Sporter Springfield 1903 info

tactical lever

tactical lever

CGN frequent flyer
Rating - 100%
37   0   0
Location
Fox Creek, Alberta
Hi guys and gals.

Recently acquired a Springfield 1903 with a (factory ?) sporter stock.

Very rough cosmetically, and has a buggered up rear sight. Not drilled and tapped, and I believe rebarreled at some point.

Am I going to wreck some future collectibility of this rifle if I refinish it?

I don't think it's worth too much, but I think I'd like to fix the sights and make the rifle a bit nicer looking.

The rifle is a Rock Island Arsenal made in 1918 before the improvement in heat treatment according to what I've read.
If that makes any difference?

Thanks for the replies!
 
There were Springfield sporters - Springfield made sporting rifles.
Or it is most likely a sported service rifle..
Could you post photos?
 
The factory Springfield sporting rifle had a different stock. Pretty sure yours is a sported service rifle. The stock looks as if it might have started out as one of the WW2 period scant style stocks.
I'm sure you are aware of the low number situation. By the same token, this rifle has been used for years without mishap, so it may be a non-issue.
I wouldn't be inclined to refinish it. Get a functional rear sight and use it as is.
If the barrel is full length, it might be possible to restore it to issue configuration, although that would not be inexpensive.
 
The cut down "scant" style stock would indicate it went through a WWII FTR.

There should be a date stamped on the barrel, just behind the front sight. The barrels usually have manufacturer's stamps and date, etc.

It's also missing the original rear sight, which is adjustable for windage and elevation, and the sight base has a "V" notch filed into it by bubba.

It's a good rifle, and with a lot of cost, could be put back to original configuration if the barrel hasn't been docked, but IMHO hardly worth it.

If it shoots well, it may be worthwhile drilling and tapping.

I wouldn't suggest hot handloads but commercial offerings or handloads around 48,000 psi should be fine.
 
tiriaq said:
The factory Springfield sporting rifle had a different stock. Pretty sure yours is a sported service rifle. The stock looks as if it might have started out as one of the WW2 period scant style stocks.
I'm sure you are aware of the low number situation. By the same token, this rifle has been used for years without mishap, so it may be a non-issue.
I wouldn't be inclined to refinish it. Get a functional rear sight and use it as is.
If the barrel is full length, it might be possible to restore it to issue configuration, although that would not be inexpensive.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I'm not too worried about the supposed fragility of some of them. I believe this one has survived many thousands of rounds over better than a century.

Any refinishing that I'd do, I'd just do myself. Just don't want to do something that will degrade any collectability that it may have. Not sure if drilling and tapping would, or even if I want to. Or perhaps fitting a receiver site. Was thinking I'd like to smooth out the stock and make it look look a little nicer.
 
The only collector value is in the receiver group and if the barrel hasn't been docked the barrel.

The barrel/receiver group could be the potential basis for a shooter grade build. Lots of work and money, as well as a search for appropriate parts to get a complete and correct rifle.

IMHO, drill and tap wouldn't hurt it, but some would grind their teeth over it. That rear sight is likely available but likely $100+US, then a new old stock or Boyd's, add another $600US, plus a replacement sight base, another $75US and if you have to pay to get the work done. You will lose money on it.
 
If you have no intention of ever restoring it to issue configuration, refinishing and drilling and tapping won't hurt the value. May not increase it either. The receiver will be case hardened, so drilling and tapping will present a challenge.
If you want to investigate restoration, look at gunpartscorp.com or Sarco to find out what that might cost.
 
I'd verify the serial number against manufacturing dates to confirm whether it is a "low number" vs "high number" before going further. There is a difference in receiver heat treatment and strength. There is ongoing debate about the relative strengths of the hi number/low number receivers, but I avoid shooting the low numbers.

If the barrel is serviceable and uncut, a high number receiver would be a worthwhile restoration project. Sporterizing isn't a good choice given the costs involved and the availability of many other bolt action sporters on the market. That said, I have 2 scoped M1903 sporters, one built on a Remington action made from strong alloy steels and the other built on a double heat treated Springfield double heat treated, nickle steel action. The Remington receiver was no collectors loss as it had cosmetic pitting and the Springfield was already drilled and tapped.
 
purple said:
I'd verify the serial number against manufacturing dates to confirm whether it is a "low number" vs "high number" before going further. There is a difference in receiver heat treatment and strength. There is ongoing debate about the relative strengths of the hi number/low number receivers, but I avoid shooting the low numbers.

If the barrel is serviceable and uncut, a high number receiver would be a worthwhile restoration project. Sporterizing isn't a good choice given the costs involved and the availability of many other bolt action sporters on the market. That said, I have 2 scoped M1903 sporters, one built on a Remington action made from strong alloy steels and the other built on a double heat treated Springfield double heat treated, nickle steel action. The Remington receiver was no collectors loss as it had cosmetic pitting and the Springfield was already drilled and tapped.
Click to expand...

Mine is a Rock Island Arsenal, and according to the numbers associated with it, it'd fall slightly below the improved heat treatment date.

It's already a sporter. I had suspected it was a factory job before, but wanted to make sure I wasn't going to butcher something that might have had some value by "improving" it.
 
If it were a "factory sporter" it wouldn't have a cut down "scant" style stock.

If as you indicate the serial numbers show it's the heat treated receiver, there is a good chance it went back to the factory for "double heat treating" which I believe some of them were.

Purple has a lot of knowledge on these rifles and could help with that. A WWII date barrel would indicate FTR and possible double heat treating.

As mentioned, those receivers are hard.

It's quite easy to check for cracks.

Just get some iron filings, which you can easily make yourself, put them on a small "horseshoe magnet and run it over the front of the receiver.

