M1903 Springfield Accuracy

[purple]

About 4 yrs ago I ran a post reporting on the relative accuracy of various types of MILSURPs based on my range log which had recorded 14 yrs of shooting results to that point in time. My conclusion at that time, on the basis of recording 316 x 3 rd groups in 6 different M1903s, was that the M1903 Springfield had proven to be the most accurate of several types of MILSURPs in stock condition. The average size of these 316 groups was 1.98" @ 100 yds.

Yesterday I ran a range check of 2 additional M1903s which were not used in my previous report with predictable results. One rifle is a 1942 vintage Remington which I re-barreled with a new Springfield Armory 7-44 barrel this past winter. The second rifle is a 1922 vintage Springfield with a nice tight Sedgley 1-45 dated barrel. The muzzle on this barrel actually gauges a bit tighter than the new Springfield.

I was shooting handloads featuring the 150gr Hornady FMJ and the Sierra 168gr Match bullet over both IMR4064 and Varget. After an initial shot @ 25 yds to adjust mechanical zero, 6 x 3 shot groups were fired with each rifle to get an impression of these 2 rifles. The new Springfield barrel produced 6 groups ranging from .9 to 1.5" with an average size of 1.4". The Sedgley barreled Springfield showed 6 groups ranging from 1.2" to 3.25" with an average size of 2.33". Results with IMR4064 and Varget were essentially the same. Both rifles are bedded IAW military specs.

On shooting the Sedgley barreled rifle I noticed a bit of play in the rear sight which I corrected by shimming afterwards. This accounts for the fact that groups from this rifle showed more vertical dispersion than did those from the other rifle. The M1903 rear sight is both a blessing and a curse, and was probably the weakest feature of the M1903 as a fighting rifle. The peep sight in the vertical leaf allows for some very accurate shooting on the range, but it sucks as combat sight because of the extremely small field of view which it presents. The front sight blade subtends approx 6 " @ 100 yds, and can be tough to locate quickly through the small peep. The prominent front sight "ears" on a Garand, P14/M1917 Enfield or a No4 LE are a big plus here. Mechanically the rear sight is also quite fragile and is subject to wear of the teeth on both the front of the movable base and the windage adjustment knob. This proved to be the problem with the rear sight unit on my Sedgley barrel.

Rear sight notwithstanding, I'll always recommend a M1903 to anyone who is looking for top MILSURP accuracy. Like most rifles, the keys to accuracy are a sound barrel, proper stock bedding, tight sights, and quality ammo. Handloads are the way to go and any of IMR4064, IMR4895, IMR4320, IMR4350 or Varget are always a good bet. Stick to IMR 4064 or 4895 only for a Garand though. Over the course of a lot of shooting IMR4064 has proven to be a bit more accurate with all of 150, 165, and 168 gr bullets in a number of .30-06 MILSURPs, incl M1903s, Garands and M1917 Enfields. I like IMR 4320 with a 172 or 175gr match bullet and IMR4350 with a 180gr hunting bullet in my M1903 Sporter though. For those who want to shoot on the cheap the Hornady 150gr FMJ, which is available in bulk, is probably the best (and cheapest) of the non-match .308 bullets. Reloading for the .30-06 is straight forward and you can neck size for a bit more accuracy and longer case life after an initial firing in each rifle. If you want to do a lot of comfortable shooting or bring along a child or wife/GF, try the Hornady 150gr FMJ with a reduced load of 23 or 24 gr SR4759. This will deliver excellent accuracy with much less noise and recoil.

Needless to say I am an M1903 devotee, and have been since mucking around with my father's rifle many yrs ago. A couple of days ago I re-barreled another 1942 Remington with a new High Standard 9-44 dated military barrel and am looking forward to trying this one out after setting it up in a new stock. I'm still looking for an M1903A3 receiver with the rear aperture sight as I have several NOS Remington 03A3 barrels that I would love to use.

 

[desporterizer]

Given that the springfield is pretty much a mauser, to what do you attribute the superior accuracy?

