What is the difference between a Springfield 03 and an 03a3?

What is the serial # cutoff for the problem actions?

What is a price range for a heavily sporterized (not bubbarized) gun?

Any issues anyone can point out for a custom build on an 03 are appreciated.

thanks

I own many M1903s and four M1903A3s. I collect and restore them.

Given the collector value of these U.S. military rifles, unmolested rifles will have a greater value than ANY sporterized model. Collector value starts around $700 for a rifle in poor condition and goes up from there. I would not buy a sporterized version and if you can get $500 for one, you should count yourself lucky.

Please do not sporterize any U.S. military firearm. It doesn't make any sense financially and you are destroying a piece of American history. There are plenty of folks willing to buy original U.S. military firearms.

I picked up a sporterized 03 for $200 out the door, Action is extremely smooth, and might do somethign with it.

Have a line on another for about the same price. This one seems to have some sort of elevator sight in front of the action. Is that anything special?

excellent firearms .. can use, with a bit of engineering, nearly any mauser 98 bottom metal ..

i prefer 1903a3 actions, and 1903 bottom metals.

i frequently find and/or see sporters for 250 and under ... i've bought the actions for under 100 ... but prices are rising.

anything based off the 30-06 case is a piece of cake to get to feed .. i've seen 48 lott on one... done 416AR down to 308, and should have just did one in 7x64 and been done with it.

And now for the counter arguments:

Most of the changes made from the Mauser design were made either to avoid the Mauser patents or because of Springfield Armory's "not invented here" mentality. The two piece firing pin and long lock time are particularly bad. If you look at the number of machining cuts made, they must have cost two or three times as much as a Mauser to make, for no good reason. Many people are not particularly fond of the breeching design either, although it was copied for the Winchester Model 70 later. As already mentioned, stay away from the early (low number) ones because of heat treating issues.

None of that really matters in a hunting rifle. They are safe enough for .30-06 or equivalent rounds if in good condition. I have several and have fired thousands of rounds through them. If I were building something like a magnum, I would either choose an Enfield or a more modern design.

While the enfield is bigger I don't think it is necessarily stronger, is there anything that supports that? The springfields, above the mentioned serial numbers, do not have issues with softness like some mausers. (FYI, the ones below those numbers have the opposite issue from mausers, too hard/brittle, and it can't be corrected).

I agree the design is inferior, since the mauser is closest to perfect (for it's job) but they are still cool. They can cost more to sporterize because there isn't as much aftermarket for them, but everybody should have one. (of course we should all have a pre-64 mod 70 too and I don't).

sporters can be had for great deals as you've found out. I am of a different opinion from the person that wants them all original, I think there are plenty of them in museums like that. If I had one all original I'd trade it for two sporters in a heartbeat. I have no use for ugly old military rifles What we really need is a resurgence in the popularity of springfield sporters. And more in bigger sizes. how about some of the new ruger cartridges?

If enough guys start using springfields we might be able to get some good aftermarket parts, hinged bottom metal for instance. If you can get a second one too then you could easily do a pair in 308 norma and 358 norma, that was a very classic springfield conversion. or do a 338-06 and 416 taylor (or Ruger as the case may be). that would be a sweet combo.

Red

I like Springfields, especially the classic-styled sporters. Sure, there are issues like scope mounting (often too high) and lack of suitable aftermarket parts, but these issues can be overcome by a little planning and some elbow grease.

Bottom metal? Smith the original.

Low scope mounting? Several choices here.

The strength of a high-number Springfield is unquestioned; Ackley's actual blowup tests indicate that it's far stronger than the average Mauser, especially if the Mauser has been weakened by removing any steel.

Springfield gas handling is poor at best and this IMO is the single biggest downside to the action. Lock time is easily shortened to Mauser specs and the multiple-piece striker assembly can readily be strengthened and made far more rigid, but the gas handlng needs attention if you're unsure of your handloads.

Braggin' rights? Hard to beat the favorite rifle action of Seymour Griffin, James Howe and Townsend Whelen!
Regards, Joe

quote:

Please do not sporterize any U.S. military firearm. It doesn't make any sense financially and you are destroying a piece of American history.

Actually there is probably as much or nearly as much history in using Springfield actions for custom rifles as using them for battle.

I myself actually prefer them to a mauser for several reasons. In fact, a well assembled custom rifle from a Springfield resembles a model 70 so much it is scary.

Couple million produced, lots of good untouched examples still left out there and lots of bubba sporters too. I like the older G&H/Owen/Shelhamer style and am building 2 right now.

Regards, Joe

Asking "Why a Springfield?" is like asking "Why a Harley?" If you have to ask you just wouldn't understand.

Nice rifle Joe.

Jerry Liles

When I first got involved in rifle building back in the '50's, the customized Springfield was the object of my dreams. Every once in a while I might get to see and handle a Sedgley sporter or even a Griffin & Howe.

I eventually ended up with a rack full of Springfields sporters, including a Louis Wundhammer, a Niedner, two Sedgleys and four G&H's (in .22 lr, .30-'06 and .35 Whelen), plus three built especially for me and stocked by North Carolina stockmaker Hal Hartley, in calibers 7mm Remington Magnum, .375-.338 (.375 Chatfield Taylor) and .458 Winchester Magnum.

However, if I had it to do over, I would have built the same rifles on pre-64 Model 70
Winchester actions and saved myself the trouble of altering the bolt, D&T for receiver sights and scope mount bases and altering the safety.

The Springfield's deviation from the Mauser prototype was generally to its disadvantage, but there are some exceptions. The cone breech allows the Springfield action to do one thing the original Mauser is incapable of, which is to chamber a round dropped into the breech, as opposed to feeding from the magazine. The original Mauser extractor will not ride over the cartridge case head and engage the rim of a cartridge, and trying to make it do this may result in a cartridge in the chamber with no way of removing it besides a cleaning rod.

The Mauser was designed to be clip loaded and fed from the magazine, while the Springfield was to be fired single shot, with the magazine in reserve, which is the reason for the magazine cut-off.

The Mauser also has a deep cut on the left side of the receiver, which has the disadvantage of making the action less stiff, but the advantage of serving as a vent for powder gases in the event of a cartridge case failure, as well as making clip loading easier.

As a match rifle, the Springfield military rifle was head and shoulders above the competition, especially if fitted with commercial sights like the Lyman Model 48. I started my long career in high power competition with a Rock Island Springfield action, rebarrelled with a medium heavy barrel, with a marksman stock and Lyman 48 rear and Redfield front sights.

Inferior design? Hogwash.
Superior design? No, not really

If the Mauser 98 where the end all be all of perfection, then we wouldn't have to spend hundreds, if not thousands, to dress them up to be model 70s.

The question here isn't which is better, 1903 v 1898. The question is, is the Springfield suitable for customization. Which, of course it is. One need merely to ask griffin and howe, hh, sedgley, and thousands of others


As for the gentleman feeling the 1903 is only suitable for 3006, I shall remind him that the 06 is both longer and more powerful than the 8x57, and volumes can be taken from there

Norma certainly thought the Springfield was suitable for a big case magnum

If ones doesn't like the 2 piece firing pin, change it. Long lock time? In relevancy, comparing to a Mauser and a Remington, the two war horses are nearly identical.

I built my first sported, or the first sported I built myself, was a Springfield to 358 Winchester. Other than being harder than woodpecker lips, it was just as easy as making a Mauser.

No one is slighting the Mauser, so don't pretend to be challenged by the Springfield.

Darn, I was going to try to trade this for one of them unmolested Army rifles but looks like it was ruined.

yep, that ones ruined & you'd be hard pressed to get $500 for it but since i'm in a generous mood i'll give you $500 for it.

I disagree, I think other than the god-awful stock it's awesome. I'd snatch that bad boy up, send it off for a new stock, and be happy as a pig in slop.

You always have awesome pictures Michael.


Red

Looks more like a rifle when it's screwed together.