Springfield 1903

Springfield

Springfield

New member
Rating - 100%
13   0   0
Location
L'Acadie Qc.
I recently inherited my grand dad’s old military Springfield 1903 and would love to bring it back to life and hunt deer with it but I would like to add a scope to it.
If possible I would like to swap the stock for a sporterized one and be able to use mags but I don’t want to alter, drill or mess with it! Just looking for bolt on options!
If any have knowledge of this, please share!✌️
 
Leave it alone, don't fix what isn't broken.

If your eyes aren't good enough for the issue iron sights, get a different rifle.

I fully understand the nostalgic ties, but if you really want to keep them intact, do the same type of hunting with the rifle your grandfather would have done.

Usually what happens in a situation such as you describe is that parts are lost or broken during the refit or lost during a move or hidden in some place no one will ever find them.

Your rifle, your choice.
 
Installing the barreled action in a sporting stock can be done.

Installing a scope without altering the rifle is a whole different issue.
Usually, the receiver would be drilled and tapped, the bolt handle altered and a scope safety installed. Permanent alterations.
It might be possible to replace the rear sight leaf with a base that would accept an electronic reflex sight. Maybe this could be done without doing harm.

I would use the rifle as is. The '03 is not an ungainly clunk of a rifle. It is lighter and shorter than most service rifles.

The biggest problem is that the battle sight is set for over 500y. If you stand up the leaf, you have a choice of aperture or notch, but I don't think anything is going to work at the 100y you need for deer hunting. Unless you change the front sight. This can be done without damage to the rifle.
 
I believe that someone makes a mount that fits in the rear sight base without d&t'ing it. It requires the use of a long eye relief scope.
I shoot my Springfield rifles most of all. They are nice.
 
Last edited:
S&K makes a "no drill & tap" scope mount - though IMO, no DTs are a little dubious.

Hi-Lux makes a repro of the USMC Unertl scope - but that would need drilling and tapping as well as someone who can actually mount a scope like that!

Tons of aftermarket sporter stocks available - google it. Maybe an option if you are working with a scant style, but I would not bother if you have the C-stock, unless you want a cheek piece, specific drop or the LOP is off for you. I'm not aware if the 03 needs any sort of up pressure etc from the fore end, but changing the stock may change its characteristics .... if it shoots well as is maybe leave it be or you could wind up spending a lot of cash on a problem that didn't exist.

you'll need to figure out which 1903 you have - the 03 and A3 are different.

I believe the early ~ under 1,000,000 Rock Island receivers had a heat treating issue - but not sure, someone else can chime in on that.

Yes, the stock sights are incredibly hard to use when you start getting older. You can get a clip on front sight hood if you want to use the irons - it helps immensely!
 
sean69 said:
S&K makes a "no drill & tap" scope mount - though IMO, no DTs are a little dubious.

Hi-Lux makes a repro of the USMC Unertl scope - but that would need drilling and tapping as well as someone who can actually mount a scope like that!

Tons of aftermarket sporter stocks available - google it. Maybe an option if you are working with a scant style, but I would not bother if you have the C-stock, unless you want a cheek piece, specific drop or the LOP is off for you. I'm not aware if the 03 needs any sort of up pressure etc from the fore end, but changing the stock may change its characteristics .... if it shoots well as is maybe leave it be or you could wind up spending a lot of cash on a problem that didn't exist.

you'll need to figure out which 1903 you have - the 03 and A3 are different.

I believe the early ~ under 1,000,000 Rock Island receivers had a heat treating issue - but not sure, someone else can chime in on that.

Yes, the stock sights are incredibly hard to use when you start getting older. You can get a clip on front sight hood if you want to use the irons - it helps immensely!
Click to expand...

According to Hatcher's Notebook (by ret. MGEN Julian Hatcher US Army), the Springfield Armory 1903's with serial numbers under 800,000, and the Rock Island Armory ones with serial numbers under 285,587 may not be safe to shoot thanks to the heat treatment process of the receiver. At the listed serial numbers, both arsenals changed the receiver heat treatment process and it substantially strengthened the receiver.

This only applies to M1903 rifles, not the 1903A3 (and A4) WW2 manufactured rifles.
 
Hello,

I own a low serial number m1903 Springfield. The serial number on receiver would indicate it was produced in 1906. The barrel has U.S.M.C 7-41 S stamped on it. Would this mean that it went through an arsenal and it is safe to shoot? Or because it has a low serial number receiver it will always have a reputation of being unsafe?

Springfield-

I have a sporterized stock if you would like to trade.
 
Last edited:
Jmwall said:
Hello,

I own a low serial number m1903 Springfield. The serial number on receiver would indicate it was produced in 1906. The barrel has U.S.M.C 7-41 S stamped on it. Would this mean that it went through an arsenal and it is safe to shoot? Or because it has a low serial number receiver it will always have a reputation of being unsafe?

Springfield-

I have a sporterized stock if you would like to trade.
Click to expand...

Springfield Armoury rifles below 800,000 and Rock Island Armoury below 265,000 are considered "too hard" for want of a better word. Supposedly a few have blown up on firing . Most gun people consider them wall hangers to be on the safe side. My cousin has been shooting deer for decades with a Rock Island serial 165k. I guess he figures it would have failed by now. I warned him no hand loads. But yes, they are still regarded as unsafe by most.
 
With the pressure for rifles during WW2, so-called low number Springfields were brought back. They were fitted with replacement nickel steel bolts with proper headspace. None failed during proofing. Maybe Jmwall's rifle is in this group, with that barrel date.

It is suspected that most of the low number failures resulted from receivers being overheated during heat treatment, "burning" the steel. There were some failures that could not be explained this way. Iirc, there were 64 documented cases of low numbered failures. Apparently there were no fatalities, but some shooters were badly injured. When a receiver shatters, the probability of injury is real. 64 out of about a million is a pretty small fraction. It was extremely embarrassing for the US to have to flag over a million of its prized Springfield '03s as suspect and treat them as unserviceable. Both the Springfield and its Mauser contemporaries were made using case hardened mild steel for the receivers. The Mausers never had the same problems. It wasn't the nature of the steel or the hard case/soft core concept that was the problem, it was quality control in manufacture. Incidentally, when the Springfield was developed from it Mauser roots, aspects of the sophisticated design of the 1898 Mauser were abandoned, perhaps not understood by the Americans. The Springfield has some inferior design features incorporated. The Models 54 and 70 Winchesters carried on with the same inferior breeching incorporated in their Springfield ancestors.
The low numbered failures tended to occur with standard service ball, not with overloads. The rifles that failed had undergone proof during manufacture. A Mauser rifle will tend to have its locking abutments set back without structural failure.
In the 1930s, Sedgley made a lot of sporting rifles on low numbered receivers. They attempted to re-heat treat them to get away from the problems of 1917. This was a failure. If the receiver was a bad one, there was no remedy.
Incidentally, there are high numbered Springfields that have low numbered metallurgy, because rifles were not finish assembled in exact numerical sequence.
Hatcher's Notebook is an excellent reference on the topic of low numbered '03s.
Heat treating and re-heat treating rifle receivers is a serious undertaking. Not done right, and a rifle can be a bomb. Re-heat treatment is not something to be approached casually. Tremendous liability issues.
 
Last edited:
I read that the quality control problems with heat treating were related to subjective judgement on behalf of workers eg., colour of steel, instead of exact temperature measurement. The design flaws of the 03 were actually to get around Mauser patent infringement by the US. The two piece firing pin, coned breech etc. Eventually the US government had to pay Mauser $100,000 as a penalty.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom