An .03-A3 followed me home!

waco

waco

Springfield, Oregon
Swung into the LGS on the way home from visiting my mom today. This rifle was on consignment and just hit the rack a few hours ago. It’s sporterized a bit but I’m stoked to have grabbed it. I need to clean it but the bore looks good and it has a Lyman receiver sight. $450. Might have over paid a bit but it’s a good looking rifle and I’ve wanted one for sometime now.
 

Attachments

  • 1D8201C7-273A-4B15-B7BD-5322D2C59432.jpeg
    1D8201C7-273A-4B15-B7BD-5322D2C59432.jpeg
    901.7 KB · Views: 73
Last edited:
Matt

Matt

Active Member
Very nice! I can’t pass on 03s or Krags. They need to be preserved and passed on. That long slide Lyman 48 makes it a bargain! Very classy conversion too. Love the 1950s military conversions. Need a shooting report.
 
Ian

Ian

Notorious member
I got to shoot a similar one from a similar period last summer that was used extensively in NRA competition after WWII. Throat is looooong but it still slings cast bullets well.
 
Glaciers

Glaciers

Alaska Land of the Midnight Sun
Looks like a good buy to me. I sure wouldn't pass it up especially with the Lyman.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ian
RicinYakima

RicinYakima

High Steppes of Eastern Washington
waco said:
The Aperture is a fine target one. And this is fine by me. It’s going to be a dedicated cast rifle.
Click to expand...
That bullet may be a little short, so consider something in the 210 grain range. But you won't know till you shoot it.
 
Missionary

Missionary

Well-Known Member
We shoot our 500,xxx with the RCBS 180 FNGC at 2100-2150 fps alot. Yes we know how it "will one day blow up" killing hundreds of bystanders. But it was rebarreled in 1944 so if it was all that brittle it would have shattered when Joe Gorilla drop the mallet on the receiver wrench.
 
Joshua

Joshua

Taco Aficionado/Salish Sea Pirate/Part-Time Dragon
That’s a mighty fine and distinguished rifle you got there.

With that low number, reasonable cast loads seem like they would be the prudent idea.

The CMP has a very definite opinion on the subject.
thecmp.org

M1903/M1903A3 Rifle Information - Civilian Marksmanship Program

The U.S. M1903 and M1903A3 “Springfield” rifles military issue bolt action rifles, used during World War I, World War II, and the Korean War.
thecmp.org thecmp.org
 
Last edited:
J

JustJim

Well-Known Member
Not an 03A3 with that number. And we all know the cautions about low-numbered Springfields.

That said, my first 03 was a low-number. It was purchased between the wars by a WWI vet who shot out the first barrel and re-barreled it in the '50s. I got it around 1979(?), shot it, re-barreled it 2x more. Even shot it for a while as an Ackley before the final re-barrel to 250 Savage IIRC.

Not sure I'd do that today, or even use one as a dedicated CB rifle. . . on the other hand, my current Springfield is a MkI that I'm gradually setting up as a target rifle. I like the old ones, but still think the "perfect"rifle would be a 98 Mauser action with 03A3 rear sight.
 
Joshua

Joshua

Taco Aficionado/Salish Sea Pirate/Part-Time Dragon
It’s most likely seen many full power loads that averaged close to 50,000cup.

The Lyman manual shows the 311290, over 30gr of IMR3031, at 1700fps, and 17,100cup. Or 11.5gr of Unique, for 1345fps, at 25,800cup.

Proof loads are 25% over max pressure for the firearm.

With that in mind if it was my gun I would stay 25% below those 50,000cup full power loads. Most cast loads will stay well below that.

I used CUP because that’s what the Lyman 3rd edition has for published cast load pressure.
 
Matt

Matt

Active Member
WACO I’d be more interested pressure than velocity. 40,000 psi (cup) or less would be my limit. Lymans cast manual is a great guide and resource. I’d shoot the rifle at that pressure level or lower and never look back. This is coming from a guy who had a low numbered Springfield barreled to 308 Norma Magnum and shot it several hundred times with full power loads. I then learned it was a low numbered and I was risking lives. I obtained a high numbered action and screwed the barrel into it. A friend still has the rifle but doesn’t shoot it much. I’m ashamed to say I cut the low numbered action in half to save someone’s life. Still using the bolt in another ‘03 though…………….
 
J

JustJim

Well-Known Member
waco said:
So will this be safe to shoot with Cast Bullets at 1800 ft./s or lower?
Click to expand...
I don't know if anyone can give a definitive answer on that. Most of the "authorities" on the subject would say it shouldn't be shot at all. You might take a look at this thread for various opinions on it, as well as reports of past problems with CB loads: http://www.jouster2.com/forums/showthread.php?53939-What-to-fire-in-a-LN-receiver&highlight=blowup

Michael Petrov had a number of LN Springfields and shot at least some of them will full-power loads. After he passed away, one blew up in the hands of the purchaser while using a CB load. https://www.doublegunshop.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=446091#Post446091

Ultimately, it is your call. Rather than make a decision one way or another, I no longer own LN Springfields. That way I don't have to wonder if I should not shoot it.
 
P

Petrol & Powder

Well-Known Member
The danger attached to shooting low number Springfield 03's is well known and real. However, it also seems to be a bit exaggerated in terms of the number of rifles affected. Yes, some rifles failed, and the cause of those failures is known. The overall percentage of bad rifles to good rifles is overwhelmingly in favor of there being far more good rifles than bad ones. Because the stakes are high (potential maiming or death) it’s not a decision anyone can make for you.

Now, in the “for what it’s worth” category; there may be some comfort in the amount of time that has elapsed. Receivers that were going to fail have likely already failed. That is by NO means an absolute and the risk will never be zero but the odds do trend better with the passage of time.


All of that aside. The receiver sight on the OP’s rifle adds some real value. It appears the work to sporterize that rifle was well done; in fact it looks very good. It will be the owners decision on how he proceeds but overall, I would say that’s not a bad deal.
 
Glaciers

Glaciers

Alaska Land of the Midnight Sun
About 10 years ago I did a fair amount of research into early numbered Springfields. P&P I believe has it right, a bit exaggerated. There were lots of writing by arm chair opinion writers. Most had heard that these guns were unsafe and would shatter if dropped on concrete. What I found got narrowed down to I believe a total of 3 explosive failures in some ordnance department. There were other failures but not as serious.
Some of the early numbers were reheat treated by a fair amount of after market small gun remanufacturers like R. F. Sedgley who in the 20's and 30's produced a fair amount of O3 A3 sporterized rifles. I was doing the research because I wanted to buy a Sedgley that was being offered to me. I did purchase this beautiful rifle, obviously I reached a comfort level with my research. The rifle has pristine bore which was perfect, as with Walter, this is a dedicated cast shooter.
I can't remember if it was RicinYakima or Rick that pointed out that some of the reheat treated actions might be over done, or "soft". So that hopefully your rifle and mine are somewhere in the middle.
Now as P&P points out in the for what it's worth department, that time is a factor here. My rifle has been shot a fair amount it would appear, but very well taken care of. I find it hard to believe that every owner of my rifle shot low power cast loads from the beginning. There might have been a box or dozens of boxes of factory fodder run through from time to time.
So as Matt says keeping it under 40K should be fine.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.