Sporterized 1903 Springfield,How valuable?

[handofzeus]

I just picked up a sporterized 1903 Springfield. The bad part is, no rear sight, drilled and tapped with bases, bolt handle looks to be cut cleanly through near the bolt body, angle changed, and then brazed and nicely polished (to clear scope?). The good is; nice bore, stock has higher comb and pistolgrip expertly added to the cut down military stock (actually quite beautifully done). The final bit of interest is the serial #....531XX I know it's probably not worth trying to cobble her back to full military configuration but I just wondered if the serial made the receiver extra 'desirable' or not.

 

[Hitzy]

Some of the early 1903's are not safe to shoot....what make is it?

 

[purple]

Tough to offer an appraisal w/o photos. It's value as a restorable military rifle is very much reduced by having a D&T receiver. It sounds like it might be an OK sporter though in as is condition. Not sure what the actual serial number is. Perhaps you could advise the markings on the receiver ring as well as the serial number except for the last 2 digits.

 

[Blastattack]

I just picked up a sporterized 1903 Springfield. The bad part is, no rear sight, drilled and tapped with bases, bolt handle looks to be cut cleanly through near the bolt body, angle changed, and then brazed and nicely polished (to clear scope?). The good is; nice bore, stock has higher comb and pistolgrip expertly added to the cut down military stock (actually quite beautifully done). The final bit of interest is the serial #....531XX I know it's probably not worth trying to cobble her back to full military configuration but I just wondered if the serial made the receiver extra 'desirable' or not.

The receiver has been drilled and tapped and the bolt has been modified. There is zero collectibility left on the old girl. Depending on how well put together the thing is (pictures are a must HINT HINT), I would say $400 is the ceiling.

 

[handofzeus]

Did some research too. Looks like it was made at the Springfield Arsenal in 1904 based on the serial (5317X). Flaming bomb with SA and 10-09 tell me the barrel was made in October 1909. Charging my camera batteries now!

 

[handofzeus]

The best I could do, Folks!

 

[purple]

The receiver was produced in 1903, the first year of production at Springfield Armory. The barrel is most likely a replacement. This is a so-called `low number`receiver which a lot of people choose not to shoot because of concerns about the method of heat treatment which was used at that time. That said, the rifle has stood the test of time. the barrel does not appear to have been cut. If the bore is in good shape for wear and is free of pitting it would be the most valuable part of the rifle to a restorer or collector. It would appeal to me as a source for misc internal parts and the barrel, if in good shape. Others may view it differently.

 

[Blastattack]

Yikes. Poor old girl has been wrecked. In that condition, $200 would be fair in my opinion. The spot annealed receiver is not a very good selling point.

 

[handofzeus]

Thanks for the insight Purple, I figure the same as far as test of time. Going to throw a scope on it unless I can make a peep to fit the rear base, and shoot it. It shoulders well and even with all the warts she cries to be used. I may consider selling it down the road though because I really don't need another 30-06! Thanks for the input people, and cheers to you all.

 

[X-man]

Those early Springfields were found to have spotty heat treating and most are considered unsafe to shoot. Turn it into a wall hanger or break it down for parts. It's worth more in parts than as is. If you do sell it as a shooter, please let the buyer know of the potential safety issue.

 

[CZ_Brno]

Mine is also sporterized and tapped for a scope. It seems to be 1938-1939. I assume that one is safe?

 

[points]

I believe the failure rate on those pre 800,000 serialed receivers was actually quite low. If it has been used as a sporter for the last 100 years and may have even gone through at least one war, I would feel safe shooting it. You might want to reduce the loads if you have doubts.

 

[purple]

Mine is also sporterized and tapped for a scope. It seems to be 1938-1939. I assume that one is safe?

Any Springfield Armory receiver above the 800,000 number is considered a "high number" receiver which employed double heat treated carbon steel and subsequently nickel steels. The Remington M1903s and O3-A3s and Smith-Corona 03-A3s were made of high strength alloy steels. Any Springfield receiver above s/n 800,000 and all Remington and Smith-Corona made rifles are considered safe to shoot. Rock Island Arsenal M1903s above s/n 285,507 were made with improved steels and heat treatment and are also considered safe to shoot.

There is an ongoing debate about the safety of the "low number" Springfields. The fact is that they were used throughout WW1 as well as during WW2 under the press of wartime needs. The incidence of failure of the low numbered receivers was sufficient to have them removed from service when they went thru arsenal overhauls between WW1 and WW2. The general consensus is that low number receivers should not be shot in the interests of safety, however some choose to do so. Interestingly, the only M1903 that I've owned that had a cracked receiver ring was a Remington. Hatcher's Notebook contains an extensive discussion of the M1903 receiver strength issue and includes details of a number of receiver failures.

