Still a few hits left in the old M1903 -

[FAsmus]

Gentelmen;

Today was another range session with the M1903 Springfield.

I've owned this rifle for 48 years and become familiar with it over time. In its current state it still owns full military wood but has the turned-down bolt for scope ( very seldom used these days ) and fillered holes for scope blocks and receiver sight bases. I added the military version of the front sight guard a few years back.

About four or five years ago I bought one of those re-production Camp Perry sight adjusting tools for the issue ladder sight and put it to use for long range shooting. This item works first-rate, repeats dead-nuts and is altogether a fine tool.

My load was conventional - the Lyman 311284 over 22.0 grains SR 4759. The sight settings acquired two years ago were in the cartridge boxes, the day was perfect and off I went.

All recorded elevations worked out within one or two minutes, hits were made almost right away at the beginning distances of 395 and 440 yards. - I have to brag a bit about the 440 yard group, fired with the issue military ladder sight's peep going to 5 rounds by 6 inches or somewhat less. (all hits in the white) Conditions were fairly consistent of course but still, not bad for a 89 year-old rifle being fired by a 67 year-old fellow with marginal eyesight off the cross-stick rest (no bench).

Then, as distances worked on out there hits became more difficult. I believe that somewhere between 552 and 587 yards (two of our distances) that the bullet's velocity must transition to sub-sonic and wind-drift is subsequently strongly affected. ~ Anyway, at increasing distances it becomes more and more difficult to figure out a correct windage setting; with any tiny little change in condition you may see your miss showing up way, way over there and getting back on the steel is challenging.

It was a lot of fun none-the-less.

Good afternoon,
Forrest

[armoredman]

I am impressed, sir, well done. I can't see that far, much less shoot that far! :)

[Jack Stanley]

That is some impressive shooting sir ! I've never been able to do real well with the sights on the 03 but like my gunsmith says "Don't mess with old people !" I'm not sure if he said that just before or after he shot a 200-20X slow prone with the AR he built or not

May you enjoy that rifle for many years to come .

Jack

[Char-Gar]

There is nothing like spending time at the range with an old friend.

[Bret4207]

Forrest, you are one of those guys I'd like to meet someday. Whether it's guns or machining, I always enjoy your posts.

[FAsmus]

Bret4207 - et all;

Thanks for reading the stuff and sharing feedback.

Yet to come ( hopefully ) is a shot or two of the 440 yard group. All that was available was a cell-phone type "camera" but a couple pictures were taken. Now all I have to do is figure out how to transfer the images to some kind of suitable format and paste them over here.

Good evening,
Forrest

[Bret4207]

Try Photobucket. Up load to your Photobucket account and then you can resize, alter, etc. the pics and down load to here. I stink at stuff like that, but it works for me.

[82nd airborne]

I may be able to hit a dump truck at 400 yards with my 03a3. And for the record, the gun shoots great! Very ipressive indeed, and yes, your posts are a joy to read as Bret suggested. Thanks for sharing.

[Bert2368]

I have used my Iphone and Photobucket's mobile version for nearly all the pictures I've posted here the last year or so. Give it a shot- you take a pic on the phone, then email it from the phone to Photobucket, after that you can access it from the home computer or a smartphone and post it here. And all I had to do was ask a 10 year old kid to learn how...

It's free too. Go here to start:

http://m.photobucket.com/join

[FAsmus]

Bert;

The photographs have been delayed ~ the phone was misplaced for a day or so. I hope to have them processed soon.

Good morning,
Forrest

[FAsmus]

Gentlemen;

I've gotten the pictures up ~ with the aid of my daughter ..

This first one is our 440 yard "Bear" and the brag-group in the white. You can see a few hits outside the center, these were sighters and don't count. There are the three close hits and a double in this group.

http://i805.photobucket.com/albums/yy333/Forrest_Asmus/TargetB.jpg

The shot of the group shows the hits pretty well, angle of the sun had to be just right in order for the details of the two close impacts to stand out. But, when a fellow looked closely there was no doubt of there being two hits together.

http://i805.photobucket.com/albums/yy333/Forrest_Asmus

The second one is the group with my hand in the picture for scale. Next time, with a bit more prep I'll have a "real" camera and a tape measure along to provide a more exact measure for the shooting.

/TargetC.jpghttp://i805.photobucket.com/albums/yy333/Forrest_Asmus/TargetA.jpg

I'm new at the photograph stuff and, for now, am dependent on my daughter to get the images transfered.