If there are any cracks, the opposing polarities will cause the filings to "collect" over the cracks. Then you can verify the crack with a felt marker, by rubbing the tip back and forth over the suspected crack and wiping it away with a paper towel.

If it is a crack, ink will seep into it, leaving a fine dye line that is quite visible, especially on receivers which are worn to the white metal
 
bearhunter said:
If it were a "factory sporter" it wouldn't have a cut down "scant" style stock.

If as you indicate the serial numbers show it's the heat treated receiver, there is a good chance it went back to the factory for "double heat treating" which I believe some of them were.

Purple has a lot of knowledge on these rifles and could help with that. A WWII date barrel would indicate FTR and possible double heat treating.

As mentioned, those receivers are hard.

It's quite easy to check for cracks.

Just get some iron filings, which you can easily make yourself, put them on a small "horseshoe magnet and run it over the front of the receiver.

If there are any cracks, the opposing polarities will cause the filings to "collect" over the cracks. Then you can verify the crack with a felt marker, by rubbing the tip back and forth over the suspected crack and wiping it away with a paper towel.

If it is a crack, ink will seep into it, leaving a fine dye line that is quite visible, especially on receivers which are worn to the white metal
Click to expand...

It would not be cracked unless it cracked during a rebarrel (hard to say if the gun has a new tube, he didn't post the markings behind the front sight). The guns that Hatcher examines shoed fresh breaks when they failed, no evidence of cracks opening progressively.

Most low numbered receivers that were going to blow, did so during WW1. The USMC did not bother to differentiate between low and high numbered Springfields, and post WW1, they never reported an early receiver letting go. It's very likely the failures had other mitigating factors like bore obstructions, damage, etc. In fact, the USMC preferred low numbered receivers to Mk1 receiver, until after Pearl Harbor when they took every 1903 they could get, including a bunch of Mk1's from the USN.

Bannermans later sold thousands of low numbered receiver sporters they got from the US ARMY, again, no real evidence any of them let go.

Don't take any of this as advice, but if it were mine, I'd check headspace, load a round 20% over SAAMI and fire it from a tire with a string. Then I'd check headspace again. If it is unchanged, I'd fire 5 service rounds with the string. If it lived through all that with no headspace effects, I'd just use the gun as God intended with 150gn M2 ball loads. But that's just me, don't do what I would do - make up your own mind.
 
This isn't a hijack, but I sold a P14 barreled receiver that had been made by Remington and never assembled into a complete rifle to a CGNer.

Instead of using it for a build, he decided to take off the barrel and install it onto another receiver. The NOS receiver cracked when he spun off the barrel. There wasn't a visible crack when I sold it to him.

He sent pictures afterward, not to complain, just for informational purposes.

Hatcher did state some of the early low number, single heat receivers would shatter if dropped onto hard concrete surfaces.

Thanx for the input Claven2. Makes sense.
 
Claven2 said:
It would not be cracked unless it cracked during a rebarrel (hard to say if the gun has a new tube, he didn't post the markings behind the front sight). The guns that Hatcher examines shoed fresh breaks when they failed, no evidence of cracks opening progressively.

Most low numbered receivers that were going to blow, did so during WW1. The USMC did not bother to differentiate between low and high numbered Springfields, and post WW1, they never reported an early receiver letting go. It's very likely the failures had other mitigating factors like bore obstructions, damage, etc. In fact, the USMC preferred low numbered receivers to Mk1 receiver, until after Pearl Harbor when they took every 1903 they could get, including a bunch of Mk1's from the USN.

Bannermans later sold thousands of low numbered receiver sporters they got from the US ARMY, again, no real evidence any of them let go.

Don't take any of this as advice, but if it were mine, I'd check headspace, load a round 20% over SAAMI and fire it from a tire with a string. Then I'd check headspace again. If it is unchanged, I'd fire 5 service rounds with the string. If it lived through all that with no headspace effects, I'd just use the gun as God intended with 150gn M2 ball loads. But that's just me, don't do what I would do - make up your own mind.
Click to expand...

Saw some kind of number just ahead of the front sight. Should've taken note of it. I think the original barrels had a flaming grenade, or bomb behind the sight?

My friend mentioned a rebarrel, but not 100% sure. What would original barrel length have been?

The barrel has a different look to the metal than the receiver. The receiver is in the white, pretty near, while the barrel has a grey tone to it.
 
Kind of a plan coming together on it. Rather than cutting off the rear sight, and looking for a replacement, or getting a receiver sight, I believe I will leave it as is. The front sight seems too fine, and it may work for some, it's not ideal to me. But the sights will work ok as an emergency back up plan, so I will leave them as is, and see if I can find someone who will drill and tap it for me. In interest of keeping it looking like a somewhat older sporting packing and low budget, I'll put on a older Bushnell (or something) 4x or maybe a variable. I did get a Kassnar wide angle as part of the package deal so maybe that might be an option, too.

Was going to refinish the stock, but have been offered another stock for a good price from a fella from another forum. Looks like a nice old factory sporter, from a time gone by. I'll see how much it'll be for shipping. Coming from the US, it might end up being more money than I planned! If our dollar wasn't so weak, it'd be a help, too....

Just remembered that friend who is somewhat of a hobbyist got a blueing tank. I will try to get him to blue it for me.

Might end up being a decent old hunting rifle by the time I'm done!
 
tactical lever said:
Saw some kind of number just ahead of the front sight. Should've taken note of it. I think the original barrels had a flaming grenade, or bomb behind the sight?

My friend mentioned a rebarrel, but not 100% sure. What would original barrel length have been?

The barrel has a different look to the metal than the receiver. The receiver is in the white, pretty near, while the barrel has a grey tone to it.
Click to expand...
The barrel spent most of its life covered in wood. The finish would normally be better than the receiver.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom