An .03-A3 followed me home!

[RicinYakima]

Okay. Good or bad? The bore is in very nice shape.

It is a long and complex story! From about 1921, when the Mark 1 rifles were finished, they were as good or better than anything commercially made. You must remember that Springfield was a "make work" project until about 1940. While Winchester and Pope made some match rifle barrels when the US was winning every rifle match in the world in the 1920's, most of the barrels were SA. The best were called "star gauge", or the biggest variance was 0.0005", 5 ten thousandths of an inch, the entire length of the barrel. Even their barrels for issue rifle, 90+% would make the star gauge factor. (I won three national matches with standard 1919-1937 barrels.)

The Hatcher hole is a good idea. It should be exactly opposite to the gas relief hole. But remember, the action is casehardened both inside and out and you will need carbide tooling. If the case head fails, it will vent gas out the side rather than back along the bolt. (One of the reason for the knob on the back of the striker, to divert gas away from the soldier's face.)

Barrel quality did not go down until late 1942, when the US found out they could make enough M1 Garand's for all the first line infantry. '03's became the rifle for MP's, Engineers and Artillery until enough M1 carbines became available. Even then, the High Standard broached rifled barrels and Remington cut rifle barrels were of good quality. I have heard the SA would take not perfect M1 Garand barrel blanks and remake them into replacement barrels for USMC. Sedley took thousands of 2nd rate barrel blanks and made barrels for the USMC Springfields.

HTH, Ric

 

[Fiddler]

Just wondering, would those rifles have 'blown up' if the barrel had been set back to remove the cone (unsupported case head)?

 

[Petrol & Powder]

Just wondering, would those rifles have 'blown up' if the barrel had been set back to remove the cone (unsupported case head)?

Probably would not be a factor.
There are two issues at play. The failure of casings due to poor quality cases coupled with a small unsupported section of case.
AND
The the existence of a FEW brittle receievers.

With adequate casings the first problem is almost completely eliminated.

The second problem of brittle receivers has no solution. However, when you look at the numbers, the failure rate is very low.

 

[Bret4207]

It is a long and complex story! From about 1921, when the Mark 1 rifles were finished, they were as good or better than anything commercially made. You must remember that Springfield was a "make work" project until about 1940. While Winchester and Pope made some match rifle barrels when the US was winning every rifle match in the world in the 1920's, most of the barrels were SA. The best were called "star gauge", or the biggest variance was 0.0005", 5 ten thousandths of an inch, the entire length of the barrel. Even their barrels for issue rifle, 90+% would make the star gauge factor. (I won three national matches with standard 1919-1937 barrels.)

The Hatcher hole is a good idea. It should be exactly opposite to the gas relief hole. But remember, the action is casehardened both inside and out and you will need carbide tooling. If the case head fails, it will vent gas out the side rather than back along the bolt. (One of the reason for the knob on the back of the striker, to divert gas away from the soldier's face.)

Barrel quality did not go down until late 1942, when the US found out they could make enough M1 Garand's for all the first line infantry. '03's became the rifle for MP's, Engineers and Artillery until enough M1 carbines became available. Even then, the High Standard broached rifled barrels and Remington cut rifle barrels were of good quality. I have heard the SA would take not perfect M1 Garand barrel blanks and remake them into replacement barrels for USMC. Sedley took thousands of 2nd rate barrel blanks and made barrels for the USMC Springfields.

HTH, Ric

I'd love to see the reference material on that. When I got my '03 "Bob S" on the other site, who I never saw lead anyone wrong, made several statements indicating this barrel was just fine.

 

[RicinYakima]

Segley's barrels for the USMC are well documented in both Brophy's "The Springfield Rifles" and Campbell's "The '03 Era". The barrels mostly came from Winchester as he and Pugsley, Winchester's CEO, were friends. The USMC never bought any 03A3's, but went from '03's to M1 Garands. SA made all the USMC replacement barrels for their '03's, that were mostly low numbers, after 1942. These barrels all used recycled fixed rear and front sight bases.

"Just fine" in war time production, was not the same as "standard" in the 1920's and 30's. It was the same way .30 caliber ball cartridges were classed into four sections.

Bob S is a very reliable fellow I have corresponded with since the beginning of the internet and my active 03 collecting days.

 

[MW65]

So what molds do you guys like in your 03’s?

I love rcbs 30-180 fn @ .311 for my Rem 03 and my Typewriter 03a3. No g/c for light bullseye loads, and either 2400 or Rel7 for medium speed. Trying out some garand loads with 314299 sized at 311 & 4895... may give it a whirl in the boys

 

[Charles Graff]

Springfield 03 memory: In 1961, I bought a good Springfield 03 from a widow lady. It has a 1919 double heat treated receiver and a 1932 SA barrel. I put a Lyman long slide 48 on it and shot it many times over many years.

About 1963 I came into about a hundred rounds of boxed vintage Remington Palma Match ammo. I was shooting this stuff, in the 03 when one round didn't feel and sound right. I looked down at the rifle and whisps of smoke were curling out of the action. It was then I noticed the striker was a full cock. I ejected the case and it ruptured half way around. The bullet stuck the target but was WAY out of group.

Among other things, the gas had come back through the firing pin hole and blown the striker back to full cock. No damage was done to me or the rifle, but it did get my attention.

