Springfield 1903A3

[JLaScala]

I was just gifted a Springfield 1903A3 in good condition. There is a little rust and the stock could use refinishing, but I am confident that it will be a kick ass rifle when I am done with it. After I have finished initial cleaning I plan on bringing it to a gun smith to have it checked. What are the opinions on these rifles? How much are they usually worth (just curious). Thanks in advance.

 

[Ohio Gun Guy]

they are worth a lot more in orig. condition; dont sand or refinish anything.....clean it and post pics and members here can tell you all about it.

 

[1KPerDay]

In good clean shooting condition they start about $600 nowadays. If it's rare/all original/etc. it can be worth much more.

Has it been "bubba'd"? In other words, is the front part of the stock cut off? A lot of these were hacked up by well-meaning guys in the 50s and 60s for deer rifles when they were a dime a dozen. Post a pic if you can.

BTW if you want to disassemble the bolt for a thorough cleaning here's a vid I made

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hTeOxN_XX4A

Reassembly
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=48wNQbgVJBM

 

[Vern Humphrey]

For a modern hunter, the '03A3 is the best of the Springfields. The original '03 sights are designed for target use, and are not very good in the field. The 03A3's simple peep sight is close to ideal. I like to put bit of epoxy on the top of the sight and when it sets up color it with sight paint, typewriter correction fluid, or something similar. This makes the front sight stand out in the woods in dim light, and you can simply clean it off with solvent later.

 

[Brimic]

These are very good rifles. As long as the barrel isn't worn/corroded out, it should be a very accurate shooter.

Only problem I've personally had with mine is that sometimes they have a front sight that is too short and they shoot high, a taller front sight can easily be cut from a piece of 0.050" thick sheet metal- hint: joist hangers sold at the local big box hardware store are of this thickness. I use the fabicated taller sight for jacketed ammo, and replace it with the shorter original sight for shooting lower velocity cast loads.

 

[JLaScala]

Bad news. I brought the rifle to my smith and he informed me that since it has a serial number under 800,000 it would be dangerous to shoot. 326001. Real bummer. Easy come easy go I guess :-(

 

[bobelk99]

Don't despair.

Assemble all the info on the gun and run it through the classifieds. You never know what some collector may think.

Collector guns are not necessarily shooters.

 

[Tinpig]

1907 serial number... I'd think it's not a 1903A3.

Tinpig

 

[Ohio Gun Guy]

PLEASE POST SOME PICTURES! We would love to see it and help you out. Heck one of these guys might want it if you dont.

 

[CZguy]

^ Plus one.

 

[Jim Watson]

Hmm.
Does the OP know the difference between an '03 and an 03A3?
Did the gunsmith drop a decimal point in reading the serial number?
Is the rifle maybe a National Ordnance parts gun with serial number not related to USGI?

It is going to take pictures to straighten this out.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Bad news. I brought the rifle to my smith and he informed me that since it has a serial number under 800,000 it would be dangerous to shoot. 326001. Real bummer. Easy come easy go I guess :-(

A "low number" Spingfield is indeed one below 800,000 (for Springfiled Armory -- "low number" Rock Islands are below around 250,000.)

However there are no "low number" M1903A3s. The "low numbers" were made prior to WWI. M1903A3s were made during WWII, about 20 years later.

Take a look at your rifle. If the rear sight is mounted on the barrel, ahead of the receiver, it is an M1903, and if that serial number is right, it is indeed a "low number."

If the rear sight is a peep sight mounted on the receiver bridge, just in front of the bolt handle, it is an M1903A3 and cannot possibly be a "low number" Springfield. Also check the maker -- that's marked on the receiver ring (where the barrel screws in.) "Low number" Springfield were made only by Springfield and Rock Island. M1903A3s were made by Remington and Smith-Corona.

