Springfield Rifles

[countertop]

Was wondering if anyone could provide a short primer on the differences between a Springfield M1903 and M1903A3.

Im sure its been covered before, so feel free to post a link to a previous thread (I couldn't find it, but I know its there).

As I was getting ready to purchase a Garand from CMP, I noticed they also had Springfields for decent prices and think I am going to get one as well. The question though, is which one. Looking at the images, they are obvious differences, but I don't know exactly what those differences are.

Thanks

 

[DF357]

The biggest difference is the type and placement of the sights. The 03 has sights mounted foreward of the receiver, the 03a3 sights are at the rear of the receiver.

Other than the early SN 03's had some problems with metal parts breaking and bolts flying out the back, I don't think there is much other difference at all.

The 03 Mark I was set up to accept the Pedersen device, but not many of those were made.

Someone else will surely expand on this.

 

[SMLE]

The '03A3 had a lot of stamped parts opposed to the '03s milled ones. Made it cheaper and easier to produce. The 'A3 had a peep sight that is more user friendly than the rear sight of the '03. Both are capable of excellent accuracy.
The "low number" '03 problem is way over stated. Actually looking at Hatcher's stats, it was an almost infintessimal percentage that failed. Remember, the improved heat treating process didn't appear until AFTER WWI. All the '03s that served so well in the trenches were "low number" rifles. I have shot the heck out of a low number rifle while a friend in Australia has had TWO high number recievers fail on him. Go figure.