I hope the membership may enjoy looking these over .. if there is interest I'll click a couple shots of the Camp Perry tool and the old M1903, just for record.

Good evening,
Forrest

[Larry Gibson]

Forest

I also enjoy shooting my M1903A1 configured MK I at longer range with the origianl sights. I've on of the repro sight adjustment tools also and they do work well indeed. My loa is also quie conventional; 314299sized at .311 over 29 gr 4895 with a 3/4 gr dacron filler. Velocity is right at 1900 fps. It shoots really well to 500 yards also. Lot's of fun:-)

Larry Gibson

[Le Loup Solitaire]

That is good shooting with one of the best rifles ever made and by someone that knows how to use it. Distance, wind and the tricks aging eyes can sometimes play make it pretty challenging and I congraulate you on your most impressive results. LLS

[FAsmus]

Gentelmen;

Here are a couple shots of the M1903 in action up on our hill-top range.

First one of me from the safe (back) side on the line hot with the M1903 at the 587 yard "big diamond".

http://i805.photobucket.com/albums/yy333/Forrest_Asmus/IMG_0055.jpg

Next on the line cold, bolt open safe to show the general front side and rifle.

http://i805.photobucket.com/albums/yy333/Forrest_Asmus/IMG_0056.jpg

The targets generally appear too small in a camera to be of any use. But this is what we do pretty much every Sunday, and today was a good day.

Good evening,
Forrest

[captain-03]

Thanks for the post and thanks for the pictures ... I am impressed!!

[HelpIminCA]

Gentleman,
It is an honor to read your posts and learn from you. I hope you don't mind giving a new guy some advice. I have an O3A3 and I want to start casting for it. What mold do you suggest?
Any advice on loads? Thanks fellas.
Forrest.... I wish I could buy you a beer sir

[FAsmus]

HelpIminCA;

Thanks for the post.

Sure, there are many good combinations for the 03-A3 ~ plenty of information in general about the 30'06 in its various versions ~ here and elsewhere.

The 03-A3 is a fine rifle as you must know. The main determination you have to make is to check the barrel for rifling configuration ( two or four-groove ) measure the bore and then determine how much wear it has in the throat so that you may have a starting point for bullet selection.

For example I have a 30'06 on a M1917 action that has a two-groove barrel that is right at 0.3000 for the bore and 0.3080 in the grooves. The throat is worn just enough at the origin of rifling to accept my RCBS 30-180-SP which goes 0.3005 on the nose and 0.3095 on the bands. This is a good match-up in sizes and the rifle does quite well.

Good evening,
Forrest

PS: Thanks for the thought about beer.

[Le Loup Solitaire]

Col E.H. Harrison in doing extensive investigation on 30 cal cast shooting and writing on his findings for the NRA determined that the best cast bullet configuration for 2 groove and 5 groove barrels is that of a relatively short bullet body and a long nose. The rationale is that since most of the bore circumference is occupied by lands then the longer nose will be positively guided by riding on the tops of the lands. Examples of this design are found in Lyman #311334, or 311332 as well as Saeco #301. Some Lee 30 cal designs and a couple of the RCBS ones also fit in this category. Many riflemen have also done well with certain cast bullet designs that although not having the lengthy nose, also shoot well in the 2 groove barrels as well as the four groovers. Some of these include Lyman #311284, 311291. 311290, and several others. It is important to know the dimensions of the barrel as well as what the dimensions of the bullets are as they come from the molds. Wrongly dimensioned or incorrectly sized bullets will not shoot well. A good micrometer is essential to obtaining this information. LLS

[HelpIminCA]

Gentlemen,
THANK YOU! Sage advice and a good starting point.
Forest, I sure envy your shooting facility. The farthest I can shoot here is a 200 yd range and only if I butter up the range guys on a good day!
Thanks again guys

[Eagles6]

Great story. Well done, commendable in fact.

[FAsmus]

Gentlemen;

Thanks to all.

Good evening,
Forrest

[Shiloh]

Had mine out yesterday. 200 yard range. Fired the 314299 under 21.2 gr of 4759 clone, as well as 23 gr of 4227.

Shiloh

[ELFEGO BACA]

Sounds like i need to try shooting my 03 and 03A3 beyond 200 yds. I have the saeco 301 and a good shooting 150 grain flat nose from a group buy here.
My results at 100 and 200 yds have been very satisfying.

elfego

[Shooter]

I have a '03 and a '03A3, Both bought DCM by my father. He sporterized the '03 with a Lyman sight and a Bishop stock. It has a star gauged barrel.

The '03A3 is a '43 Remington, I still remember the "whack" of the steel butt plae on a young shoulder shooting surplus AP ammo. It was new in cosmoline from DCM.

The '03A3 is dear to me, not only did I shoot it through my youth, but when I joined the Navy in 1969 we drilled with '03A3's.
I have ran many miles with a '03A3 over my head.:mrgreen: I also learned to ease the striker down with my thumb after forgetting to squeeze the trigger after "inspection arms".

Now they are fed cast, and are my "Cold Dead Fingers" rifles. They like the 314299 very well.

[Shiloh]

There is nothing like spending time at the range with an old friend.

Had the '03 out several times since the last post. All at 200 with SR-5 targets.
tried 21.5 grains of 4759 clone powder and 23.5 of IMR 4227 under a 314299 sized at .312. Wonderful results both times.

Chargar nailed it.

Shiloh

[ELFEGO BACA]

Annie next to my Remington 1903 Springfield @ 326 yard target: the center wood 'cylinder'.

Five shots three hits using a 200 grain cast bullet from a 301 Saeco mould.

Pushed by 20.0 grains of SR4759.

http://i51.tinypic.com/33wr77d.jpg

[FAsmus]

ELFEGO BACA;

Annie does not appear to be human!

~ Never mind; my Ginger goes to the range with me every single time ~ loves it.

That is fine shooting - especially since your target certainly would not provide anything like a good sight-picture at 325 yards!

Our closest target is 350 yards; the offhand-only "Bucket". Next is the 395 yard "Small Diamond" and on out there in ten steps to the 834 yard 4x4.

Maybe if I get ambitious I could take a couple pictures of the silhouettes and post them here ~ we'll see ~ the weather is going to snow & junk this week.

Good evening,
Forrest

[ELFEGO BACA]

Prior to Annie i had Honey, prior to Honey i had Ginger. She spent a lot of time with my on the back of the Honda Trail 110 i had at the time.

We had our first snow of the season this am - about an inch.

[chasw]

Not bad, Fasmus. I couldn't see the bullseye at 600 yds even when I was 19. Now I use a scope for most everything, except my M1903 Springfield rifle, RA 8-42. - CW

[FAsmus]

ELFEGO BACA;

Here is a picture of Ginger at the 648 yard "Big Chicken" She is there for scale mostly.

http://i805.photobucket.com/albums/yy333/Forrest_Asmus/IMG_0076.jpg

The Chicken isn't all that hard to hit, being so big, but a decent sight picture looks a little unusual ~

Good afternoon,
Forrest

[MakeMineA10mm]

Well, my 03A1-Mark I has a bore that looks like 24" of old sewer pipe, but it's the original 1919 barrel, so I'm not changing it. I think it's going to get a good soaking and cleaning and then I'm going to start my foray into cast boolit rifle loads with that rifle.

I've been doing some research, and I think I'm going to start at 25 yards with 7.0grs to 9.0grs of W231. If the sewer pipe shoots there, I'll back off to 50 and 100.

If things continue to go well, I'll switch to 17.0grs of 4227 and 21.0grs of RL-7 and 24.0grs of 3031, to see if any of them work. If that goes, I'll try 100yds and 200yds with those.

As far as boolits go, I've got the Saeco 315, which is sort-of a tapered Loverin with a medium-length, tapered, truncated cone nose. It supposed to have a good reputation as an accurate boolit, but I noticed it didn't make anyone's list above...

Forrest, I wouldn't want to be on your bad side... Inspires me to consider "northern WY" as a retirement spot... Every Sunday, eh? :smile:

[MakeMineA10mm]

Here's a pic of the Saeco 315:
http://www.castboolits.gunloads.com/picture.php?albumid=179&pictureid=2899

[FAsmus]

MakeMineA10mm;

Humm ~ 10mm huh? Is that something like a 40/65 WCF maybe?

Well ~ not every Sunday! Today (Sunday) for example it was snowing lightly at daybreak. It stopped during Church - going to 35 degrees and 15 knots of wind. That is too cold for my trigger finger .. after all .. it is supposed to recreation, not difficult times.

I try to shoot at temperatures above 40 degrees, bumping that to 55 if the wind gets up to 15 kts or more.

I hope your '03 cleans up and becomes satisfying to shoot over whatever distances you have available back east.