 

[Glaciers]

It sounds like the quantity of veritable components that could fail leading to a failure are many and varied. Charles puts a big big possibility on the table. Quality of ammo back around WW1, age, proof loads, no Hatcher hole, and others could be a lot of the hipe behind the reputation for failure. Add to that a few bad actions, barrels, and chambers and you might have a diagnosis not unlike throwing darts at a dart board. You might know the result, but, how did you get there.
As long as a person doesn't mistakenly double charge the powder and sticks in the sensible cast loads range, that have been talked about here, I don't think anyone would have a problem.

 

[quicksylver]

OK you got a low number springfield, with what appears to be an original bolt, not the best senerio, the later (safer) bolts had the handle set at an angle towards the rear, the stock is a reworked issued inspector stamped "C"stock, the Lyaman sight is a later mid range slide, the original long slides were marked to 160 yds and had a knurled adjustment knob shoot, only at your peril , sorry, the sight is woth about $225, the milled triger guard assembly will bring about $100.00 if I had seen it I would have drooled then sighed when I had to leave it behind,even though it would be a super cast bullet shooter, if the stock had been left alone it in itself would bring what you payed for the gun, Dan Springfield collector

 

[Bret4207]

Segley's barrels for the USMC are well documented in both Brophy's "The Springfield Rifles" and Campbell's "The '03 Era". The barrels mostly came from Winchester as he and Pugsley, Winchester's CEO, were friends. The USMC never bought any 03A3's, but went from '03's to M1 Garands. SA made all the USMC replacement barrels for their '03's, that were mostly low numbers, after 1942. These barrels all used recycled fixed rear and front sight bases.

"Just fine" in war time production, was not the same as "standard" in the 1920's and 30's. It was the same way .30 caliber ball cartridges were classed into four sections.

Bob S is a very reliable fellow I have corresponded with since the beginning of the internet and my active 03 collecting days.

Mine is a '41. I'll have to look up those books. When I posted the pics of the rifle, Bob used the word "exciting" in his post regarding the rifle. I took that as high praise.

 

[RicinYakima]

The 1941's were the Winchester barrel blanks! I believe there were 3,000 of them and the rarest of all the barrels. Even Savage made 6,000, 6 groove barrels for the early Smith Corona's. Smith Corona's normally use High Standard barrel blanks that were button rifled from the beginning.

 

[Bret4207]

My chief thing with this '03 was the "USMC" markings, being a Jarhead and all. To own something that was used by the "Old Breed" is an honor IMO, regardless of who made the barrel.

 

[Alstep]

MajGen Julian Hatcher, in his book "Hatcher's Notebook", writes extensively about low numbered receivers, the steel & heat treatment, and guns that failed. An absolutely fascinating work to read. I've had his book for 60+ years, and every time I pick it up I learn something new.
That being said, I'd be cautious with your rifle.

 

[waco]

Yeah. I get that. Bad on me for buying something I don’t know anything about. Not making excuses. But when i(or people less knowledgeable than me) walk into a gun store and see a rifle for sale I expect to be able to shoot it, unless noted as a wall hanger only. They tried to sell me a few boxes of modern hunting rounds with it. I of coarse don’t buy factory ammo. The whole thing just kinda pisses me off. I guess I have no one to blame but me. I’ll probably run some low pressure cast loads in it and see how it shoots. It had plenty of copper fouling in the barrel so I know it’s been shot to some degree. Shrug…..

 

[CWLONGSHOT]

Generally jamb packed with information. Grab a coffee and a quiet place.. Its over a hour long!
CW

 

[RicinYakima]

It is pretty much 95% accurate, but misses a lot for collectors.

 

[L Ross]

Yeah. I get that. Bad on me for buying something I don’t know anything about. Not making excuses. But when i(or people less knowledgeable than me) walk into a gun store and see a rifle for sale I expect to be able to shoot it, unless noted as a wall hanger only. They tried to sell me a few boxes of modern hunting rounds with it. I of coarse don’t buy factory ammo. The whole thing just kinda pisses me off. I guess I have no one to blame but me. I’ll probably run some low pressure cast loads in it and see how it shoots. It had plenty of copper fouling in the barrel so I know it’s been shot to some degree. Shrug…..

Oh baloney! Not bad on you at all. Shoot it, it's cool, looks cool, I like the Lyman very much.

As for moulds, you already have the perfect mould, the XCB. One of the guns I am routinely shooting my 440 yard gongs is a Springfield sporter is the XCB and 16.0 grains of 2400. As far as just fun, I grab a rifle like that and go blast my 5" diamonds off hand at 80 yards once in awhile. I wouldn't even think twice about shooting cast out of that rifle. Driving to a place to shoot is about 10,000 times more dangerous than pulling the trigger on that fine old rifle.

 

[Glaciers]

I'd shoot it as well, obviously it has not made it this far unfired. That copper fouling you mentioned came from somewhere. Only thing you might consider is an updated bolt.

 

[CWLONGSHOT]

I have been reading and makes perfect sence to me, the bigger issue with any problems was AMMO more then rifle. That old Copro bullets welded themselves to the cases causing pressure spikes a d blow ups.
There is no doubt its been fired. Probably a fair amount. Shoot cast and keep it moderate and never worry.

 

[Charles Graff]

Cupro-Nickle (copper and nickle alloy) bullets fouled the barrel like mad, but did not cause blow up. In 1921, trying to reduce the Cupro-Nickle fouling of Match Ammo the govt. took a flyer at tin plating the above mentioned bullets. This as resulted in the bullet being soldered to the case neck in some cases. Yep...KABOOM...was the result in some cases. The Govt. dropped the idea and went back to the drawing board. In due time the "gliding metal" jackets came into being. The "dreadful little yellow thingies" as I like to call them.