 

[bearhunter]

I have seen more than a few D&Ted 1903s. In the late fifties, right up to the late 70s they were considered to be one of the more desirable actions for conversions.

Some of the older gunsmiths, including PO Ackley, whom I was lucky enough to meet at his shop in Utah and who spent an afternoon showing me around as well as he and his wife giving me lunch, had just brought in a bunch of 1903 and 1903A3 rifles and barreled receivers along with boxes of bits and pieces to complete the actions. He wasn't overly concerned with the early receivers other than many of them were to hard to machine. His shop would test them for hardness first and them anneal them to their standards so that they were easier to work on. He wasn't a great fan of the A3s, they were hard and had the extra rear sight mount on the receiver bridge. He did as little work on them as he could get away with. The others of course were as safe as he could make them and came out of his shop in many configurations from plain Jane hunting rifles to elaborate exhibition pieces. He had a phenomenal metal engraver working out of his shop at the time and his stock makers were second to none.

One thing about the A3s that surprised me is that bases were made for them that closely resembled the bases on the A4s but could take 1inch scopes. This was done on purpose, for those that wanted to imitate the A4 but with modern scopes. Back then, new/old surplus stocks were readily available for those rifles cheap. You could go into just about any gunsmith shop and pick up unissued stocks and hardware for around $5 each. Ackley's smiths would put these rifles together with new surplus barrels and test them for accuracy. They were a popular alternative for many shooters at the many military style shoots that were and still are going on in the US. The rifles had to have a specified degree of accuracy or they were rebarreled again. If they still didn't shoot, he would authorize the receivers to be cut in half. Even Ackley himself and his very knowledgeable staff were baffled by some of the failures of what were often unissued receivers. It was all based on time of course to fix the issues. There was little sense in spending $25 worth of time to fix a $10 receiver.

OP, it's to bad your receiver has been done the way it has. Not a lot of value there as far as collectability goes. As a sporting rifle though it looks fine. Sell it as such. Anything around $300 would be a good price. It can't even be turned into a decent faux sniper.

 

[SW28fan]

I can't speak for Canada but in the US $200 max. It is below the 810,000 serial number where the heat treating was changed. There are two schools of though about low number Springfields:
1. Everyone of them that will fail has already failed, so they are OK.
2. Everyone of them that failed survived its initial high pressure proof, so if you want a shooter get something else.

 

[cyclone]

Quick word of advice re: some of those sporterized 1903's.....put some heavier furniture on them, or get a good recoil pad.


Some of them have slimmed-down, lightened-up stocks that in no-way encourage prolonged shooting sessions.

 

[purple]

A high number Springfield receiver which has been D&T for scope mounts can be the basis of an excellent sporter. I sporterized an early Remington M1903 quite a while ago and it has gotten me some nice whitetails in AB, SK, and MB. The receiver was cosmetically pitted with a toasted barrel and not really up to standard for a military restoration so I decided to go ahead with a sporter conversion. This involved installing a new 03-A3 4 groove barrel, D&T the receiver for a Redfield Jr mount, modifying a bolt handle to clear the scope and installing a Beuhler low swing safety, a sporter stock and an aluminum alloy trigger guard with a hinged floorplate. I fitted the rifle with a Burris 6x scope and worked up handloads with 150, 165, and 180gr bullets which will print MOA or slightly better groups.

The coned breech of the Springfield is a nice feature which was imitated in the early Winchester Model 70. The rifle is slick, smooth and reliable and has an excellent trigger pull with the 2 stage military trigger. I didn't think I was profaning history by sporterizing this one as it was beyond redemption as a military restoration. The other nice thing about the M1903 as a sporter is that it comes chambered in the eternally good .30-06.

 

[bearhunter]

I can't speak for Canada but in the US $200 max. It is below the 810,000 serial number where the heat treating was changed. There are two schools of though about low number Springfields:
1. Everyone of them that will fail has already failed, so they are OK.
2. Everyone of them that failed survived its initial high pressure proof, so if you want a shooter get something else.

You speak the truth but in Canada, 03s in any configuration are not readily available. They are around but in 90% or better condition, very expensive.

 

[handofzeus]

I'm going to shoot it a bit and see how bad the recoil is. My shoulder is badly torn so I haven't used my other '06's in awhille. It may go on the EE if the fun/pain ratio isn't acceptable. I have to admit that the action is SMOOTH! Even better than my FN Husky in the same caliber.

 

[Mike Webb]

As has been said a good hunting rifle. I wouldn't worry too much about the low number receiver at this point in time. My cousin has a low number Rock Island Springfield that I told him he should retire. He just keeps on dumping moose and deer with it year after year. I think his Rock Island is around 265,000.