I know it gets done quite a big, but I have also heard that some of the earlier actions were weak and shouldn't be used for high pressure rounds. Is this true? Is there a way to check by serial number to see if an action would be capable of building a high pressure magnum off of? Thanks, Scott

if you do a search for springfield and serial numbers you'll find a zillion posts on the subject.....I'm not at all a fan of the Springfield so don't keep the numbers handy...

learn to like Mausers.....it's less controversial but not a lot!!

Springfield Armory serial numbers under 800,000, Rock Island Armory serial numbers under 285,507, are supposedly the ones to be careful of. Those numbers should be considered as “approximates.â€

I won’t even begin to get into the debate, but for what it is worth those are the approximate serial numbers for what are referred to as “low numbered 03’s.â€

As for custom rifles made from Springfield actions, feast your eyes on this:

https://forums.accuratereloading.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/...=745103094#745103094

416 ar .. on the left

Dago Red,
can you post photos of the rest of that masterpiece please?

I have seen that rifle for the past few years and this is the first time I noticed what Ed did to the bolt stop/mag cut-off. Very nice detail!

Marc, that was the thing that caught my attention. awesome. I have some pics here of one that I have being worked on but have to figure out where I am going to upload them to.

Vapo, I don't know if there are any other pics, I posted about Ed's work on another thread and somebody else linked this, I just stole the link.

Red

I think this is hands down one of the most beautiful rifles I have ever seen.

http://www.edlapourgunsmithing.com/

With this in mind, they chose to style it after the great pre-war Griffin & Howe rifles

I always have to wonder what folks were thinking of when they made the above statement about that rifle. The general workmanship of each craftsman is without fault except it falls far short of being a style akin to the great Griffin & Howe rifles. I am really surprised they left the cocking knob on it. I myself wish they would actually have tried to make a rifle that looked like the pre-war Griffin & Howe Springfields if they were going to make a statement like they did.

Something similair to this would have been more like a real Griffin & Howe for my money.

Not to take anything at all away from G&H rifles, but Ed LaPour’s is just as well executed (in my opinion) and an 03 Springfield without a cocking knob just isn’t an 03 Springfield(again in my opinion).

A beautiful rifle doesn’t always have to be a “copy†of someone else’s work or style in order to stand on its own as a work of art.

A beautiful rifle doesn’t always have to be a “copy†of someone else’s work or style in order to stand on its own as a work of art.

fyj

Agreed, but why say With this in mind, they chose to style it after the great pre-war Griffin & Howe rifles when it obviouly is not.

Like I said, the craftsmen who did the work are without fault, except the style is not what they suggested it would be. To me it's almost like saying a monte carlo stock is an "American classic" style.

I would far rather they would have simply said that the rifle was a modern classic rifle built on a 1903 Springfield action. At least then the description would have been correct.

If you’re referring to the presence of a cocking knob, I’m sure you’re aware that an awful lot of G&H 03 sporters retained the cocking knob.

Writers write, and builders build, so it is also very possible that the builders of the rifle felt just as you do and their views were just misinterpreted by the writer.

What appears obvious to some may be far less so to others, and I personally don’t see that rifle as being such an obvious departure from the overall style of the early gunmakers including G&H.

I read Ida's post 3 times and came to the conclusion that he was joking when he typed it. Maybe I was wrong? The rifle is definitely styled after the overwhelming majority of G&H Springfields. They did not say they were making an exact replica, but styling their rifle in a similar manner. And they did a very good job of it too.

I sort of always get a chuckle when someone builds what they call a “classic†rifle then top it off with a brand new Leupold variable scope and decelerator butt pad.

I guess it all just goes to prove that words mean different things to different people and beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

I think that "classic" may be interpreted different from one person to another. For instance, Gretchen Mol is in my opinion a "classic" beauty. It doesn't mean she is just like Monroe or Hayworth. Do all cars that you consider classic fall under the age requirements? (25yo+)

I thought the same thing when I first read that part,"wow, that looks WAY frickin' better than a griffin and howe." But we don't know what the smith saw, everybody sees things differently and what one person considers to be the signature of somebody we might disagree on. They might have thought the side mount was key. Whatever the situation I for one am glad that they made it better and not the same. I think that the customs built today are for the large part (of this caliber, not any plumbers throw together) are better than any other era of custom american rifles.

the cocking piece is also for me the one thing I would not like to loose on the 03'. I prefer to have the magazine cutoff boss retained but reshaped, but think this looks like an oiled celebrity too. just sizzlin' sexy. I would love to have one in the safe done this way.

(edited to add this) I watched a special one time when Chip Foose was doing a chevy for Chris Titus. The only thing that he took from the original car for inspiration was the hawk type hood ornament. he made an aircleaner shaped that way if I remember right. so externally it wasn't even there, but from his perspective he had carried it over.

Red

Very well said, Dago Red. Gee, that rhymes doesn’t it!

