Springfield 1903 Firing Pin

12 November 2003, 16:53

Theopolis

I do believe that you have grossly misunderstood what I am talking about.

If you were to remove the firing pin assembly from the bolt body, it would be plainly obvious that the striker is attatched to the firing pin rod via the striker sleeve. This adds up to three parts to the firing pin.

Now compare this to say, a Winchester mod. 70 which has a one piece firing pin and a firing pin spring retainer. They nust be nuts to make such simple, reliable and "unsafe"? firing pin system. Give me a break!

In a military conversion, many of the old useful military features are not nececesarily desireable features. I can hardly see where needing a quick change striker system would be of much benefit in a non-military situation, however maintaining correct firing pin protrusion over a longer period of time is desireable. Thanks for playing.

Theo

12 November 2003, 19:06

vigillinus

Theo

Numrich Arms, a/k/a Gun Parts Corporation, West Hurley, NY, used to offer a one piece 1903 striker that used some parts from the M2 .22 Springfield. I have one in a .35 Whelen by L.R. Wallack, one of the top 1950s gunsmiths. Check and see if they still have any. Also you can put an ad in Gun List under "gun parts wanted". Also try Springfield Research Service, look for them through Google, they are in Silver Spring MD. Frank Mallory who runs SRS designed one and may be able to supply drawings.

13 November 2003, 02:20

gunnut69

I've not seen one for years and they were at one time a fairly common 'upgrade'. The one piece striker assembly is indeed a good thing as breakage with the 2 piece is quite common. a reasonably proficient smith could probably make one although it may be a bit pricey.. As for as safety goes, how does letting the striker down represent a safety. When down the firing pin is resting directly on the primer.. If safety is the reason for our action then removal of the cocking piece knob would prevent anyone from creating a dangerous situation by letting it down on a live round. Removing the cocking piece was also a relatively common practice at one time. It combined with a stronger mainspring allows for a reduction in lock time..

13 November 2003, 11:49

Theopolis

Thanks guys,

I will look into Numrich and the other resources before building one myself. Time is money. I guess with the decline of military conversions over the years, many once popular upgrades have been lost and in some cases forgotten about altogether.

I agree about the manual cocking piece, too. It does absolutely nothing to add safety to the gun. The shroud saftey can even be removed if one decides to install trigger with a Remington style trigger block safety. Oh my, that would leave the firing pin with direct line access to the primer. Oh I forgot the SEAR is what holds back the firing pin, not the cocking piece. Ha, ha!

13 November 2003, 12:07

<JBelk>

Theopolis--

I'm not sure what you're trying to accomplish.

The '03's cocking piece is pressed and staked to the firing pin......that means the firing pin spring must be installed from the front......that means a portion of the pin ahead of the spring has to be larger than the spring to retain it.....The T slot and sleeve method of attaching the front of the firing pin is MUCH stronger and less "changeable" than a threaded sleeve or other attaching mechanizms.

The "knob" is for re-striking dud rounds without opening the bolt. Hang fires were common on the battle field and an open bolt invited strange parts to invade the shooter's face.

BTW--The Remington 700 series safety blocks the sear, not the trigger......the '03 sear supports the cocking piece which is firmly attached to the firing pin........so, what's your point?

13 November 2003, 12:48

Theopolis

First, the specific trigger that I was referring to is made by Timney and it's deluxe model has a Remington style safety in that it's push lever is located on the right side and moves forward and backwards (like a Remington), however, according to the advertisement, it blocks the trigger.

Secondly, imagine the regular 1903 firing pin assembly. Remove the striker and sleeve. Now imagine if the remainder were as long as the original length (with the striker and sleeve)and was shaped like a striker at the end that contacts the primer. Now imagine further if ther were a pair of milled slots somewhere along the firing pin, where a collar could slide down, compress the spring and lock into place. Presto! You now have a one piece firing pin that will not develop freeplay between the three original moving parts. Plus, that fantastic cocking piece is still there, and the safety too!

13 November 2003, 13:23

GrandView

quote:
Originally posted by Theopolis:
Secondly, imagine the regular 1903 firing pin assembly. Remove the striker and sleeve. Now imagine if the remainder were as long as the original length (with the striker and sleeve)and was shaped like a striker at the end that contacts the primer. Now imagine further if ther were a pair of milled slots somewhere along the firing pin, where a collar could slide down, compress the spring and lock into place. Presto! You now have a one piece firing pin that will not develop freeplay between the three original moving parts. Plus, that fantastic cocking piece is still there, and the safety too!