If it is truly a "low number" Springfield, do not dispair. The Army thoroughly analyzed the problem and did not withdraw "low number" rifles from service. They were left in service until they wore out and were turned in for repair. Once repaired, "high number" rifles were returned to the unit, "low number" rifles were placed in war time storage and a new rifle was issued to the unit.

The Marines never turned their "low numbers" in. When a USMC "low number" came back to the arsenal for repair, it was repaired and returned to the Marines. Many a Marine who landed on Guadalcanal carried a "low number" Springfield.

A recent analysis shows the danger in firing a "low number" Springfield is lower than the danger in smoking a couple of cigarettes.

 

[DBR]

IIRC the danger of the low numbered rifles was mainly the heat treatment of the bolt which could be brittle. If viewed from the side the bolt handle is "swept back" ie does not drop straight down the rifle has a later corrected bolt installed.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Julian Hatcher said it was the receiver, and told of striking receiver rails with a steel bar and shattering them.

 

[DBR]

Here:

http://www.thecmp.org/m1903.htm

Apparently low number receivers are also suspect although the actual problems I have seen reported were more related to bolts.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

M1903 rifles made before February 1918 utilized receivers and bolts which were single heat-treated by a method that rendered some of them brittle and liable to fracture when fired, exposing the shooter to a risk of serious injury.

The problem is the receivers -- the bolts could be switched out and replaced.

 

[Jim Watson]

Most of the receiver failures were due to casehead failures in low quality brass producted by wartime contractors. Plus the nitwit who managed to cram an 8mm cartridge into a .30-06 chamber. That must have taken some determination. Then there was the greased bullet problem. A casehead separation in a brittle action was big trouble.

P.O. Ackley wrote that the bolts were more inconsistent than the receivers. He said that a "low number" receiver with a correct headspace nickel steel bolt would be safe with standard loads in good brass. We are more cautious now, there are more lawyers and Internet Experts to discourage shooting the old guns.

 

[Flash!]

has anyone bought one of the 1903A3's being sold by Sarco for $595 ? If so, what kind of condition are they in and are they worth the money?

 

[Vern Humphrey]

P.O. Ackley wrote that the bolts were more inconsistent than the receivers. He said that a "low number" receiver with a correct headspace nickel steel bolt would be safe with standard loads in good brass.

And he was right.

I wouldn't want to pursuade anyone to do something dangerous, but the danger from "low number" Springfields is very low.

Some receivers did fail on test -- being struck by a steel bar. Nevertheless, the actual failures in service were traced to many other things:

1. Firing 8X57mm ammo in a .30-06 chamber (that'll blow up any modern rifle.)

2. Brittle and unsafe brass that let go on firing.

3. Tinned bullets that cold-soldered themselves to the case neck in storage.

4. Greasing bullets with Cosmolene -- in an attempt to reduce copper fouling.

The number of failures is very low. Between 1917 and 1929 there were 68 burst receivers, out of over a million "low number" Springfields produced. We know that Enfields, Mausers and other military rifles also occasionally blew up in service, but don't know how many -- only the US Army kept statistics on the matter.

Almost all Springfields , high number and "low number" now on the market or in civilian hands have been worn out in service and rebuilt. If there were any weaknesses in those receivers, they would long ago have burst.

So make up your own mind about shooting these rifles. I don't have any "low numbers" but I stick to cast bullet loads in my two M1903A3s (which are perfectly safe with modern ammo) and shoot some very stiff reloads in Bigfoot Wallace, my custom '03 Springfield in .35 Brown-Whelen.

 

[JLaScala]

Update. I was told it was a 1903A3 from my buddy at the gun shop, but after some research I figure its a springfield 1903 with an after market armstrong peep sight. The trigger seems to be a little lighter than others I have played with as well. Somebody spent some time doing little things to this rifle to make it a nice shooter after the war. As far as selling it goes, I wont because I recieved it as a gift, and it has sentimental value. Statistically the chances of anything negative resulting from firing the rifle are low, but to me its not worth risking serious injury over. Its a shame too, she cleaned up real nice.