Most of us never take the time to ask for the writers/speakers definition of subjective terms (like classic) and just automatically inject our own definition into their statement. Many times when our definition doesn’t match up with what they said we automatically think the other person has a screw loose or something.

Communication is hard enough when everyone is on the same page with their definitions, but it gets down right impossible when everyone has their own and no one else knows what they are.

Take the oft used term “custom rifle†for example. To me a custom rifle is one built to the users specifications. It could be a fiberglassed stocked Remington 700, or a wooden stock completely worked over Mauser. What makes it custom, to me, is that it wasn’t a mass produced rifle with a thousand others exactly the same except for the serial number.

I’m with you though, I would mortgage my house to have that 03 Ed built.

quote:

I read Ida's post 3 times and came to the conclusion that he was joking when he typed it.

Marc

No, I wasn't joking. I don't see where you get that this rifle is definitely styled after the overwhelming majority of G&H Springfields. I don't think it is styled like any I have ever seen. I would be very intersted in what people who really know what Griffin & Howe rifles were like to voice their opinion. Two that quickley come to mind are Vigillinus and Michael Petrov who post on here. If they say that this rifle is definitely styled after the majority of G&H rifles I will admit to being mistaken.

I am lucky enough to own some G&H rifles and have looked at, for sure, hundreds. Idared is correct (except that many if not most G&H 1903s kept the cocking knob) that the Guild rifle is nothing like a G&H. But I gather it was intended as a "tribute" to the great prewar 1903 sporters - which would include, in addition to G&H, Bob Owen, Fred Adolph, Hoffman Arms, Tom Shelhamer and a few others. So the makers obviously exercised a lot of artistic license and except for the sidemount ended up with what is essentially a beautifully made and highly (IMO overly) decorated modern classic bolt action that just happens to use a 1903 action instead of a Mauser 98 or pre64. I didn't much care for it and didn't buy any of that year's Guild raffle tickets

For some reason I posted one of the only pictures I have of a G&H rifle without the cocking knob. Vigilinus is right of course, most all G&H rifles retained the cocking knob. I might add though, that Ed LaPour does make his three position safeties with cocking pieces either with or without the knob. I have three that do not have the cocking knob on them but look like the picture I posted. In my serious hunting Springfield rifles with three position safeties I don't mind at all if the knob is missing. If the rifle is an older speciman I certainly would not change either the safety or the cocking piece.

The reason I made the remark about the cocking knob to begin with was, because the cutoff that serves as the bolt stop was so heavily modified, I would not have been surprised if the knob from the cocking piece would have been modified also. This is especially so since Ed LaPour offers that style as an option on his three position safeties for Springfields.

Once again, I am not trying to find fault with the quality of this rifle. It is without a doubt very, very good. I just don't care for the style of it.

wasn't there an armory version of the '03 for target use that had a plain cocking piece?

quote:

Originally posted by Idared:

quote:

I read Ida's post 3 times and came to the conclusion that he was joking when he typed it.

Marc

No, I wasn't joking. I don't see where you get that this rifle is definitely styled after the overwhelming majority of G&H Springfields. I don't think it is styled like any I have ever seen. I would be very intersted in what people who really know what Griffin & Howe rifles were like to voice their opinion. Two that quickley come to mind are Vigillinus and Michael Petrov who post on here. If they say that this rifle is definitely styled after the majority of G&H rifles I will admit to being mistaken.

I see Vigillinus opinion of this rifle has mellowed with the passing of time. He and I both caught a lot of flack with the last go around on this rifle. If I remember correctly there was some letters to the guild as well. I will just say at this time it’s one of my least favorite 1903 custom sporters.

No need to admit to being mistaken on this one.

quote:

Once again, I am not trying to find fault with the quality of this rifle. It is without a doubt very, very good. I just don't care for the style of it.

Very well said and I agree 100%, no fault with the workmanship.

See, I saved these pics of the g&h because I don't as a rule like all of the few that I have seen pics of. (I am not fortunate enough to have seen any in person let alone handle them).

I wonder if ed was thinking the way I would, if loosing the mag cutoff you need the knob, if you remove the knob on a springfield you 99.9% of the time still have the mag cutoff. both make it immediately recognizable as a springfield.

I only have 3 or 4 springfields (the OR is because I have an action waiting for funds/inspiration) and wouldn't lose the cocking knob on any of them.

Red

Red

Perhaps the two biggest complaints about the 1903 Springfield action among custom rifle builders are the cut-off which serves as the bolt stop and the high rear receiver ring because of the safety lug on the bolt. To me these plus the knob on the cocking piece help define what a 1903 Springfield looks like and separate them from a Mauser or Model 70. I don't think it was an accident that these two things were heavily modified on the guild rifle. These modifications killed any desire I would have had for this rifle because to me it was no longer a Springfield even if it had a knob on the cocking piece.

I do realize not everyone thinks as I do, which is quite all right with me. It does bother me though when the guild rifle is compared to a pre-war G&H sporter.

