bad handloads, obstructions in the bore, and so on.
- Status