Sheridan is no longer a really well-kept secret for folks of a certain age to retire to. I like it here. And I drive for the local Senior Center for those of us who can no longer get around solo.

Good morning,
Forrest

[MakeMineA10mm]

Happy Thanksgiving everyone!

Forrest,
I'm not shooting anywhere near as far as you are, but I've started my cast boolit shooting in my '03, thanks in no small part to your posts here. Thank you.

If you want to see my trials and tribulations (and success), the thread is at this link: http://www.castboolits.gunloads.com/showthread.php?p=1067089#post1067089

Cheers!

[Jack Stanley]

MakeMinea10mm ,

I haven't used 231 in my aught six yet but one of my favorite "up to forty yard" loads is a 311466 lighty lubed and sized to .311" and seven point five grains of Universal Clays . Using the battle sight it will hit right on or pretty close depending on the rifle . The charge can be adjusted up or down to put the slugs right on , accuracy is limited by my old eyes but groups are still pretty good . Perhaps 231 will work similar , I'd be glad to hear how it works for you .


Jack

[MakeMineA10mm]

MakeMinea10mm ,

I haven't used 231 in my aught six yet but one of my favorite "up to forty yard" loads is a 311466 lighty lubed and sized to .311" and seven point five grains of Universal Clays . Using the battle sight it will hit right on or pretty close depending on the rifle . The charge can be adjusted up or down to put the slugs right on , accuracy is limited by my old eyes but groups are still pretty good . Perhaps 231 will work similar , I'd be glad to hear how it works for you .


Jack

Hi Jack! 7.5grs worked very well as far as accuracy. At 25 yards I got pretty nice groups of around 1", but there were some unexplained fliers and a little verticle stringing. The interesting thing to me is that both groups had a couple boolits touching, and if ignoring the fliers, they'd be 1/2" or 5/8" groups! Now for me, they shot very low, but also very far to the left. I can change the windage, but I think the low-hitting at the battle sight setting is indicative of the low velocity these must be chugging along at. (I didn't take the time to set up the chrono the other day either, sorry.)

Trouble is, this is my FIRST ever attempt at shooting cast boolits in the rifle, so I did some loading errors, like -- too much lube, too deeply seated, and didn't weight-sort them (last one because I was in a hurry). I've since weight-sorted them and gave them another visual inspection. My culls (.2-.9grs too light and with minor visual defects) are going to be loaded with the W231 loads to test next time the weather is nice.

I also shot 9.0grs and that group hit higher on the target, but still a couple inches below the battle-sight setting. The group opened up (ignoring the flier) to about 1.25 inches. After checking the Lyman Cast Bullet Handbook, I think I'm going to move up to 11.0grs and 12.5grs and try those. That's about as far as I want to push these naked boolits. I'll also use a little less lube (probably the bottom three lube grooves only. I'm shooting the boolits unsized, so the base band is running about .312" with the higher bands tapering down to about .303 to .304" at the front.

Quite frankly, I was surprised at how well these shot with me knowing only what I've read here and in the Lyman handbook and never having loaded cast in the rifle before.

This group I shot using Kentucky windage after seeing how far low and to the left these were shooting:
http://www.castboolits.gunloads.com/picture.php?albumid=439&pictureid=2945

This is my first group ever with cast boolits in a rifle (well, unless you count the 30 Carbine). Aimpoint was the bottom edge of the bullseye, and the group ended up in the far bottom left corner where the previous shooter had signed his target (22 pistol competition back in the 60s...):
http://www.castboolits.gunloads.com/picture.php?albumid=439&pictureid=2946
Note there is two sets of two boolits touching, and all four of them are very nicely snugged up together! I did NOT call that flier, so it wasn't a bad shot. I'm thinking either too much lube, or a boolit that was grossly heavy or light.

Here's the 9.0grs W231 group:
http://www.castboolits.gunloads.com/picture.php?albumid=439&pictureid=2948
Without using sorted boolits and seating the boolits out of the case properly, I'm not making any judgements on this load from this one group yet. I plan on re-shooting it, and seeing how it does with weight-sorted and properly lubed boolits. You can tell by seeing the edge of the bullseye that this group came up considerably in elevation from the 7.5gr load. This load did not recoil badly, but it was heavier than the 7.5gr load, which felt like shooting a 22 training rifle Springfield. This 9.0gr load actually gave a touch of recoil, maybe like shooting a 357 magnum lever-gun with 38s in it. Still nearly nothing.

