'03 vs. '03A3

[Jim]

In a nutshell, what's the primary difference between an '03 and an '03A3?

[27judge]

When i got mine from dcm in 1961 it was calledf a sniper rifle had the redfield bridge and the bolt was altered. It had never been fired.
At that time we were told by dcm they were called 03a3 tks for your time ken

[OBIII]

Main difference is the A3 has a rear "peep" sight, now located at the rear of the receiver, while the 03 has the "ladder" type sight located at the front of the bolt. Some variations in stock style may also be used, "c" type vs "straight".

[Pavogrande]

03 vs 03a3
Rear sight location and peep vs ladder.
Stamped parts -- bands, magazine, follower, floorplate etc.
magazine/floorplate one piece rather than multi-piece
2-groove barrels on many.
rough wartime finish --
no finger relief in stock forearm.
I actually prefer the 03a3 but it is generally not as "pretty"
my ha-penny

[bob208]

03's were made by springfield and rockisland.
a3's were made by remington and smith carona.
to add to the confusion there was a 03a1 made by springfield and remington. they were 03 sights with a pistol grip stock. made by springfield in the 30's by remington in 41-42.

[Haggway]

the basic answers are already stated. Broph'ys book is a good reference to go to if you need answers.

[Multigunner]

Differences in metalurgy are probably the most important followed by the different rifling types.
Early 1903 rifles have suspect heat treatment and overall less desirable steel, but later 1903 rifles don't have this problem.
The 1903 rifles built from Nickel steel are very desirable, as are those with the superior double heat treated receivers. These generally (but not always) have excellent precision barrels with four groove rifling.
Most 1903a3 rifles have less well made two groove barrels, generally adequate in the accuracy department but not all were up to snuff.
The rare High Standard manufactured six groove barrels (possibly from Savage commercial barrel blanks) used by Smith Corona are something to keep an eye out for.

Whether the receiver mounted peep sight or open rear sight is more desirable is a matter of personal preference.

Personally I never particularly cared for either, but these days I'm becoming more interested in the breed, with a mid twenties 1903 the rifle with type "C" stock (sometimes called the 03a1) the one rifle of the type I might consider investing in.

PS
According to an old reference book here 1903 receivers and bolts built from 1942 onwards, which I expect means 1903a3 as well, were built from the same steel as that used for the Garand receivers.
This steel is described as.
WD No.8620 modified steel
Carbon .18-.25%
Manganese .70-1.00%
Nickel .20-.40%
Chromium .20-.40%
Molybdenum .15-.25%
Sulphur resulphurized to .07% maximum
Phosphorous not over .04%
Grain size 5-8 ASTM

Heat treat as follows is for Garand, not sure if exactly the same for the 03 and 03a3.
Bolt treatment normalize if needed. Carburize .015"- .020" at 1600 degrees F. Oil quench. Temper one hour at 325 degrees F. Rockwell C55 to C59 on locking lugs and rear of bolt.
Receiver heat treatment. Carburize .015"-.018" at 1600 degrees F. Oil quench. Temper one hour at 480 degrees F. Rockwell D59 to D67.

The Nickel Steel 1903 actions used much the same alloy as was earlier used for the M1917 rifle.
The figures for the M1917 follow.
Acid Process
Carbon .30-.40%
Manganese .50-.70%
Nickel 3.00 to 3.75%
Phosphurous under .05%
Sulphur under .05%

Basic process
Carbon .35-.45%
Manganese .50-.70%
Nickel 3.00 to 3.75%
Silicon .10-.20%
Phosphurous under .05%

[gnoahhh]

Hold both guns in your hand and the difference in quality will be readily apparent. I don't care for the A3's for that reason. I love 03's but will admit that their sights are usable only by 20 year olds with perfect vision. Still, by employing tricks for middle aged eyes, such as an aperture in/on your shooting glasses to focus the light, they can do credible work.

A3's were a stop-gap measure employed 70 years ago to get as many rifles as possible in as short a time as possible. They functioned well in fulfilling the need for Axis and Japanese killing tools. As far as not being the work of art that the earlier 03's were, that is one way they come up short. As far as accuracy goes, after collecting and shooting them for over 40 years, I gotta say in general the 03 is a bit more accurate than the A3 in general, all things being equal. Naturally, there are exceptions to that rule, probably a lot of them. But notice I said 'in general'. Wartime A3 barrels can be a crapshoot as far as quality goes. A pristine A3 barrel free of tooling marks and dimensionally true can be a wonderful cast bullet shooter. The problem lies in finding one.

As far as a basis for a fine sporter, an A3 will require a lot more work. (Which in all honesty weighs heavily in my preference for the 03 too.)

[W.R.Buchanan]

I am currently building a A3 Sporter. The big diffs are definately the sights, and the finish.

My barrel looks like 30 miles of bad road! An it will be difficult to fix, however I can fix it and other wise it is essentially new. Mine is a two groove Remington. Made in 1944. barrel 9/43.

The above assessment of the steel used in A3's is correct according to my research. And believe me 8620 (which is a Cro-Moly variant used for many automotive hard parts) is very definately an improvement over the "nickle steels" used in the early 1900's.

I wanted an A3 specifically because I intended to install a Lyman peep sight and didn't want to have to remove the sight assembly from the barrel which would have been more work to clean up than the 30 miles of bad road I'm looking at now. I also like the square top rear receiver ring on the A3 better. I have seen many A3 sporters where they kept the issue rear sight, and new ones are available for about $30 from several places. The Lyman just gives more adjustability, and is truer to the breed than the stock sight is.

The overall finish of the metal work is really a non issue to me as after I smooth out the woopie in the barrel It will be bead blasting the entire assembly and Black Parkerizing which will diguise most all of the minor imperfections that are left.

I had to find and buy a 03 trigger guard and floor plate which was $80 and is requiring more work than my barrel will to get to function correctly. The A3 stamped unit is attrocious on a sporting rifle, and I feel it would be an insult to our forebarrers who created this type of gun to use one when there are so many surplus 03 units laying around. Incidentially, both fit in the exact same inlet.

As far as the amount of work to convert either one of these barreled actions to a decent sporter, I see it as about the same. You could use either one in original form but how much fun would that be?

Trying to follow the footsteps of men like Wundhammer, Sedgeley, Hoffman, G&H and others is kind of what it is all about.

I consider the Springfield Sporter to be the quintisental American Bolt Action Sporting rifle. They are the guns that defined the breed.

Yes, the Winchester M70 is called the"Rifleman's Rifle, but the Springfield Sporter predated it by nearly 30 years!

Everything else is just a copy, and most are bad copies at that!

Randy

[pipehand]

Had one of those Smith-Carona 6 groove barreled a3's. It was in beautiful shape. Sold it 22 years ago for $350, what I had in it, when I had to pay an unexpected bill. Wishing I still had it.

[Multigunner]

If I were building a custom sporter on a Springfield action I'd probably start with a stripped 03a3 receiver find and fit a bolt to it, having a bolt handle to my liking mounted by a gunsmith or using one of the aftermarket pre altered bolts that were once commonly available for such conversions, then use aftermarket parts for the rest, barrel, stock, aftermarket contoured trigger guard with quick release hinged floorplate etc.

I like the looks of a sporting rifle built on the Springfield action, but would not care to modify an existing 03 or 03a3 rifle still in military trim or restorable to military trim.

If I ran across an excellent condition 03 or 03a3 barrel I'd sooner save it for restoration of a military trim Springfield that is in need of a good barrel.
A original barrel that had previously been cut down would be a different story, as would a Springfield previously sporterized and no longer in restorable condition. Pre altered military rifles should be the first choice for use in building a custom sporting rifle, those still in full trim or restorable are getting more rare everyday.

Same goes for the other classic military rifles. Only way I'd build a sporter from a M1917 would be if the rear sight ears had already been ground off.
If I had one in this condition and it still had the original barrel in unaltered condition, I'd prefer to put a new sporting barrel on it and save the original barrel for restoration of an M1917 that needed a better barrel than it had in place.

While its unlikely that I'll be able to invest in this sort of project at this late date, it is still on my bucket list.
And if building a truly custom sporter, one may as well go whole hog. The custom barrels available these days are pricey, but so are new condition milspec barrels or repros for these old war horses.

[Larry Gibson]

I still have a "new Condition" Smith Corona with 4 groove barrel. Only been arsenal inspected at Ogden. Probably the only real "collector" I ve got. Been tempted to sell it a couple times but haven't yet.

Larry Gibson

[Dutchman]

http://images112.fotki.com/v113/photos/4/28344/9895637/TM912701903Springfield-vi.jpg

[Four Fingers of Death]

The old M1903A1 realy looks the goods! The 03A3s look a bit gawky, but are a fine rifle.

I have a 1942 (I think from memory) Remington 1903 and a pair of Remington M17s, one with a Parker sight, all in very original condition. I also have am Eddystone (these are actually Remingtons as well) P14 with a fat boy stock and front and reay volley sights, along with a few M17 target rifles and an M17 Sporter.

They are all really nice rifles, but I am especially fond of the 1903. My father was excited when I showed him the P14. He immediately recognised it and said 'Fatty had one of those!' Fatty was the sharpshooter in his squad during WW2 and Dad's best mate. When Dad wasn't scouting, he was Fatty's (Ken Lane, rip) Number 2. Fatty's rifle would have been a Winchester P14 with the British telescopic sight. Dad described the rifle that eventually replaced it and that was a Garand sniper rifle with a scope, another awesome rifle.

I actually found one which had been sporterised, the scope bases were intact. I handed it over to my mate who fully restored it and sourced a scope sight for it. The rifle and scope ended up costing him over $5000, but they are a special rifle, only 2001 of them made from memory.

[Larry Gibson]

Top is my "shooter" M1903A1.

Middle is the SC '03A3.

Botton is a M1903A3 Type I National Match I built using a DHT M1903 action instead.

Larry Gibson

[Four Fingers of Death]

The 03A3 is the ugly younger brother amongst that lot, but they are all fine rifles.

Whats a DHT M1903 action?

[gnoahhh]

DHT= Double Heat Treat (the process they switched to after the flap over early receiver failures)

[Four Fingers of Death]

DHT= Double Heat Treat (the process they switched to after the flap over early receiver failures)

Of course, thanks.

[Char-Gar]

I am currently building a A3 Sporter. The big diffs are definately the sights, and the finish.

My barrel looks like 30 miles of bad road! An it will be difficult to fix, however I can fix it and other wise it is essentially new. Mine is a two groove Remington. Made in 1944. barrel 9/43.

The above assessment of the steel used in A3's is correct according to my research. And believe me 8620 (which is a Cro-Moly variant used for many automotive hard parts) is very definately an improvement over the "nickle steels" used in the early 1900's.

I wanted an A3 specifically because I intended to install a Lyman peep sight and didn't want to have to remove the sight assembly from the barrel which would have been more work to clean up than the 30 miles of bad road I'm looking at now. I also like the square top rear receiver ring on the A3 better. I have seen many A3 sporters where they kept the issue rear sight, and new ones are available for about $30 from several places. The Lyman just gives more adjustability, and is truer to the breed than the stock sight is.

The overall finish of the metal work is really a non issue to me as after I smooth out the woopie in the barrel It will be bead blasting the entire assembly and Black Parkerizing which will diguise most all of the minor imperfections that are left.

I had to find and buy a 03 trigger guard and floor plate which was $80 and is requiring more work than my barrel will to get to function correctly. The A3 stamped unit is attrocious on a sporting rifle, and I feel it would be an insult to our forebarrers who created this type of gun to use one when there are so many surplus 03 units laying around. Incidentially, both fit in the exact same inlet.

As far as the amount of work to convert either one of these barreled actions to a decent sporter, I see it as about the same. You could use either one in original form but how much fun would that be?

Trying to follow the footsteps of men like Wundhammer, Sedgeley, Hoffman, G&H and others is kind of what it is all about.

I consider the Springfield Sporter to be the quintisental American Bolt Action Sporting rifle. They are the guns that defined the breed.

Yes, the Winchester M70 is called the"Rifleman's Rifle, but the Springfield Sporter predated it by nearly 30 years!

Everything else is just a copy, and most are bad copies at that!

Randy

Randy..Before you finish the metal ,put your Lyman sight on an go shooting. The rifle will shoot just fine with factory/military jacketed ammo with the slide of the Lyman sitting on top of the rear bridge hump. I am talking point of impact.

However with cast bullet you will probably like to have the slide lower to give some flexibility of bullet weight and velocities. I had to grind/file down the rear sight dovetail/hump on my recent 03A3 Sporter build for use with a Lyman 48 and cast bullet loads.

You may be happy with leaving the entire dovetail/hump there, but find out what you want, before you pay the price to have the metal finished.

This is not an issue with an 03 receiver.

If you want to spend the time, you can hand polish the tool/machine marks out of an 03A3 receiver and make it as smooth and slick inside and out as any 03. The "whoopie" in the barrel is a place that was turned to receive a steady rest to speed up the turning of the barrel contours without warping the barrel. You do not want to remove it totaly as to do so might cause some real issues with barrel vibrations making the barrel much to small in the middle. It will be like a Coke bottle. The steady rest "whoopie" doesn't seem to hurt accuracy any but I would be hinky about trying to polish it away.

These steady rest places occur only on the late production Remington 2 groove barrels. The Remington 4 groove and all Smith Corona barrels didn't have it.

[Char-Gar]

Randy.. Here are a couple of pics of my Springfield (03A3) sporter. It is done in the style of an NRA Sporter. The receiver is a S-C and the barrel is a new S-C.

[W.R.Buchanan]

Char: I love the style of your rifle, and the fiddleback in the walnut is just too cool. I see a bunch coming out in mine (see pics of stock in the "Special Projects" ) I have several pics of guns like yours in my Springfield pic folder. But yours is by far the best looking one I've seen. I already cut my stock to 9.5" infront of the receiver so I can't do a barrel band style gun like yours but I think I'll be pretty happy with the more field sporter look. It's getting a Turner M1907 sling in any event.

I was pretty sure that low spot in the barrel was from a steady rest. It's only about .008 below the areas on each side of the cutout. I am going to set it up on my mill with the right angle head and turn it slowly while using a 4" grinder with a flapper wheel at right angles to the bore. I can nurse it down to where it looks smooth but is not completely smooth. Since I am grit blasting it afterwards the grit will blend the highs and lows so it looks right. I'm pretty good with metal finishing technique and have all the right tools to do it right. Black Parkerizing is the final finish. Gonna do that inhouse too.

As far as the rear sight elevation goes I can always make a taller front sight blade. I plan on keeping the original Springfield front sight.. As it sits right now the gun is shootable. I need more work on the bedding of the action and some more relief for the barrel, but this gun holds so well offhand it is scary!

I know I am going to love this gun! Hell I already do. Just a matter of bringer her looks up to my decerning standards! Never had much affinity for the ugly ones.

Your input is always appreciated!

Randy

[Char-Gar]

I took off the 03A3 front sight band and replaced it with an O3 band. I had a Redfield Sourdough Patridge front sight that went into the 03 front sight dovetail. Redfield made similiar front sight blades that went into the 03A3 base. I had several but gave my last one away a couple of years ago.

I hand inletted the stock and the rifle gave consisant 1.5 MOA with good jacketed ammo. I then glass bedded the metal to the stock and the groups shrank to 1.25 MOA. This is not much of an improvement, but the stability of the glass is what I was after.

The rifle will hold the same level of accuracy with cast bullet loads it likes. I did go nuts and install a Timmey trigger.

I am tall and like to crawl up on the stock, so I made it with a 14.25" trigger pull. I took the measurments of three original Springfield NRA Sporters stocks , averaged them and came up with the specs for my rifle's stock.

When you make a rifle from scratch (will allmost anyway) you can have it the way you want it to be. I have made up a half dozen Springfield sporters over the years, but never managed to hold on to one. One day I was looking at a new SC barrel, the Lyman 48 rear sight and a milled trigger guard and floor plate for an 03 and said to myself.."This is a good beginning. The rest is history and a year and a half of work. This one is staying with me until the Grim Reaper pays me a call.

[W.R.Buchanan]

char: I got a Lyman 17XNB front sight today off Ebay for $75. I have been trying to buy one for 3 months now and finally found a" buy it now" sale. It is the 17 A globe front sight that has a figure 8 shape, and completely replaces the existing Front Sight. I'll try it and if I like it I'll keep it. If not then back to fleabay it goes.

There was a NIB Lyman 48 long (105moa )slide on there last week but it went for $175. I have a 60 minute one on the gun right now but might need the extra elevation to shoot 600 yds with cast boolits? don't know yet. I'll find a long slide somewhere.

Mine also has a Timney trigger on it, and I was planning on doing the glass bed job soon. I set mine up to be 13 5/8 LOP when the decelerator is installed. I am 5'-11"

So other than the barrel band we are pretty much on the same page, and if mine shoots 1.25 with cast I will be jumping up and down.

Everybody will be notified.:guntootsmiley:

Randy

[Char-Gar]

Finding the barrel band was the big problem. The Springfield NRA Sporter uses the same band as the Springfield M2 (22 long rifle) and they are in short supply. I finally came up with one, and in the search turned up a band for the Springfield "T" model target rifles. These bands have the same interior dimensions as the NRA/M2 bands but have been reformed at Springfield from 1917 front bands. It still have the eagle acceptance stamp on it. Being heavier and more solid, I elected to use it, should I ever want to draw a tight sling from prone position. This is not likely as it would take a tow truck to get me off the ground these days.

Have fun building and shooting your Springfield Sporter. You have a lifetime of enjoyment ahead of you with the rifle. Every time you chamber and fire a round, you will feel connected to generations of riflemen before you, who truly understood riflecraft.

I bought my long slide Lyman 48 at the Texas Gun Clinic in Houston for $28.00, but that was 1966. I have Lyman 48s on two of my Krag rifles. The first one was a long slide I bought on Ebay about 8 years ago for $75.00. I just bought the short slide off a fellow on the Cast Bullet Association board two months ago for $100 and was glad to get it.

I cut my shooting teeth on a 1919 DHT 03 with a long slide Lyman 48 in the late 50's. Somewhere along the way it has picked up a 1932 SA star guaged barrel. I had to sell it to pay some college tuition and miss it to this day.

These days good US 1917s seem to be falling into my hands. While they don't have the panache of 03s and 03A3s, they are fine US Military battle rifles. Shoot like a house-a-fire as well. In my Senior years good old "Army rifle" like Krags, 03/03A3s, 1917s and Garands seem to be about all that interest me. Sorta returning to my childhood when these rifles were so cheap even a kid with change in his jeans pockets could afford them.

[Bob S]

I finally came up with one, and in the search turned up a band for the Springfield "T" model target rifles. These bands have the same interior dimensions as the NRA/M2 bands but have been reformed at Springfield from 1917 front bands.


Well, that's really odd, since the T-types had much heavier barrels than any of the "standard" .30's and .22's. That's why Springfield had to make the bands for the T-types from M1917 parts; otherwise, they would have just used the M1922/NRA Sporter bands.

I had the good fortune to shoot two really nice T-types 30 years ago. With cast bullets, of course. No they weren't mine, but I can dream. ;)

For my "NRA Sporter clones", I used Krag bands, which are the same inside diameter as the M1922 bands used on the sporters, and to me they look better. but those are also getting to be like hen's teeth, too.

Resp'y,
Bob S.

[Char-Gar]

Bob.. NRA Sporter barrels were heavier than regular GI 03 barrels. I don't know if they were AS heavy as the T-type barrels. I don't know about the diameter of a 22 barrel having never owned one. I shot one many years ago, but it wold not hold a candle to my Winchester 52D Bull Gun, I was shoooting in competition, so I took little interest in it.

The T barrel band is heavier, but the inside shape and specs are the same as the Sporter/M2. I had both and laid one on top of the other and took measurement with my calipers and they were the same. I don't know how others stack up, but the two I had were spot on. That is all I know on the subject, not being a Springfield scholar, but I do know those two had the same inside contours and dimensions.

In my search for a band, a fellow had this T band, but he didn't know what it was. He also had a M1922 and said it was identical inside to the 22 band and sure enough it was. He only wanted a few bucks for it, so I bought it. I also came up with the actual band, but after looking at them both sold the Sporter/M1922 band and went with the T band.

The NRA Sporter bands were made from stamped and bent steel. They had a raised ridge to give them strength. They were pretty flimsey compared to the T band. I always figured they made the T bands from heavier 1917 bands to take the rugged use of centerfire competition shooting. That is just my guess by looking at the two bands, I don't really know.

My rifle has an issue S-C barrel, so there is some space between the band and the top of the barrel. So, the band does not contact the barrel and barrel free floats. You have to look very carefully to see the slight gap. I bedded the band, so it had firm contact with the top of the stock, so any downward pressure from a sling, would not be on the barrel. Seems to have worked for me.

[gnoahhh]

char: I got a Lyman 17XNB front sight today off Ebay for $75. I have been trying to buy one for 3 months now and finally found a" buy it now" sale. It is the 17 A globe front sight that has a figure 8 shape, and completely replaces the existing Front Sight. I'll try it and if I like it I'll keep it. If not then back to fleabay it goes.

There was a NIB Lyman 48 long (105moa )slide on there last week but it went for $175. I have a 60 minute one on the gun right now but might need the extra elevation to shoot 600 yds with cast boolits? don't know yet. I'll find a long slide somewhere.

Mine also has a Timney trigger on it, and I was planning on doing the glass bed job soon. I set mine up to be 13 5/8 LOP when the decelerator is installed. I am 5'-11"

So other than the barrel band we are pretty much on the same page, and if mine shoots 1.25 with cast I will be jumping up and down.

Everybody will be notified.:guntootsmiley:

Randy

Nice sight selection. Sounds like a really nice project.

With that tall 17XNB you may well need the longer slide to shoot cast at 600yds. Another thing to consider is that with those tall sights you may lose your cheek weld on the comb of the stock. I had a 17XNB on an M2 .22, and with the Lyman 48 cranked up to to where I was on target at long range, I found I had to raise my head kind of in mid-air to acquire the sight picture. My solution was to replace it with an original front sight base with a home made blade and gold bead. Stood me well in smallbore silhouette competition.

[W.R.Buchanan]

I mainly got the XNB cuz they look cool and would give me the option of other styles of front sight pictures.

I also got this part with the intention of seeing if I can knock it off. Since Lyman's management/marketing group is too stupid to realize the value in making limited runs of parts they already have the tooling to make, and that there is a demand for, and sell them at prices that reflect the current market place IE Ebay,,,

I decided that maybe I can knock them off.

When I said stupid,,, I meant really #$%^&*@ stupid. The people who I talked to at the show were fools and kept telling me that I didn't know what I was talking about. I took exception to this !!,,,and repeatedly pointed to the continuous Ebay sales of their vintage products, which as far as I can tell shows no signs of slowing down any time soon.

They already make the product, they just need to change the material back to steel! In turn they could sell their sights for $100. instead of $75 and it would cost nothing more in materials and the run time on their machines would be only be <5% longer which amounts to nothing in the real world.

But NOooooo,,, They repeately told me that no one wants iron sights on a rifle any more and that everybody only wants scopes. I repeatedly referred to the continuous ebay sales of their vintage products, and the low yeild of ebay sales of their new products, usually bought by those who don't know any different or have been mislead.

I also pointed out that original Lyman sights on Ebay consistantly sell for above $150 and some as high as $500! No interest. Absolutely No interest. This is arrogance pure and simple!

This is what happens when bean counters get the upper hand in a companies marketing strategy. And it is also what happens when a company gets so big that it can no longer service the smaller volumn products that made it successful in the first place.

It becomes all about the bottom line which eventually leads to cost cutting which leads eventually to insolvency.

What they don't realize is that if they can't produce the product in house for a profit then they could probably farm out the work to a smaller outfit that doesn't have the high overhead and make money on the product that way.

They could be called "Lyman Classic Series Sights" and the Model 48 C, S or whatever would easily bring $150-175. I'm pretty sure people would buy a newly made Lyman Sight before they bought a used *** off ebay for the same money, and there would still be room for the "rare model sights" on ebay

If you look at all of the different Lyman receiver sights you will notice that there is only a few different bases and several different slides and two basic styles of knobs and screws. These few parts are assembled in different configurations to make many different sights for many different applications.

You only need to make sights for a few of the myriad of possible applications. Springfield , Mauser, Winchester, bolt guns, and Marlin and Winchester Leverguns. Let the oddballs find them on ebay. That's 3 sight bases and one slide assy, for the bolt guns, and two sight bases and one slide assy for the Leverguns. All of the piece parts for those assys are interchangable.

I have been looking at producing these sights as a retirement project in my machine shop for several years now and what I would do is make prototypes, generate drawings, and then farm all the production work out to various machines shops in my area. All I would do on the production runs would be to assemble the product and package it, which is all I do on my current successful products.

I have been collecting originals to scalp the dimensions off for some time now.

Maybe sometime soon? I will let you know when it happens.

Randy

[Bob S]

Chargar;

NRA sporter barrels were made from the same blanks as the .22 RF barrels; they are marginally heavier than the .30 service barrel, but only by a couple of ounces or so. About the only visual difference is the lack of cuts for the transverse and longitudinal pins for the rear sight fixed base of the service rifle. The barrels bands are identical.

The T-Type barrels are heavy monsters, 0.860" at the muzzle, at least two pounds heavier than the service barrel. From Brophy, The Springfield 1903 Rifles:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v76/BobS1/Springfield%2003s/StyleTBrophy.jpg

Close up of the barrel band:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v76/BobS1/Springfield%2003s/StyleTbarrelbandBrophy.jpg

A gentleman at the Old Colony club had a T-type and he graciously let me fire it and measure the barrel so I could get one turned to the same countour, the idea being to make a clone. I have all of the bits to build one, including the front sight base (modified from a BAR front sight base) EXCEPT the damn barrel band. I figured I would have to make one: that was 30 years ago, and never got around to it. C'est la vie.

If your barrel band is snug to the barrel, it would never fit a T barrel; it could have been made by someone like me, or perhaps a Springfield part that was never completed.

I have a .22 Springfield, and it's a barrel of fun to shoot, but as you say, it can't compete with a Model 52, even the old slow-lock models. I have several Model 52's, including 52C and 52D with heavy barrels; but my favorite is a 52C with the standard barrel and Marble-Goss sights. It's kind of a rare variant. I like the standard weight barrels better because my left arm got mangled pretty bad back in '65 and I can't hold up a heavy rifle in a tight sling for very long.

I really enjoy the pictures of your rifles!

Resp'y,
Bob S.

[Multigunner]

I'm not familar with the 03A3 two groove barrels, but the later savage production two groove barrels were usually not fully finished on the outside beyond about four inches from the receiver.
These are properly turned with knox form and begiining of the taper smoothly turned, but theres a sudden increase in diameter with the remainder of the barrel roughly turned with lathe marks.

I looked this up once many years ago and the answer given was this was one of many cost cutting measures. In testing to see if the unequal taper had any effect on accuracy they noticed that the roughly turned barrels were a good deal more accurate than fully finish turned two groove barrels.
They said that the suddenly thicker section part way down the barrel acted to dampen barrel vibration. I suppose the very slightly thicker barrel walls also had some affect.

[Char-Gar]

Bob..I am only "assuming" my band was a T band. It was solid steel and had the eagle head proof mark. Who knows where it came from. All I know is it fits the NRA Sporter and M1922.

[W.R.Buchanan]

I am loving the direction this thread is going. The pic of the NRA Target rifle is a good one. I have a similar pic but it is of a guy shooting one over a rest and alot of the gun is obscurred. Good to see the whole gun.

I noticed that gun has a Lyman 17A globe sight on top of the stock 03 front sight base. This was a common way to go and I have actually seen several recently. I wanted the 17 XNB as it was the whole unit as one piece. I'll post a pic of it when it arrives soon.

Keep this scarce info comming. You don't just hear about this stuff everyday, and all info is welcome.

Randy

[Char-Gar]

Red field made a globe front sight that slips right into the dovetail of the 03 front sight band. I should have one in my sight box.

[Bob S]

Redfield also made a base adaptor for the M1903 fixed front sight base that gave you a 3/8" longitudinal dovetail so you could attach any "detachable" front target sight ... like the Lyman 77, Refield globe, Olympic, Big Bore, Tompkins, &tc. This was especially handy if you also shot the rifle with scope.

Resp'y,
Bob S.

[W.R.Buchanan]

SOooo,,, I got my 17XNB today in the mail. It was kind of beat up but after an hour of buffing, tooncing and rebluing it is back in great shape.

I need to know which direction the pin in the front sight comes out. right to left, left to right or it doesn't make any difference?

I tried to drift it out earlier and it is not moving AT ALL !

I may end up having to live with it the way it is and save the XNB for another gun.

any suggestions welcome.

Randy

[Char-Gar]

It has been a while since I removed the front band from an 03a3, but the pin does come out. Unlike the 03, the 03A3 has a spline under the band that also catches and holds the pin, which makes the pin quite hard to drive out. Bit it will come out if hit hard enough with a proper fitting punch and a real hammer. Once the pin is out, user a brass punch on the back of the band a mega whack or two and off it comes.

I don't recall if the pin has only one way to come out, but I doubt if it does. I do recall it requires more force that I thought it would.

[Bob S]

They are not tapered pins, so technically it doesn't make a real difference which way you drift in/out. Most folks say drift out left to right, though.

The 03 barrel has a fixed spline to position the front sight fixed base that is milled as an integral part of the barrel ... a mega PITA to machine and expensive to make that way. The 03A3 has a removable key that performs the same function, but the barrel machining is much faster ... three quick swipes on a milling machine. The end configuration is the same, except for the placement of the notch that retains the fixed base in the longitudinal direction. On the 03, the notch for the pin is near the rear of the spline. On the 03A3, the notch is close to (but not exactly at) the center of the key. You gotta wonder why it is offset from the center by such a slight amount.

Since the final configuration of seat area for the fixed base is identical except for the placement of the notch for the pin, the fixed bases can be interchanged between the 03 and 03A3 barrels simply by filing a notch in the spline or key at the appropriate position. In fact, when Remington was transitioning from the 03 to the 03A3, they used some 03 fixed bases on 03A3 barrels. I have used the 03 fixed base on several 03A3 match rifles so I could fit the Lyman 17a XNA or Redfield 67 front sight. The resulting set-up is slightly lower than the one-piece Lyman 17a XNB, which can be significant if you're planning on shooting long range.

Resp'y,
Bob S.

[W.R.Buchanan]

Char/BobS: Thanks for the info. Your experience is greatly apreciated.

I have to make a real punch to deal with this little issue. I will also start soaking the sight in Kroil. I may have to heat it a bit to get it to release. This one has been in place for 70 ish years so I doubt that it will give up easily.

I also took the rest of the receiver apart. It was curious how both the screw holding the bolt stop, and the pin that looks like a screw holding the ejector in place were made. The screw for the bolt stop was deeply slotted and essentially a set screw. The slot was flared to act as a safety so the screw wouldn't just back out and fall out.

The pin that looked like a screw holding the ejector in place was slotted and flared the same way and I suspect for the same reason.

The receiver is now stripped for the bedding operation. I have seen several videos on glass bedding rifle actions, however invariably they all use Remington 700 actions that are nothing more than pieces of round stock. Needless to say, the Springfield action is a little more complicated in its exterior form and will require a little more prep to get right, and so it will come out of the stock after the glue dries.


I have also figured out that the front magazine housing must be in contact with the receiver, but the back is spaced down slightly so the trigger doesn't interfer with the trigger guard. I need to figure how long the pilar for the rear needs to be. I also need to drop the action down another 1/16" inch and inlet the trigger guard another 1/16" also.

As it sits, my receiver is about 1/8" away from the mag well when the gun is asssembled. This results in the mag follower hanging up on the gap at the rear of the mag well and the rounds not feeding properly and the last round ejecting from the mag by itself. Getting this relationship right will be key to a properly functioning rifle.

I have grouted many machine bases which is essentially what we are doing here. However they are usually a one way trip and do not require that the whole thing come apart after the grout dries like a gun has to. Also there is seldom any masking to do. The last thing I grouted was the base of my shop crane after I had the column perfectly vertical. It came out good. hope this does too.

It will be a new experience, but I am confident I can pull it off as long as I fully understand all of the prattfalls before I mix the goo. I still have some research to do and will talk to them that knows a little more this next week.

Randy

[Bob S]

Randy,

The magazine box should not touch the bottom of the receiver. There should be a very small gap, ideally no more than 1/32". More than that and you will end up with "trapped follower", which you have described in your post.

Resp'y,
Bob S.

[Char-Gar]

I started doing stock work long before the pillar came on the scene, and I have never adjusted to their use. I bed the receiver into the wood and then remove some wood to make room for the glass, but leave some strips of wood on each side to contact with the metal and hold it in the proper place while the glas hardens.

I also undercut the rear tang to hold some glass for a hard contact that won't show from looking at the top of the stock. I have seen a number of stocks that have split over the years caused by metal hitting the wood. So I want the rear of the receiver lug and back of the tang to be the only places of contact. I also put a metal bushing into the rear tang screw hole as an extra safety. It is not so tall as to contact either the receiver or the trigger guard. I knurl it on the lathe and set it in with glass in a seperate operation.

I will also glas the trigger guard (just the bottom). It doesn't need it for accuracy, but it helps keep the wood from compressing over time.

I have never stocked a round bottom receiver, having only done 03s, Mausers, 1917s and Winchester 70's. So these flat bottomed receivers seem normal to me.

[willy3]

Lots of good answers here. I've had both and enjoyed shooting all of them. As in most war-time weapons, stampings and rough finish are most noticeable...