User Panel
If you want, I know there's a company making 1903A4 repros using original 03A3 actions; Gibbs was one such place but I think they handed off manufacturing to another company...
I picked up one a few years ago, shot it twice and on the 2nd round the (known crappy) replica M73B1 scope on it had a huge chunk of paint fall out inside and obscure the lenses It was RMAed and replaced with a new/improved version of the repro scope last year, but I haven't had a chance to get it to the range yet to sight it in and see if it's any good... The repros are C&R eligible, too. Rock Ridge, and James River Armory both manufacture/sell them now... |
|
Inspiring post. I just saw one advertised at my LGS and I'm going in tomorrow to check it out. If it's a safe to shoot 03, I'm coming home with it. My Grandfather was a hold out in WWII and wouldn't give his up.
|
|
I shoot mine every chance I get, got it from my Father-in-Law WWII vet. I honestly do not know how those guys shot that gun day in and day. I'm usually done after about 10 or 15 rounds
|
|
I have a RR gun built on a Remington receiver. The thing was built with a NOS barrel a looks like it rolled out of the factory this morning.
|
|
Quoted:
I shoot mine every chance I get, got it from my Father-in-Law WWII vet. I honestly do not know how those guys shot that gun day in and day. I'm usually done after about 10 or 15 rounds View Quote |
|
Quoted:
I have a RR gun built on a Remington receiver. The thing was built with a NOS barrel a looks like it rolled out of the factory this morning. View Quote Mine is all remington too. Other than the Scant Stock is not original. I bought that a while back. The top wood is from the factory straight stock. If it really was from the factory. I still have the bottom but the scant is definitely more comfy to handle and shoot. |
|
|
The '03A3 is a modernized version of the '03, and has a much easier-to-use rear-mounted peep aperture sight. The cost-cutting changes did not hurt it at all; in fact the changes were improvements that allowed faster, less-expensive production without sacrificing reliability, or battle effectiveness.
One gives up the more complicated, but more versatile, barrel-mounted rear sight for a rear sight that is much quicker and more intuitive to use. It's also much easier to use by people with older eyes, compared to the original rear sight, which was intended for young, sharp, eyes only. To my mind, the newer rear sight is an overall asset to the single rifleman. The earlier rear sight might well have been a benefit if one was in a sizeable unit whose members were trained to use the earlier rear sight. To my mind, the only defect of the '03A3 is the elimination of the detachable magazine floor plate. The earlier version allowed the user to open the bottom of the magazine, and remove unexpended rounds. The newer versions requires the user to manipulate the safety lever to a certain point, and then use the bolt to remove unexpended rounds. this is potentially unsafe, and also has the potential of damaging the ctgs needlessly The earlier method was more costly, but safer IMHO. The earlier construction also allowed easier cleaning of the rifle. Aside from these personal quibbles, the 03A3 is a fine rifle. Just be sure to find a USMC front sight protector. Army version is useless. The unprotected front sight of all the '03 rifles has been documented as the most common cause of the rifle being returned for repair. Ordnance Went Up Front by Roy Dunlap I was privileged to be able to shoot alongside some (then) old-timers shooting various iterations of Army and USMC Match grade '03 Springfields. Some had the usual Army upgrades to the rear sight, some had the USMC rear sight. For target range use, most of them had modified their front sight base to accept a somewhat wider front sight blade. Perhaps that was on account of older eyes, but most RKIs agree that the original Springfield front sight was too thin for combat use. It's being entirely unprotected being a far more serious defect, in combat. You Springfield users go find a USMC front sight protector. They are not cheap. |
|
I LOVE my '03A3. I find that really narrow front sight is excellent for precision. My wife loves it too.
I was kicking myself for not getting one when the CMP had them. At that time, you could get a decent example for $600 or less. This was NOT long ago. After they ran out the prices went crazy, now to touch an un-dicked-with example they seem to run $850+. I couldn't justify that. My friend had a drill rifle Remington receiver from Gibbs, a NIW Remington bolt, and a NIW Remington barrel. Bought all that from my buddy, took them to a local smith known for working with USGI rifles and he barreled and headspaced it for me, and I finished the rifle out with a NOS scant stock from Numrich and a Sarco parts kit, which turned out to have a lot of junk repro parts in it. I ended up replacing all the repro parts except for the rear sight, which ironically is fine and the most complex part. So in the end I have about $850 in it. Regardless, it's gorgeous and shoots like a dream. I can shoot it better than many scope-equipped rifles I own. |
|
Yeah, I had my Sporterized Mauser with me that day. It has a nice 4x on it and I expected to put 5 holes on top of each other at 50 yards. Well, I didn't. My group was almost 3x the size of my 03A3 and I stopped shooting it because the recoil was also harsher. I should've stuck with it though because I just cleaned it and forgot about fouling the bore. And I should've put M2 ball through it, it probably would've been more comfy during recoil.