[SierraWhiskeyMC]

Forrest,
I'd like to hear more about your sight tool, and preferably some photos if you can possibly arrange them.

I have a couple of M1903A3's which I'm faimiliar with, but when my Dad passed on almost two years ago, I wound up with a low-numbered Springfield M1903 that I've been studying up on a bit.

Since it's in the 6xx,xxx range, I have some concerns about it possibly having a brittle receiver - however, I have no use for a rifle that I cannot shoot! So, I've loaded up a number of rounds with 15gr of IMR SR 4759 and #311413 169gr boolits, which my Dad reported very good accuracy with at 200 yards back in 1970. These boolits have unsupported noses, which do not do well at velocities over around 1700fps or so.

Have you ever tried the Wilks gas check method? Google "Wilks gas check" if you don't know what I'm talking about.

I've tried Googling the "Camp Perry M1903 tool" and have come up empty-handed. Would you be so kind as to post some photos of your Camp Perry M1903 tool?

I understand that the BZO for a stock M1903 is 547 yards, which is pretty crazy by modern standards. I would appreciate seeing some elevation data that you have used on your M1903.

Best regards

[Jack Stanley]

MakeMineA10mm , Unless your rear sight is nailed down pretty tight some of those "fliers" might be because of wiggle in the sight . The first and second picture you show are pretty typical of what my 1903 will do at thirty-five yards . But then , my rear sight has some wiggle in it that might tighten things up some . My front sight is an "A" blade if I remember right , if yours is marked different I would expect it to give a different point of impact .

When I was working with these loads I found the elevation could be controlled by the amount of powder I put in the case . I believe the way it it worked ( Up to a point ) was with a given bullet weight the more powder used the lower the impact would be . It's been a long time since I worked up that load so I may have it reversed and I'm sure if I used a loading book load it would throw the whole idea out the window .

What was important to me was that it hit the piont of aim with the battle sights . After I got that down right , then I adjusted accuracy with more or less lube , changing the sizer die , segregating cases to that rifle alone , and overall cartridge length . When the groups including fliers started staying inside the ten ring of a fifty foot pistol target at twenty-seven yards I figured the rest was because of my sloppy sights and old eyes . My rifle is a one point four million with a new old stock barrel and a brand new stock fitted to the metal .

Here's a suggestion and it won't cost you a nickle . Pick the powder you think gave you the best accuracy then move the charge weight up or down and see what it does for your point of impact . You won't have to move it much to get an idea if the group goes up or down . If you can get that where it hits right on at the distance you want , I think you can adjust other things to make the accuracy better . Now if I could just tighten up my rear sight and fix these old eyes..................

Jack

[MakeMineA10mm]

HI Sierra Whiskey. I'll leave most of your answers to Forrest, but with your low-numbered Springfield, I have some info. First of all, I think you got one too many "X" in there. The "low-numbered" single-heat-treat receivers at Springfield Armory are under 800,000. Don't believe the numbers even hit 6 million on the Springfield?

There is a very good article on the net about this issue. It basically statistically analyzes data from Hatcher's book and determines that the chance of a low-numbered Springfield "blowing up" is about the same as dying in an airline crash or getting hit by lightning. He also made a good point that with all the use these low-numbered '03s have gotten through two world wars, that if it hasn't blown up by now, it probably never will. Last, he also showed through Hatcher's data that only one man was injured "seriously" and the other 40 were uninjured to minor injuries, so I don't thing they "blow up" as much as "become unusable" by cracking of the receiver...

Lastly, I would say if you're restricting yourself to mild to medium cast boolit loads, there's virtually no risk at all. If it were mine, I'd shoot it!

[SierraWhiskeyMC]

MakeMineA10mm,
Yep, one too many x's; I was tired when I was posting. I edited one "x" out.

I don't know the history on this rifle; it's one that my Dad had in his collection for a number of years. I haven't slugged the barrel yet. The rifle itself appears to be in quite good condition, and the bore is bright.

[MakeMineA10mm]

What is the date and manufacturer on the muzzle end of the barrel?