Here’s part of what the Guild brochure states about this rifle:

ACGG #18
CELEBRATING1903 SPRINGFIELD
The American Custom Gunmakers Guild’s
Firearm #18, a 1903 Springfield in .35
Whelen, was designed to commemorate the
100th anniversary of this American
favorite. The craftsmen created a sporting
version to pay tribute not only to the
Springfield, but to the gunmakers who made
it a classic sporter of choice serving both
soldiers and sportsmen and the basis for
one-of-a-kind custom rifles.

22 Vista View Dr
Cody, WY 82414-9606
(307) 587-4297 (phone/fax)
www.acgg.org

I notice in Mr. Petrov’s fine book that about all he mentions as distinguishing characteristics of G&H’s, in the section entitled “Identifying a Griffin & Howeâ€, is the company name on the floorplate and checkering on the trigger, safety and a portion of the floor plate, along with some blocks of serial numbers known to have been used.

I have the strangest feeling that had Ed built a perfect duplicate of a G&H some people would be complaining that the rifle was nothing but a copy and not worthy of being called a true custom built rifle.

As far as Ed’s being “overly done†I once saw a picture of a G&H that appeared to have engraving on every part of the exposed steel from buttplate to front sight band. From what I have read and been told the customer ordered the engraving and G&H would put on as much or as little as the customer was willing to pay for. Same for checkering and carving on the stocks. Some are pretty plain others are quite ornate.

idared,

Until you pointed out the high bridge I didn't pay attention to it, I was so focused on the cutoff.

I like what was done with the bridge, again this is just personal opinion, but to me it was unnecessary if going with the side mount. The one that is being built for my stepfather has an integral rear base, allows the scope to be mounted lower.

still, i love this one. the thing I like least about it is the rear sight island.

Scott, sorry man, we've totally hi-jacked your thread.

You have the serial numbers above. With that in hand yes you can build a rifle using a springfield in any of the modern magnum chamberings of standard length. 458win mag. probably being the upper limit. I have one in 308 Norma Mag.

Red

Scott

I also want to apologize for hijacking your thread. I should know better than to get into a discussion about the older gunmakers who used Springfield actions because I realize that not everyone has a passion for them like I do.

By now I assume you know what actions were considered low numbers and what ones are double heat treated steel and what ones are nickel steel. Also what ones are 1903s and what ones are 1903A3s. I myself prefer using double heat treated 1903 actions although I do have some made from nickel steel also.

Here is a picture of a couple of rifles made from Springfield actions to give somewhat of an idea what can be done with them. The top one, a 338 Win Mag, is a DHT 1903 and the bottom one, a 7X57, is a Smith Corona 1903A3. Both have 3 position safeties made by LaPour which are very good. As these are strictly hunting rifles I chose to have a cocking piece without the knob.

Red

For my part I too, would rather leave the rear bridge untouched unless a scope mount was added. Also I prefer a receiver sight such as the Lyman 48 in conjunction with a G&H sidemount. Personal preference I assure you.

Here are a couple pics of one of my intregal scope mounts on a 1903. This one was done for Kimber rings. They allow very low scope mounting.

Sorry, more hijacking, but how are those mounts attached? I don't see any screws.

If you have an interest in and would like to learn more about pre-war American custom sporting rifles I suggest that you attended the January Las Vegas gunshow.

A display of these rifles featuring most of the well known, few lesser and even some unknown will be there. Some of the best examples by the top makers and engravers will be on display.

fyj, you are right that some G&H rifles were simply slathered all over with engraving ... too much of it, perhaps. Others can be found with inlaid gold initials and gold game scenes. But I haver never seen an American prewar rifle with the kind of silver and gold floral and vine inlay on the Guild Rifle. It is quite unusual, I have seen something similar on the occasional superdeluxe Ferlach rifle or on over the top English double shotguns. Certainly it has nothing to do with traditional American gun decoration.

quote:

Originally posted by vigillinus:
fyj, you are right that some G&H rifles were simply slathered all over with engraving ... too much of it, perhaps. Others can be found with inlaid gold initials and gold game scenes. But I haver never seen an American prewar rifle with the kind of silver and gold floral and vine inlay on the Guild Rifle. It is quite unusual, I have seen something similar on the occasional superdeluxe Ferlach rifle or on over the top English double shotguns. Certainly it has nothing to do with traditional American gun decoration.

You may be right about the engraving and inlays, not my area of expertise or interest at all.

I’ve done a bit of business with Ed Lapour and have talked with him on the phone a few times and he really doesn’t impress me as the kind of guy that would try to promote something he built as something it was not.

I could be wrong, but I would bet that the comment comparing it to a G&H was probably something that he had nothing to do with.

I believe, as the Guild brochure clearly states, that the rifle was built as a tribute to Springfield 1903’s on their 100th anniversary and to the men who made them famous using them as the basis for custom rifles.