Presuming your collar contains the tabs that lock into the slots you define on your full-length firing pin, I'm not sure how this arrangement works without milling a path in the pin to allow the collar (and its attendant locking tabs) to slide into place. This potentially makes for a much weaker firing pin than the original arrangement.

I have a modified 1903 Springfield with a speed lock and screw on striker rather than the collar slot original arrangement. Doubtful that it represents much improvement over the original.

I do know that the stronger spring of the speed lock makes it a real knuckle-buster for a novice to disassemble. Much to my embarassment.

GV

13 November 2003, 14:07

<JBelk>

Theopolis--

What you describe is a pre-64 M-70....and they will enterchange. Some trimming of the firing pin tip will be needed on some guns. I've never run into a short one. The safety will have to be timed according to whatever trigger you have.

The Timney trigger/safety is a direct and faithful copy of the Sako pattern....the only similarity to the Remington/Walker trigger is that both are sear over-ride systems (instead of direct-acting). They're VERY different mechanizms.

I hope that's not being too picky, but it sets my teeth on edge.......like hearing a city guy call a pelican a goose. [Smile]

13 November 2003, 17:38

Theopolis

Mr Belk,

Thanks for the education about the trigger assembly. In your opinion what would be the best bang for the buck if one did want to install a commercially made trigger system on the 1903? Without getting into the $100 plus range.

Would you go through the trouble to make/ buy a one piece firing pin to eliminate any future troubles of the original assembly, or leave it alone and address problems as they arise? Also what is your opinion of "speed locks"?

Thanks,
Theo

14 November 2003, 02:58

<JBelk>

Theopolis--

Unfortunately it takes about a hundred bucks to build a good trigger....everything else is just cheap alloy, bad tolorences, and rough parts. I'd get a Canjar or nothing for an '03.

I consider the '03 action as a great traditional military action that still holds an impressive array of match records, too. But, it's not a target action.

Speed locking DOES speed lock time by shortning the firing pin fall, but at the expense of reliable ignition. That's not an issue on the range (but sure is in a trench!), so if you feel better doing it there's no reason not to.

In reality there's about 83 things more important to accuracy than lock time so I wouldn't waste my time on it.

I wouldn't change the firing pin either. I consider those alterations much the same as I do trap shooter's shotguns---99% of the work was done because the shooter just *needed* to change *something* to make himself feel better.

Money spent on practice ammo is nearly guaranteed to give better results than changing the gun around.

14 November 2003, 12:57

Theopolis

Thank you for the advice. I will look into the Canjar, but I hear they are getting pretty hard to obtain these days. I plan on using this rifle as a hunter and perhaps should leave well enough alone, at least for now.

14 November 2003, 13:48

<JBelk>

Theopolis--

For a hunting rifle I'd CERTAINLY leave it alone. Dependability is much more important than the point one MOA (.1") you might get by screwing with the ignition system.

I'd use a Dayton Traister trigger for hunting and spend the bucks for a three position safety for it. They have to be fitted for each other.

The new trigger and three position safety with a low bolt handle give you a "military Model 70". [Wink]

17 November 2003, 05:07

<eldeguello>

quote:
In a military conversion, many of the old useful military features are not nececesarily desireable features. I can hardly see where needing a quick change striker system would be of much benefit in a non-military situation, however maintaining correct firing pin protrusion over a longer period of time is desireable. Thanks for playing.

You're right about this! This '03 replaceable striker gizmo is one of the changes for the worse that we made to the great '98 Mauser when we "improved it" into the '03!! (Actually, a broken M98 Mauser striker can be replaced as fast as the abortion on the '03!!).

There used to be a commercially-available one-piece striker for the '03, but I don't remember offhand who made it, nor have I seen one advertised in recent years. Probably because people aren't sporterizing as many Springfields these days. I agree, try Gun Parts Corp. (Numrich Arms). If they don't have 'em, they might be able to tell you who does!

[ 11-16-2003, 20:14: Message edited by: eldeguello ]