Here's the website with that info: http://m1903.com/03rcvrfail/

Read some on that website and got out my Canfield's "US Infantry Weapons of WWII" and looked up the collector info on my earlier '03 (serial number 1,057,0XX), and learned that it is NOT an A1, as I had thought. It is an '03 Mark I built near the end of WWI with what appears to be the original barrel (marked "S-A" over "9-18"). [According to Canfield, A1s were not even made until around 1930.] My rifle was re-built for WWII at Rock Island Arsenal, where the finish was changed to the grey-green parkerizing of WWII, and the A1-style full-pistol grip stock was installed (and had the RIA cartouche stamped on the left side, which is how I identified the re-build armory). I then got out my Smith & Smith's Small Arms of the World and looked up the '03, and found a photo of the '03A1. Their receivers ARE marked "A1" on original A1s, and the text says that the A1 stocks had finger grooves, which I've also read in many other places. (My rifle does not have finger grooves.) Interestingly, though, the photo of an A1 in Smith and Smith's clearly shows the A1 full-pistol-grip stock with NO finger grooves. Funny... As with most military weapons and their fittings/accoutrement, I guess it's not a hard-and-fast rule, is it?

Anyway, I've always loved '03s, and it seems I'm getting that bug re-biting me with developing these cast boolit loads!

[MakeMineA10mm]

MakeMineA10mm , Unless your rear sight is nailed down pretty tight some of those "fliers" might be because of wiggle in the sight . The first and second picture you show are pretty typical of what my 1903 will do at thirty-five yards . But then , my rear sight has some wiggle in it that might tighten things up some . My front sight is an "A" blade if I remember right , if yours is marked different I would expect it to give a different point of impact .

When I was working with these loads I found the elevation could be controlled by the amount of powder I put in the case . I believe the way it it worked ( Up to a point ) was with a given bullet weight the more powder used the lower the impact would be . It's been a long time since I worked up that load so I may have it reversed and I'm sure if I used a loading book load it would throw the whole idea out the window .

What was important to me was that it hit the piont of aim with the battle sights . After I got that down right , then I adjusted accuracy with more or less lube , changing the sizer die , segregating cases to that rifle alone , and overall cartridge length . When the groups including fliers started staying inside the ten ring of a fifty foot pistol target at twenty-seven yards I figured the rest was because of my sloppy sights and old eyes . My rifle is a one point four million with a new old stock barrel and a brand new stock fitted to the metal .

Here's a suggestion and it won't cost you a nickle . Pick the powder you think gave you the best accuracy then move the charge weight up or down and see what it does for your point of impact . You won't have to move it much to get an idea if the group goes up or down . If you can get that where it hits right on at the distance you want , I think you can adjust other things to make the accuracy better . Now if I could just tighten up my rear sight and fix these old eyes..................

Jack

Thank you very much for the suggestions! I got some half-way decent groups (they surprised me how good they were) just be reading some of the old threads about basics of shooting light cast boolit loads, and in the week since I've posted that, I've got several precise suggestions that I believe will help me even more, including yours. This is a great place!

I really like the 7.5gr W231 load, but the 9.0gr load did hit about three inches higher. I've loaded up 20 more rounds, 10 with 9.0grs and 10 with 11.0grs. If the trend continues, that 11.0gr load should hit point of aim of the battle sight setting. At least I hope so. If the groups stay reasonably small, I may try it at 50 and then 100 yards. But, I'm switching to something like 4227 or RL7 for a 100 to 200 yard load...

[Jack Stanley]

I think you are on the right track , when I get ready to do more with this rifle I change to a little slower powder and try it all again for a hundred yard load . Interestingly enough I use a charge of nine grains of universal clays with a Cramer hollow point bullet that's about a hundred sixty-something grains . At forty yards it will hit just above the front sight of this 03 , I'm not sure of the velocity but I'll bet it will riun a critters day .

This same load in my A3 takes a sight stting of one notch past six hundred to hit the same way .

The serial numbers for the 03 went to just over one point five million . I had one that was about four thousand from the last recorded I had a barrel put on it and a good stock . I made sure it shot these low velocity rounds well and gave it to my nephew for graduation .

Jack

[SierraWhiskeyMC]

Well, this rifle's serno is in the 686,xxx range, so that puts its' manufacture date at mid-1917.

The barrel was replaced. It's marked "S A", bursting bomb, "1- 42".
My Dad had purchased 10 M1903A3 barrels from the then-DCM back around 1963 for the princely sum of ~$0.93/ea. plus shipping. He may have used one of those barrels and turned a section of it down on the lathe so that the rear sight would mount properly; pure speculation on my part. He had a metal lathe, and my Granddad had a barrel vise and action wrench; I know they'd re-barreled my Remington M1903A3 National Match & set the headspace for me when I went off to boot camp in the 70's.