Mine is a CMP gun and I think my Dad paid $ 425.00. It was a Greek return. It's all Remington with the 2 groove barrel. When I first got it I shot it for groups a lot and I know I was getting around 2-3 MOA with a lot of ammo at 100 yards. Which blew my mind. I always wished I could scope it, but in the end it doesn't really NEED it if your eyes are up to the task. The sights do seem favorable to eyes that aren't optimal. It's the only gun I've ever shot at 600 yards and I was hitting the Service Rifle target after I figured out how many clicks I needed. Which was less than I expected. I was shooting American Eagle ammo that day and it did well. It is quite the gun for 425 bucks. |
|
Quoted:
You are too generous. I'm way skinnier and less tan than him. That's my Buddy Ed. I used to work with him. This be me silly: http://i.imgur.com/mnB4fUj.jpg Just kidding, this is really me, see the difference? LOL: http://i.imgur.com/3u9CE8o.jpg View Quote |
|
|
Quoted:
Now you need a Krag. View Quote You guys, correct me if I'm wrong. An 03 is a controlled round feed, right? But somehow smoother to operate than a Mauser. The one thing I'm not wrapping my head around is the CMP states in the literature that comes with the 03 when you get one, it states that you can put 6 in the gun by plopping a round in and holding the 5th one in the magazine down. But I thought that was not a good thing to do with a CRF gun. Because the extractor is a big long claw, not one like most other guns that have a spring and pivots....... |
|
Quoted:
Actually, what I always wanted more than an 03, Garand or any of them, is a 1917. You guys, correct me if I'm wrong. An 03 is a controlled round feed, right? But somehow smoother to operate than a Mauser. The one thing I'm not wrapping my head around is the CMP states in the literature that comes with the 03 when you get one, it states that you can put 6 in the gun by plopping a round in and holding the 5th one in the magazine down. But I thought that was not a good thing to do with a CRF gun. Because the extractor is a big long claw, not one like most other guns that have a spring and pivots....... View Quote Anyway, it wasn't a problem for the Army to just drop the round in on top of a loaded mag. |
|
Quoted:
It doesn't appear to be a problem with the Springfield. The Army carried over the magazine cut-off from the Krag. The idea being you could load the magazine and then turn off the mag and single load the rounds in during battle, keeping the five in the magazine in reserve for emergency use. Understand the Krag was right after the Trapdoor .45-70, so the Army was still not coming to grips with a repeater at the turn of the centruy. The carry over to the 1903 shows just how slow Army doctrine can move at times. Anyway, it wasn't a problem for the Army to just drop the round in on top of a loaded mag. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Actually, what I always wanted more than an 03, Garand or any of them, is a 1917. You guys, correct me if I'm wrong. An 03 is a controlled round feed, right? But somehow smoother to operate than a Mauser. The one thing I'm not wrapping my head around is the CMP states in the literature that comes with the 03 when you get one, it states that you can put 6 in the gun by plopping a round in and holding the 5th one in the magazine down. But I thought that was not a good thing to do with a CRF gun. Because the extractor is a big long claw, not one like most other guns that have a spring and pivots....... Anyway, it wasn't a problem for the Army to just drop the round in on top of a loaded mag. Whether the M1917 rifle, with which the majority of US WWI troops were equipped, was better or worse then the '03 Springfield is the subject for a different thread. Let's keep this thread focused on the '03. OK? |
|
You basically push the 6th round down into the mag even though it won't below the feed lips. That way it still rises below the extractor as you close the bolt.
|
|
Quoted:
You basically push the 6th round down into the mag even though it won't below the feed lips. That way it still rises below the extractor as you close the bolt. View Quote Now I'm trying to remember if mine had any play in it when loaded with 5..... I'll have to look at that. |
|
Nice 03A3 but how did you wear out a steel butt plate? I miss my 03's (sporterized 1921 dated, Remington 1903 41' dated, and Smith Corona 44' 03A3) and 1917 (Eddystone 1918). The 17' you could load 6 in the mag and one in chamber. Sweet shooting guns. I bought a Remington 1903 while in high school at a flea market for $235 (82' at an age of 17). Rifle was made in Dec 41', took my first whitetail with it unsporterized later that year (Remington 150 gr Corlokt). Did shoot some 03A4 back at Ft Campbell KY as late as the 97'. Had couple still in the Arms Room along with the M1918A2 BARs, M3A1 SMG, M1911A1s, M1 Garands.