 

[Boom-Boom]

reply to Purple:

Although I haven't shot and recorded that many groups over years, I basically share the same observation.

I've had four 1903s over years and they all have been extremely accurate and easy to make to shoot accurately.

My single bad experience have been with a nice A3 acquired here on CGN which was sporting a counterbored barrel that was supposed to still be a solid shooter....

So solid in fact that I had a hard time hitting paper at 25yds and be way off target at 50yds.

Having said that I did remove (and saved yes) old barrel and replaced with a new one. It is now shooting 1" groups at 100 yds regularly when my eyes are ok.
That thin front blade is both of a blessing or a curse depending on ambient light and eye fatigue.

Two other '03s are scoped and shoot like a dream. An original A4 and a 1941 USMC-Unertl sniper (honest clone with a correct period A1 and Unertl glass).

As much as I like my Garands and LE, including genuine 4(T), they are not as predictable as my '03s are.

Hope I will not hurt anybody here and hear about blasphemy....

They also have their weaknesses, but we are talking about accuracy here.

There's an old saying that goes something like this:

Germans were good at making hunting rifles.

Americans were good at making target rifles.

And British were good at making combat rifles.

Open statement for debate.


BB

 

[buffdog]

.
It seems obvious that you have not had too much experience with a 6.5x55 Swedish m/96 Mauser.


And, I'll say it before SMELLIE jumps all over you "Have you never heard of the ROSS?"
.
....................................................

.
If you come through again on the way to Shilo, do drop in for some Coffee and BS.
.

 

[purple]

.
It seems obvious that you have not had too much experience with a 6.5x55 Swedish m/96 Mauser.


And, I'll say it before SMELLIE jumps all over you "Have you never heard of the ROSS?"
.
....................................................

.
If you come through again on the way to Shilo, do drop in for some Coffee and BS.
.

Actually I have 3 nice M96s in the safe; one with the Elit aperture sight, one in stock condition, and a Husqvarna 1941 M38. I have procured some quality bullets, brass, and dies, incl a neck sizer, and am getting ready to do some serious shooting with them. I'm always ready for a new challenge, like taking on a new wife a few yrs back, so why not play with what are reputed to be the best of the Mausers. I note that the Swedes felt it necessary to go to an aperture sight for best accuracy, and this is where the rear sight peep on the M1903 Springfield offers an advantage on the range.

I've not done much with the military Mausers, other than a M98 in 7x57 which I converted into a nice hunting rig many moons ago. The 7x57 is a real classic and it's always been an ideal deer rifle. I've owned and shot a nice MkIII Ross. My father was issued a Ross while training in WW2 and really liked it on the range. Mine shot very well indeed. The Ross saga always reminds me of a marriage gone terribly wrong- lots of enthusiasm at the start, then pi$$-poor communications and unfulfilled expectations leading to a loss of of trust and a nasty parting. Each to his own, but the troops concluded that the Ross was a judas stick under active service conditions and that was it.

A person really needs to pay attention to detail when trying to wring the best shooting results out of any military rifle. This means selecting a piece in the best condition or making it so, getting things like sights, stock bedding and trigger pull right, and then using the best quality ammo that you can develop. It's a waste of time and money to get a worn out, beater rifle and cheap ammo with an expectation of top accuracy.

I wish I could have lingered in MB a bit longer in mid-March. You were enjoying an Okanagan spring while folks had to do with Manitoba weather at this end.

 

[uberkermit]

Townsend Whelen, commenting on the 1903 Springfield, figured there was no equal as a hunting rifle (after it had been properly sporterized) until the late 30's (i.e., when the Model 70, et. al., were introduced).

 

[Buckmastr]

i agree, the 03a3 sight distance is extra long with the peep sights leading itself to excellent accuracy. its surprising how accurate iron sights can be, not necessarily shooting groups but in hitting longer range targets. it took me two shots to get the distance rights but the porcupine at 300yrds didnt know what hit him from the mauser m48a. Here's a pic of the fiance shooting the 03a3 for the first time.