Interestingly, the stock is stamped:
I.C.G.
R.I.A.
in a box.

The bolt handle has an "R" stamped on it's underside - so, it appears that this is a real Mixmaster. That's OK though - more reason to shoot it rather than be some collector's piece.

The rear sight has about 0.020" travel vertically. I find it curious that the original design didn't include some sort of spring loading in order to eliminate this travel.

The front sight is missing it's hood. I'm thinking I'll just make up a couple of them out of some brass flat stock; I'm going to need another one anyway for a M1903A3 that I'm going to be re-barrelling; my Dad started to sporterize it, but I convinced him to stop the sporter project before he got too far into it. Fortunately, I still have some of the WWII M1903A3 barrels he bought.

[MakeMineA10mm]

Well, it sounds like a Remington (03A3) bolt and a WWII barrel. Those would also give me more confidence that it can handle the loads. Granted, the receiver is still a key ingredient in handling the pressure, but the barrel and bolt sound stout as can be...

I really think, especially with cast loads with either pistol powder at 1200fps or less, or the classic 16.0grs 2400, you'll be fine. Just reinforces my earlier opinion that I'd not hesitate shooting it. Don't think I'd run extra-hot hunting loads, or questionable QC war-time production surplus ammo (or foreign surplus ammo for that matter), but for reasonable handloads, I think the rifle is fine. Even mild jacketed loads for pest control or medium-range deer hunting (something similar to, or even a little warmer than, a 30-30 equivalent, say a 165gr JSP @ 2400fps or so) would be fine to load and shoot without worry, I think.

[FAsmus]

SierraWhiskeyMC;

Ah!

Well, I'll move on the pictures in a bit ~ time providing.

I am told that this sight-setting tool is a replica of the original as made for the Camp Perry shooting team way back when the M1903 was the rifle on the firing line.

This sight tool is marked; Ray-Vin.com. I Googled it and found nothing much but I didn't follow all the links to their end either.

SW: I have a couple of M1903A3's which I'm familiar with, but when my Dad passed on almost two years ago, I wound up with a low-numbered Springfield M1903 that I've been studying up on a bit.

Since it's in the 6xx,xxx range, I have some concerns about it possibly having a brittle receiver - however, I have no use for a rifle that I cannot shoot! So, I've loaded up a number of rounds with 15gr of IMR SR 4759 and #311413 169gr boolits, which my Dad reported very good accuracy with at 200 yards back in 1970. These boolits have unsupported noses, which do not do well at velocities over around 1700fps or so.

Me; Sure, this is a "low number Springfield" and they are less desirable than the double-heat-treated production. On the other hand us cast bullet shooters have a much greater margin than the some of the jacketed fellows who run their loads up to maximum and then press it a little for good measure ~ If the rifle were mine I'd feel completely safe loading any conventional cast bullet combination published for the 30'06.

SW: Have you ever tried the Wilks gas check method? Google "Wilks gas check" if you don't know what I'm talking about.

Me; That is a new name for an semi-old idea. I have had and operated a "FreeCheck" tool, making lots of checks. The "come-on" for the tool was that you could make checks of beverage can material for "free" and seat them on PB bullets. I tried the material and found it way too thin and way too hard. I went to dead-soft offset printers aluminum ( I forget the thickness ). This worked very well and I did some good shooting with bullets protected with them.

In the end I found laziness/lack of time to interfere with any utility the tool provided and in those days checks only cost a couple cents each ( or less ). Even now with retail checks going for 3 1/2 cents each I'm sticking with the commercial items for the same reasons.

SW: I understand that the BZO for a stock M1903 is 547 yards, which is pretty crazy by modern standards. I would appreciate seeing some elevation data that you have used on your M1903.

Me: I'm unsure what "BZO" means ~

The elevation data for my load of choice ( given previously ) is in minutes. Our closest target is 350 yards out and I do not have a number for anything closer, having long since been satisfied with the consistency of the load/rifle and I've pretty much quit shooting it at closer ranges.

The offhand "Bucket" at 350 needs 47 minutes on the tool and the more distant targets, running about an additional 35 to 45 yards further out each require about 3 to 5 minutes more elevation for center hits - on out to the 834 distance which is different, being + 164 yards further than the "Big Round" at 670. That needed a 25 minute elevation change to get on the steel ~ 113 minutes total elevation on the tool.

I'll take a picture of the sight card and see if it is readable for your consideration.

