Gentlemen:I want to hear opinions but not hysteria concerning the national ordnance 1903A3 Springfield. New condition. Please try to justify your opinions with factual data. I have my opinions and I am interested in yours. Thanks in advance. Cheers. Luke

The receivers were cast. I wouldn't trust one with anything other than low pressure cast bullet loads. And then again, maybe I wouldn't.

https://www.milsurps.com/showthread.php?t=16494

And I have actually owned 3 of them, found them to be very strong; whilst they are investment cast, (so are Rugers) they are not made of iron. I drilled one for a scope mount and found a very hard case, and a softer core. As if they were made from 8620, like the US ones were.
All parts on them are US GI, at least the ones I had were.
I fired them along with the Remington and SC ones; no issued noted. And I never heard of any either.
I still talk to people who think that anything "cast" has to be weak.

Tom your post is much appreciated. I value your input and I concur. Thank you sir. Luke

good luck ...

Luke,
A bunch of people will tell you their second cousin twice removed had one blow up. Just don't pay the same for it as you would a real 03, the NA 03's are not highly thought of, but much of that is based on rumor and conjecture.

Thank you Gundog. I have had this one for years. Just never shot it. Don’t have a bunch in it but I don’t really remember. Probably @ 300. Thanks again

While they are not collectable, they are not unsafe;
Mr Craig, if you have an actual bad experience with one, I would like to hear it. Otherwise, what is your reason for the condemnation?
As I said, I have actually owned them and shot them.

Had a couple. None blew up with GI Ball. Brophy's book describes them a little, and states they were given approval from H.P. White Laboratory for standard 30-06 operating pressures. I assume they ran a blue pill through them. Quite possible the ones that some have seen blow were "helped" a bit by operator error/stupidity. After 25 years fixing guns, not much surprises me as to what some folks are capable of doing.

quote:

Originally posted by dpcd:
While they are not collectable, they are not unsafe;
Mr Craig, if you have an actual bad experience with one, I would like to hear it. Otherwise, what is your reason for the condemnation?
As I said, I have actually owned them and shot them.

I saw one let loose 5 or so years ago while rangemaster at the club I belong to. Shooter was experienced and was using milsurp ball ammo. Receiver cracked, blew the bottom metal and stock. Shooter was slightly injured. He bought the rifle at a gun show, seller knew nothing about it's history. The shooter had fired it "more than a few times" since he acquired it. Is that reason enough?

Did the barrel blow up too?

quote:

Originally posted by clowdis:
Did the barrel blow up too?

no

Good; that is the kind of data to make decisions. So the OP can make his decision on facts. That is reason enough to document one incident. Nothing else.

if the price is right, grab it. I wouldn't build it into a 300 RUM or anything silly, but modern moderate loads in a 3006 will kill any critter big enough to die

Interesting thread, I've had one of those recievers in my junk drawer for some thirty years. Paid all of $5 for it, bought it for the novelty, never planned to make a rifle out it.

A friend of mine has a 35 rem he built out of parts and pieces from one. Kind of cute with a light 20" octagon barrel. Unless he loads it with bullseye, I doubt it will cause him any worries.

Where their is smoke their is usually fire, My opine is who needs it...the same has been said about the Mauser 95 and 96, so have no use for either, and go with a 98 LR or small ring G33/40, who needs the doubtful rifles, not me.

quote:

Gentlemen: I want to hear opinions but not hysteria concerning the national ordnance 1903A3 Springfield.

They must have know something I did not know: I was at a gun show in Mesquite, Tx. when I noticed most dealers were not interested in a Remington 03-1942 rifle. I thought the rifle was magnificent and the owner did not understand why he could not sell his rifle for $150.00.

I asked one of the dealers if he had no interest in the rifle would it be OK if I made an offer. Again, the rifle was a Remington without the A3, the serial number aligned with 1942. I have no clue why the dealers thought it was a National Ordinance. If the receiver and barrel had not been blued the rifle would have been the perfect candidate for a rebuild.

I purchased the rifle for $150.00, that price included 2 new boxes of Remington 30/06 ammo.

I explained to the seller I had to go to the bank for money, he agreed, we threw our guns in to the P/u and headed for the bank; about the time I got aligned with drive through teller the man with the rifle jumped out of the P/U and left. I continued to the teller, got my money and then drove around to find the seller. He explained to me there seemed to be something wrong with driving up to a bank teller in a P/U full of guns, he said he wanted to stay but his feet would not let him.

I took the rifle to the rang with the Remington ammo, the rifle was one of the most accurate rifles I have that does not have a scope. No one would give the owner $100.00 for the rifle, I was concerned about drilling and tapping the receiver for a scope, but if the rifle value is less than $100.00, why not. I have an 03A4 barrel that is chambered to 308 Norma mag, I also have an Israeli heavy 308/7.62 cal machine gun barrel that is threaded for the 03/A3.

National Ordinance reputation: My rifle is stamped Santa Fe, Santa Fe does not make it a National Ordinance, I have three Mauser bolts with broken and or cracked lugs all from Santa Fe rifles.

F. Guffey

Golden State Arms made these rifles with the Santa Fe trademark. National Ordnance was a separate company; the history of Golden State, Fed Ord, National Ord, is convoluted and intertwined.
On a side note, Brophy mentions National Ordnance rifles in his book; he says that Golden State produced the Santa Fe model made in Yugoslavia, and later, National Ordnance started. He does not mention where those receivers were made.
He also mentions a Jan 1963 report from the HP While lab and an Oct 63 report from the BSA proof house; they tested three samples to destruction and found them to have no flaws or weaknesses.

Going off my shaky memory, but are these not the actions that Sedgley had heat treated and used for his very smooth 'Sedgley Springfields' He could buy them for less money because they were not regarded as desireable. Again, I could be all wrong.

Totally different animals. Sedgley used low number US 1903 receivers; the post war, commercial 03A3 clones used entirely new receivers, assembled with WW2 GI parts and barrels.