Natl Ord 1903A3 question

[mdevlin53]

I have come into possession of one of these rifles. It is no beauty but it is complete and seems to be in exellent condition. The action is tight but i have not checked the headspace as of yet. I have heard some people say they are dangerous and dont shoot them and i have heard people say they have shot thousands of rounds in them with no problems. The talk on the web seems to be more heavy on the they are fine to shoot, but i wonder. I had plans on making this gun a cast boolit gun and keeping velocity down around 1700 to 1800 fps. Chime in and let me know what your opinions are.

[SOFMatchstaff]

Drive a stake thru its heart and dont fire it. They are a time bomb, just waiting for the right(or wrong Load) to set it off. I have personally stripped 3 of them for the GI parts. The receivers are metallurgical trash. I think there is an experiment going on here now to blow up some Mausers, might want to sell it to him to anchor the low end of the scale.. Seriously, "DANGER WILL ROBINSON, DANGER"

[45 2.1]

I had plans on making this gun a cast boolit gun and keeping velocity down around 1700 to 1800 fps.

No problem with those load levels....................

[mdevlin53]

Thats what i thought. two schools of thought. I need to order a headspace gauge and then i think ill try the old tried and true 16 gr 2400. Works in a couple other similar calibers and is pretty tame

[Reg]

No, you will have no problems at all with those load levels. A lot of people will look down their noses at them and perhaps in some cases, rightfully so. They are not a real Springfield and never will be but they have stood a test of time in the respect I have never seen where one has blown or hurt it's owner other than in the pocket book.
They are a imitation but do seem to take normal 30-06 loads so they should take your reduced loads all day long.

[MtGun44]

Not pretty but safe and mine is accurate. I shoot milsurp .30-06 ammo and equivalent handloads
with great results. I would probably avoid modern .30-06 commercial ammo, some may be
hotter than the milsurp. What rear sight does yours have? I had a *** sheet metal fixed
peep, put an 03A3 rear in it and it worked perfectly.

Bill

[Reg]

Not pretty but safe and mine is accurate. I shoot milsurp .30-06 ammo and equivalent handloads
with great results. I would probably avoid modern .30-06 commercial ammo, some may be
hotter than the milsurp. What rear sight does yours have? I had a *** sheet metal fixed
peep, put an 03A3 rear in it and it worked perfectly.


Bill

Most I have seen have a Remington 2 groove barrel on them and tend to shoot lead very well.

[nhrifle]

Try 7 or 8 grains of Red Dot over a 200 grain boolit. Low recoil, low stress on the gun, cheap to shoot.

[Multigunner]

I have read several posts on forums over the years where some have told of these receivers blowing up, either when they fired them or when they witnessed others having blow ups at a range.

Cast Steel receivers made in Yugoslavia if memory serves.
I would not trust a cast receiver for any modern high intensity cartridge.
The Japanese made a few 7.7 rifles with cast receivers, but the locking lug recesses were either in a barrel extension or milled from the barrel breech.
Cast steel and even cast white iron works okay for older BP cartridges and low intensity rounds or most shotshells.

[skeet1]

I'm not an metal expert but if cast receivers are not safe to shoot then I guess we should get rid of all our Ruger model 77's.

Ken

[John Allen]

If you are worried about it you could always buy another 1903A3 receiver. I see them all the time from Sarco and others for $150.00 with bolt. It might be the safest way to go.

[mdevlin53]

Tis rifle has the rear peep sight. Seems to give me a pretty fair sight picture. I tend twoard peep sights as my eyes dont pick up rear notches very well. I think from what i have read the most important thing with these rifles is to get a feild gauge for 30-06 and check it often. If the reciever is deforming one should be able to notice it before any problems arise. like i said my goal here is to work up a nice cast load with low pressures. I have an M94 swede apart on the bench at the moment so when i am done cleaning that i will take the 03A3 down and clean and inspect it. by then i should have purchased the headspace gauge and be ready to check it out thoroughly.

[mdevlin53]

I have heard that many of the cheaper recievers are what they call drill recievers and they are not much better if at all from what i have now.

[bob208]

i would trust a national ord. receiver before i would a drill receiver that was welded at one time. back when the 03-03a3 moved from the $25 in a barrel gun to the $100-125. a lot of them showed up. i shot a few of them they were ok. i wish i would have bought one just to have it for the collection of 03's i started. i have never seen or heard of one blowing up with normal loads. i am shore shome one has had one let go. but then there are people that can break an anvil with out trying.

[RU shooter]

Mine has served me well as my cast only rifle .I've shot a grand total of 54 rds of m2 ball through it and the rest has been all cast loads .

[thegatman]

I think the 1903-a3 are fine to shoot. I shoot mine all the time. Some 1903's with low serial numbers had receivers that were not made well under the proper conditions. Those have trouble with cracking and exploding. I have never had any problems with my 1903-a3

[jonk]

I think the 1903-a3 are fine to shoot. I shoot mine all the time. Some 1903's with low serial numbers had receivers that were not made well under the proper conditions. Those have trouble with cracking and exploding. I have never had any problems with my 1903-a3

You aren't apparently aware of what National Ordinance is... commercially made reciever with more or less a GI parts kit to round things out. Hit and miss quality, mixed reputation.

[mdevlin53]

On thing i need before i shoot this rifle is a field gauge or a no go gauge to check the headspace. i seem to think the wisdom is to shoot my cast loads and check headspace on a regular basis. The problem is Midway Natchez and midsouth are all out of stock. So i have some time till the spring shooting season starts i will have to be patient.

[Multigunner]

I'm not an metal expert but if cast receivers are not safe to shoot then I guess we should get rid of all our Ruger model 77's.

Ken

Ruger went to milled from bar stock receivers for its new line of rifles.
Theres quite a bit of difference between a receiver cast by a company that has put a lot of time effort and research into making cast receivers and a fly by night operation in a former soviet pesthole.

The Rugers may have never had a blow up related to bad castings, but the same can't be said for National Ordnance 03A3 clones.
I wouldn't buy a Ruger Model 77 when they first came out specifically because it has a cast receiver.
Seems to me they made some Model 77 rifles with drop forged receivers, but I don't remember the details.

PS
When a product is designed from the begining to be investment cast the designer engineers every angle and radius with casting in mind. When you take a design that was drop forged and machined, then duplicate it by casting without making alterations specific to casting you will have problems. They found this out with the M1 Carbine, and the M1A1 receivers and op rods, its no suprise that the same could go wrong with a cast 03A3 receiver.

[skeet1]

My point was, just because a receiver is cast does not mean that it is unsafe.

Ken

[MtGun44]

Cast steel is not inherently unsafe. My rifle is just fine. Any verification of this claim that they
were made in Yugo, or that they were cast? Of course, lots of fine quality guns have come out
of Yugo factories.

Bill

[Multigunner]

Found an old thread on another forum where the NO rifles were being discussed.
Heres what one member had to say.


don't do it, i still have pieces of a national ordanace in my eye, nose,lip, roof of my mouth and one messed up tooth stay away!!! some make thousands of safe shots and like mine it made 79 safe shots and the last damn near took my face off.

One member said the Cast receiver 03A3 was originally built by Golden State, and after they'd had some problems National Ordnance bought their remaining parts and marketed the rifles.
One member says the Yugo Receivers were imported by Golden State, while another says Golden State bought the receivers from Rimer Casting in Ohio through National Ordnance.
I know some companies will import such things if they can be produced far more cheaply than if manufactured in house, but I can't say for sure whether this was the case.

From the general drift of the information Rifles manufactured in the 70's have the best of the Cast Receivers, possibly made in Ohio. Rifles made before then using receivers bought back from Golden State or Golden State built rifles are the worst of the breed.

Theres a photo of a blown up NO rifle on this thread
http://www.milsurps.com/showthread.php?t=16494

[bob208]

so how many have blown up? even 03's and mausers have let go. i bet if you could check you would even find a model 70 or a 700 that let go. my point is if one lets go with out any farther investigation. do we condem the whole lot?

[Multigunner]

After back tracking through several threads on old forums discussing failures of NO receivers the gist seems to be that some are far too soft at the lug recesses. Headspace would begin to increase unexpectedly till the casehead was no longer properly supported.
One reported noticing extreme difficulty in opening the bolt, and stopped shooting before a mishap occured, others weren't so diligent and keep shooting till a case head blew out.

There were millions of Springfield 1903-1903A3 rifles built, perhaps tens of millions of Mausers from many different factories around the world.
When there were blow outs of Low Number 1903 receivers it caused a serious flap and intense investigations into why, and the manufacturing processes were altered.
It was ordered that whenever a LN 03 rifles was sent in to be rebarreled the receiver would be replaced.
Shooters are still warned about the possibility of getting a bad low number 03 receiver. The LN receivers are still considered the least desirable unless you are buying the rifle for its historical significance.
The NO receiver is not a milspec receiver, it has no historical significance.
Considering the known number of LN 03 receiver failures compared to production figures and a comparasion to the number of reported NO receiver failures with its very limited production numbers, the NO comes off badly compared to even the worst recognized 03 production runs.
The majority of brittle LN receiver failures were traced to defective ammunition and/or defective subcontrated barrels.
The NO failures were totally due to bad metalurgy.

Theres a laundry list of other faults found with the NO clone rifles. Poorly finish machined with crooked screw holes is the most noticable.

Only way I'd buy one is at a dirt cheap price to be stripped for parts (without ever firing it) in restoring a genuine 03A3 with real milspec receiver.

[garandsrus]

On thing i need before i shoot this rifle is a field gauge or a no go gauge to check the headspace. i seem to think the wisdom is to shoot my cast loads and check headspace on a regular basis. The problem is Midway Natchez and midsouth are all out of stock. So i have some time till the spring shooting season starts i will have to be patient.

If you cant find the gauge, could you fire form a case, without a bullet, and measure the case to see where the shoulder ended up? I would think that measuring the case before and after would tell you whats going on.

[Buzzard II]

If you try hard enough you can break anything.

[Reg]

I think a guy named Murphy wrote a book about things relating to steel balls and rubber mallets.

I think some facts remain. The NO receivers seemed to have stood up through the years about as well as any other comparable receiver, the Mausers, etc. I have heard and seen at least as many problems with any of them. Most of the 93 and 95 receivers show signs of soft metal yet when loadings are kept within reason they tend to work properly.
Most people checking receivers want the Rockwell readings to be within 28 through 34 depending on type. I have checked a lot of the Ovedio receivers and could hardly get any reading ( super soft ) yet they were being used on a daily basis.
Headspace gages are a good investment if one has doubts but with firearms I think the old adage of if in doubt---don,t should apply.
Workmanship has been talked about with the NO's but have you looked at some of the later 98's being brought in. Some look like they were made by a mad man with a dull axe in the dark of the moon on Kyber Pass. Spanish 93's are sometimes even worse.
The only military actions I have ever seen that had superior workmanship were the 91's.
Never doubt the quality of steel from that whole area of Europe, they were making it long before we ever did. Yup some is bad as is some of ours but I would put their worst up against the best that ever came out of China.

Just my .02 worth !!!

:coffeecom

[gwpercle]

I have owned mine since 1968, It was my first real rifle. 30-06 was popular. bullets , brass ,reloading components , and surplus military ammo plentiful. Paid the $59.95 price tag and started shooting, reloading and hunting. Still have it , still shoot it and still no excessive headspace or problems of any kind. The Remington 2 groove barrel handles cast boolits better than any other I own. It seems those who bad mouth them don't own or shoot them extensively. I haven't heard from one person that has had a bad experience just because of the National Ordinance reciever. Check the headspace and if the no-go and go gauges check out don't be afraid to shoot it. If it has the 2 groove barrel it will love cast.
gary

[leadman]

Reamer Rentals has the gauges, think they are $5 to rent them.