sights. 1903 vs. 1903A3

waco

Springfield, Oregon
Can you guys that own them tell we your likes and dislikes about each one please?
It is a rifle I have wanted for sometime. I don't know a lot about them. I just thought it would be nice to have a classic in '06 with iron sights.

Also. Any tips on what to look for and not get burned on a bum rifle would be nice.
Thank you.
Waco
 

fiver

Well-Known Member
Dan would be the one to talk to.
be prepared to spend about 700$ for a nice one.
 

Ben

Moderator
Staff member
Yes , Dan is " The Man " .
My friend Jason visits here some.
He is also very knowledgeable about 1903 rifles.

Ben
 
Last edited:

RicinYakima

High Steppes of Eastern Washington
Not Dan, but here are some thoughts: '03 has battle sight adjusted for 547 yards to hit a standing man between the shoulders and knees out to 650 yards with 150 grain ammo. Putting the leaf up gives you a peep and a "U" notch blade. Both are adjustable up to about 2500 yards, but not repeatable, you have to read a scale. Windage is adjustable in 1 MOA if you can read that small on the scale. These were made for 18 year olds with 20/20 vision. The 03A3 has peep sight adjusted in 100 yards increments to 600 yards with M2ball ammo. Windage is 2 MOA. Very much like M1 Garand sights. HTH, Ric
 

JSH

Active Member
I myself just can't seem to get an apature style sight to work for me. I can hold elevation but windage is a mess. I have tried and tried and a lot of good shooters have tried to help me.
Thus I don't own an 03A3, just a few 03's.

Cast bullets and my 03 have spent a lot of range time together.

I am warning you, those milsurps will multiply like rabbits if your not careful.
The K31 can be a chore to load cast for, but well worth it.
The Finnish Nagants are ugly, they should not shoot as good as the do.
The Argentine is one of the most graceful battle rifles out there to me. Another good shooter.
8mm Mauser, there are good ones out there,i just have not found one yet.
The Swedes. What broke me of saying I would never cast for anything smaller than a 30 caliber. A big learning curve, a couple of years to figure out what it likes. Scary at 100 in the right hands.
The Krags. If the bore is rough and not much rifling, it will probably shoot anyway.

Best shooter, K31.
Easiest to work with, the Finnish Nagant.
Best of both worlds, I would have to say the 03 or 03A3. I myself prefer a Remington.
All of mine are box stock as issued no whistles and bells. Some of the matches I have shot in became an equipment race. I bowed out as that is not what I had in mind for a military match.

90% of my loads came from a Lyman book. FYI their accuracy loads are pretty darn good in my findings. That is once you get case sizing figured, bullet depth and size.

I learned a lot fooling with them. Along with having a LOT of fun chasing down the background on them.
Jeff
 

waco

Springfield, Oregon
I myself just can't seem to get an apature style sight to work for me. I can hold elevation but windage is a mess. I have tried and tried and a lot of good shooters have tried to help me.
Thus I don't own an 03A3, just a few 03's.

Cast bullets and my 03 have spent a lot of range time together.

I am warning you, those milsurps will multiply like rabbits if your not careful.
The K31 can be a chore to load cast for, but well worth it.
The Finnish Nagants are ugly, they should not shoot as good as the do.
The Argentine is one of the most graceful battle rifles out there to me. Another good shooter.
8mm Mauser, there are good ones out there,i just have not found one yet.
The Swedes. What broke me of saying I would never cast for anything smaller than a 30 caliber. A big learning curve, a couple of years to figure out what it likes. Scary at 100 in the right hands.
The Krags. If the bore is rough and not much rifling, it will probably shoot anyway.

Best shooter, K31.
Easiest to work with, the Finnish Nagant.
Best of both worlds, I would have to say the 03 or 03A3. I myself prefer a Remington.
All of mine are box stock as issued no whistles and bells. Some of the matches I have shot in became an equipment race. I bowed out as that is not what I had in mind for a military match.

90% of my loads came from a Lyman book. FYI their accuracy loads are pretty darn good in my findings. That is once you get case sizing figured, bullet depth and size.

I learned a lot fooling with them. Along with having a LOT of fun chasing down the background on them.
Jeff
This is great info Jeff. many thanks.
 

Pistolero

Well-Known Member
Other than the cosmetic issues of the sheet steel lower metal and barrel bands,
the sights are the difference.
The '03 has a standard-for-the-era "middle sight" which, a bit different than later
Mausers, pops straight up, the slider running up and down. There is a peep hole in
the slider, and a notch on the top, plus the notch which is 90 deg to that, for use
when the sight is folded down (battle sight). The peep works well, but is a bit odd,
being so far forward.
The 03A3 has a ear-protected peep at the rear action ring, the 'right place" IMO.
It is readily click adjustable for windage, very nice. It has no zeroing capability for
elevation, you file or replace front sights to get elevation zero. The peep portion
slides on a short (~1") ramp with a click-in-position location for each 100 yds, from
100 out to 800, IIRC. Nice, tough little sight, excellent sight picture, fast and positive
for ranging, once zeroed for std M2 ball ammo.

IMO, for a target shooter, they are about roughly equal, although with an add-on
external micrometer adjuster, the '03 rear can be finely adjusted for target work
in elevation, less precisely controlled in windage, although readily adjustable. '03A3
has no fine elevation adj, but great windage adj. Better peep view and quicker, too.
To hunt, '03A3 is far better. For a battle rifle, the '03A3 is a definite improvement.

Bill
 

Jadcock

New Member
Just buy one... they are both great. My choice is the original 1903 as it just looks and feels better. The only peeps I like are Lyman 48s mounted on two of my 03's. With my regular 1903s, the folded down battle sight is sighted perfect with my pet load of 17.5 of 2400 that Ben showed me. I didn't have to change front blades, but you can get front blades cheap and fine tune to any load of choice.
Jason.
 

Jadcock

New Member
I might. I have a '44 Winchester, with flat bolt, push button safety, and manufactured before bayonet lugs. What have you got? Feel free to email me at jadcock1951@hotmail.com. I have photos, but when I try to attach them it says the file size is too big for this server. I can send to an email address.
Jason.
 

quicksylver

Well-Known Member
WELL...there you go...all go info and suggestions...

All I can add is ...most people (when they get older)..have a hard time seeing the front sight on either model ..the 03 or o3a3
fortunately there is an easy solution that doesn't ruin the gun or ruin your day trying to replace a front blade....it's the use of a Lyman 17 front sight..the only problem with those is that they are becoming hard to find and are getting expensive..but are still worth the price...

The rear sight on the 03a3 is more functional in that 1.you can actually see through it and 2. it gives you another 7" +/- of sight radius..down side the adjustments are crude to say the least and it's not adaptable to the use of various apertures...BUT the Remingtons do come with a 2 groove barrel and for shooting cast bullets I prefer them...one with a "C" stock and a 17 front sight would be a real shooter..

http://www.gunbroker.com/item/677722762
 

Pistolero

Well-Known Member
I'll look at my trading stock of 03s. I bought a few extra for just this reason when CMP had them. I have
several that I cleaned off most of the cosmoline, but never have fully cleaned and fired. I'd
probably trade for that Carbine, but I need to get more specific. You more interested in 03 or 03A3?
I forget exactly what I have, partially cleaned them and put them away years ago. It will
be pretty much like I got it from CMP. Seems like I have a Rem early WW2 03, before they went
to A3 specs, so Rem built 1941 thru 43 with 03 sight, prob has stamped bands and lower metal.
That's from memory, though.

Bill
 
Last edited:

Jadcock

New Member
It am looking for a rock island rifle circa 1917-1918. With original stock and barrel. With that said, the early Remington's were made on RIA tooling, so they are for all practical purposes, the same. If it was made from the early tooling it should have milled bottom metal and bands. Not interested in an '03A3. I had an early Remington A3 a few years ago, but it just doesn't look right. If you can shoot me an email, I could send pictures of my carbine and I would like to see that '03.
Thanks,
Jason.
 

Ben

Moderator
Staff member
Jason / Bill :

A suggestion ........Since this is a possible buy and or trade between the 2 of you, further discussions might be best made via PM here on the forum between the 2 of you.

Details, photos, etc. can easily be exchanged between the two of you there.

Ben
 

Bret4207

At the casting bench in the sky. RIP Bret.
FWIW, I own an '03, I've used an '03-A3 quite a bit. Cosmetics aside (the '03 is prettier), the '03-A3 is heads and tails above the '03 in sighting equipment as far as I'm concerned. If I could only have 1, I'd seek out an A3.
 

300BLK

Well-Known Member
Can you guys that own them tell we your likes and dislikes about each one please?
It is a rifle I have wanted for sometime. I don't know a lot about them. I just thought it would be nice to have a classic in '06 with iron sights.

Also. Any tips on what to look for and not get burned on a bum rifle would be nice.
Thank you.
Waco

I suppose it depends upon whether you want a military rifle or just a good shooter. I prefer '03s because of the milled parts, but other than the bottom metal, those parts aren't used on sporters. In that military configuration '03s are getting ridiculous price wise, and I'm a shooter rather than collector, I gravitate towards those that have cut stocks or modestly "sporterized". I've purchased several with receiver sights already in place (Lyman 48s and 57), so that saved me from spending $ for a sight and having it D&T.

What I really look for is a barreled action that hasn't been D&T for scope, has an excellent bore, and milled bottom metal. From there I look at the stock, buttplate, barrel band(s), etc. For shooting irons there is no need for a bent bolt or low scope safety. If it has an ugly sporter stock, or cut military stock, that can be changed. A high stock comb can be cut down. I have several ranging from an NRA Sporter clone to an early iron sight sporter. 2 are in modified(cut) military stocks with milled, coarse checkered buttplates, 1922M2 lower bands, and receiver sights.

Unless you're planning on shooting low pressure cast loads exclusively, you might want to avoid the "low number" Springfields and RIA. They were single heat treat receivers and bolts and there continues to be debate whether they should be shot or not.