CD |
|
That was one of the reasons for wanting a 17. More rounds. Plus, if my memory serves me correctly, it always had a bit lighter published weight. Like in the high 8's. And the 03's are like 9. Or something. I think my A3A3 is in the high 8's though in reality. I'll have to weight it again.
I was 10 in 82...... We're both getting old. Did I say I wore the buttplate out? It's well worn, it's a CMP gun. But I wore the PAST recoil pad because I wanted to shoot and not wince. |
|
Quoted:
Inspiring post. I just saw one advertised at my LGS and I'm going in tomorrow to check it out. If it's a safe to shoot 03, I'm coming home with it. My Grandfather was a hold out in WWII and wouldn't give his up. View Quote Yes the Marine front sight is much thicker. (From what I've read yes the Marines developed it but most Marines in Ww2 never saw anything but the standard thin blade ). I have had bad eye days were it disappears. I wish I had the fat one like my buddy. He didn't even know he had it but bought the rifle with it. I'm betting someone put a repro Marine sight on it. |
|
I don't know man, I've heard it said thicker is better for shooting but I feel like that thin sight helps with precision. It's an easy gun to shoot well. I wasn't using a rear bag with that group above. And I've gotten close to 2 MOA with that gun at 100. All bagged up and prone. Biggest limiting factor is iron sights at 100. Basically my eyes.
|
|
Quoted:
I don't know man, I've heard it said thicker is better for shooting but I feel like that thin sight helps with precision. It's an easy gun to shoot well. I wasn't using a rear bag with that group above. And I've gotten close to 2 MOA with that gun at 100. All bagged up and prone. Biggest limiting factor is iron sights at 100. Basically my eyes. View Quote |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
I don't know man, I've heard it said thicker is better for shooting but I feel like that thin sight helps with precision. It's an easy gun to shoot well. I wasn't using a rear bag with that group above. And I've gotten close to 2 MOA with that gun at 100. All bagged up and prone. Biggest limiting factor is iron sights at 100. Basically my eyes. |
|
But why? Wouldn't some precision help you in a gunfight? I get that if you have a hard time picking up the front sight under stress, that wouldn't be good. But it would also obscure your target less......... Only experience I have is hunting and under stress I did not have a hard time finding the tiny crosshair on the Weaver K4.... And lever gun irons are do able but they can kind of obscure the target more than one might want to. Although it worked for me on a few occasions.
Anyways... I don't find it HORRIBLY small. Now not being durable to bumps and getting bent, that makes a lot of sense. I could see the happening more. But they should've put wings on that thing. |
|
I carried one for a 10k biathlon (running, not skiing).
Won with it. Attached File That's the trophy. Attached File |
|
Quoted:
If you want, I know there's a company making 1903A4 repros using original 03A3 actions; Gibbs was one such place but I think they handed off manufacturing to another company... I picked up one a few years ago, shot it twice and on the 2nd round the (known crappy) replica M73B1 scope on it had a huge chunk of paint fall out inside and obscure the lenses It was RMAed and replaced with a new/improved version of the repro scope last year, but I haven't had a chance to get it to the range yet to sight it in and see if it's any good... The repros are C&R eligible, too. Rock Ridge, and James River Armory both manufacture/sell them now... View Quote |
|
Quoted:
Oh man this gun, so much fun to shoot. Had it out again today. It goes WOOF! But doesn't hurt at all for an '06. Well, maybe a bit when I went prone today and the top edge in my shoulder...... This guys' Dad carried one in the Army in WWII according to him. I believe he made it through the bulge. But he also carried a Carbine and didn't like it as much. http://i.imgur.com/dcIucnm.jpg For some reason I find this the funnest WWII gun to shoot. Well, besides the Thompson I shot in Las Vegas. http://i.imgur.com/1bUSr0E.jpg View Quote |
|
OP thanks for sharing as it brings back good memories of my grandfather. Although I don't own an 03 my grandfather was also issued one until his unit was converted to MP's in 1944 while in France. Then, he was issued a M1 carbine. His 03 came with a grenade launcher which I know he carried begining as a replacement in North Africa. He admitted he used it very little because he served on crew serviced weapons for much of the war.
|
|
He wasn't in the 2nd ID, was he? I think the 9th IR 2nd ID had MP's.... Or maybe it was the 23rd. My Grandpa was in the 2nd ID, 23rd IR. E Company.
And thank you for sharing your memory. |
|
No he was in a AAA unit in VI Corp but brothers in arms none the less. Sorry to hear you never got to know your grandfather. Kinda like my great uncle (12/24/1943) as I remember the stories of him and have several letters from a friend in his squad but everyone who knew him is gone. Keep shooting that 03 for them all.
|
|
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.