 

[purple]

Now that young lady has a fine taste in "raffles". Try the reduced loads that I described in my first post. Better still, let her do the reloading and then shoot them.

 

[desporterizer]

Any woman who picks up a milsurp ( assuming she is not going to hit me with it) is golden in my books!

 

[tiriaq]

The reputation of the Springfield's accuracy was built up based on the NM competition rifles. Unrebuilt, rack grade actually issued to a serviceman rifles aren't quite the same thing.
If freshly barrelled and set up rifles are being tested, then all rifles to be compared should be in similar condition.

 

[Mike Webb]

Townsend Whelen, commenting on the 1903 Springfield, figured there was no equal as a hunting rifle (after it had been properly sporterized) until the late 30's (i.e., when the Model 70, et. al., were introduced).

I think Whelen's input on the matter should be taken with a grain of salt. He was terribly biased in favour of American rifles. The Mauser is actually far superior to the Springfield in design as the Americans were trying to copy the Mauser while making enough changes to avoid a lawsuit for patent infringement. They succeeded in designing a rifle action inferior to the Mauser and got sued by Mauser and lost on top of that. The two piece firing pin in the Springfield is an abortion and the action is much less able to handle a burst case or primer than the Mauser. Though the pre WW2 made Springfields were exceedingly well made I think the Mauser is a superior design.

 

[Alonzo]

Every M1903 and 03-A3 I have owned was supremely accurate.
The best I have shot at 100 yards was with an 03-A3 which was virtually new condition. There was absolutely no wear on the gun at all, even the bolt face was perfect.
Naturally I was young, foolish and "Had to shoot it", just because. I fired eleven rounds with the last five for group. When I got the target everyone on the range was amazed as the five shot group was well under one inch. A micrometer measurement center to center came in at 0.859 inches. I never shot that gun again and actually (like a fool) sold it my cousins husband with the express instructions never to shoot it or refinish it. Good grief I should call him sometime and see if he woudl like to sell it back to me!!!!!!!!!!!
BTW, I have shot M1903 Remington which has a fair condition bore with good success. Tried to improve the bedding with card stock and groups did improve. The best I ever got was just under 1.5" at 100 yds.
My M1903/1922 sporter clone is a consistent sub 1.25" gun. It has taken it's share of long range local matches for iron sight sporters.
I do not shoot any of my early M1903's, though over the years my father and I have worked with some top notch superbly accurate early guns.
The one thing I discovered through reloading was to play with the O.A.L. a bit. The shorter jump the bullet has to the rifling the better they perform. Though with this the use of magazine feeding may be limited.
If I had my choice for accuracy I would be using the M1903 opposed to the mauser. Never did think much of the 8MM. Of all the mausers we had over the years never found one to perform equally to the '03. That was after over 40 years of trying different models and calibers of the mauser. The action of the mauser is incredible, it must be something about the barrels. I should mention we tested a Belgian mauser in 30-06...now that was a good performer!!!
Anyhow...the M1903 is a phenomenal gun with plenty of history to it, as a pre-cursor in service to the M-1 Garand.

 

[albayo]

I have 9 or 10 Springfields 03s, 03 A3s, and 1922s and have only fired the 1922s. I have shot Springfields in the past but never one of my own. I just love the look of the 03s with that distinct hump in the top wood before the rear sight.

 

[purple]

The original barrel on the Remington which I re-barreled with the new Springfield 7-44 barrel was worn almost to the point of rejection ( .307 vs .308 reject line on the GI throat erosion gauge and .303 at the muzzle), yet it would still produce 3.5 " groups.

The American market created a huge demand for quality .308 bullets since WW2 and there are are many excellent ones to choose from, incl the various 150/155/168/175gr match bullets and 150/165/180gr hunting bullets. This has been a huge boost for accuracy in all of the .300 bore rifles. Its a no-brainer to locate any number of very accurate bullets for reloading.

Stock bedding is simple and easy to tweak in both the M1903s and Model 1917 Enfields. This, plus their comparatively heavy barrels, is also a big plus for accuracy.