Good evening,
Forrest

[FAsmus]

Sierra Whiskey;

First a shot of the tool and my sight elevation card;

http://i805.photobucket.com/albums/yy333/Forrest_Asmus/IMG_0090.jpg

Then a couple shots of the tool in place;

http://i805.photobucket.com/albums/yy333/Forrest_Asmus/IMG_0093.jpg

http://i805.photobucket.com/albums/yy333/Forrest_Asmus/IMG_0093.jpg

I'll go to another post for two more ~

[FAsmus]

Sierra Whiskey;

Then a shot if the receiver & sight of the M1903;

http://i805.photobucket.com/albums/yy333/Forrest_Asmus/IMG_0089.jpg

And last the sight & tool from the rear.

http://i805.photobucket.com/albums/yy333/Forrest_Asmus/IMG_0091.jpg

I see that I lost some detail as per the graduations on the tool but just to say it the knob cranks in 5 minutes per turn and the elevation is readable on the scale right where it is easiest to read.

There is some practice needed to run the tool as per keeping the slack all going the same direction alla time and to guard against wear of the two "legs" that move the sight ~ the whole thing is brass and will not stand much before wear would ruin it.

Good evening,
Forrest

[SierraWhiskeyMC]

SierraWhiskeyMC;

Ah!

Well, I'll move on the pictures in a bit ~ time providing.
Thanks very kindly for the photos; they shed a bit of light on the subject.

Speaking of lighting, about the best you'll get is outside on a cloudy day, as the lighting is diffused, yet bright. This makes for a photo that has very even lighting, and is not "contrasty" and "harsh" like those taken with an artificial "direct" flash. Bounce flash is a poor 2nd cousin to such natural lighting. It is very tough to get really good photos indoors without professional equipment.


I am told that this sight-setting tool is a replica of the original as made for the Camp Perry shooting team way back when the M1903 was the rifle on the firing line.

I see that. Very interesting, as it's basically a micrometer.


This sight tool is marked; Ray-Vin.com. I Googled it and found nothing much but I didn't follow all the links to their end either.

Thanks kindly for the link. The website is still there, however the owners have decided to retire from their business. I'm considering writing to them and see if they will consent to making the plans public domain, so they won't be lost for all time.


SW wrote: I have a couple of M1903A3's which I'm familiar with, but when my Dad passed on almost two years ago, I wound up with a low-numbered Springfield M1903 that I've been studying up on a bit.

Since it's in the 6xx,xxx range, I have some concerns about it possibly having a brittle receiver - however, I have no use for a rifle that I cannot shoot! So, I've loaded up a number of rounds with 15gr of IMR SR 4759 and #311413 169gr boolits, which my Dad reported very good accuracy with at 200 yards back in 1970. These boolits have unsupported noses, which do not do well at velocities over around 1700fps or so.

FASmus wrote; Sure, this is a "low number Springfield" and they are less desirable than the double-heat-treated production. On the other hand us cast bullet shooters have a much greater margin than the some of the jacketed fellows who run their loads up to maximum and then press it a little for good measure ~ If the rifle were mine I'd feel completely safe loading any conventional cast bullet combination published for the 30'06.


I did some more searching of my Dad's records, and discovered that he acquired this rifle from the Capitol City Rifle Club out on Germany Road, east of Lansing, MI, where he was a life member - and where I learned how to shoot outdoors.

Back in the 1950s and 1960s, the club accumulated quite a large stock of M2 AP that was loaded at Denver in '43 and St. Louis in .43; I still have some of this ammo in sealed containers. I now have absolutely no doubt that quite a few of those rounds (which were quite "hot") were fired through this rifle.


SW wrote: Have you ever tried the Wilks gas check method? Google "Wilks gas check" if you don't know what I'm talking about.

FASmus wrote; That is a new name for an semi-old idea. I have had and operated a "FreeCheck" tool, making lots of checks. The "come-on" for the tool was that you could make checks of beverage can material for "free" and seat them on PB bullets. I tried the material and found it way too thin and way too hard. I went to dead-soft offset printers aluminum ( I forget the thickness ). This worked very well and I did some good shooting with bullets protected with them.[/QUOTE]

I'm sorry, but you got the wrong impression. The "Wilks gas check" is a standard copper gas check with the center punched out, cast into the boolit furthest from the GC. The idea is to create sort of a hybrid lead boolit that can be fired at a higher velocity than lead boolits, as the centerless GC that's cast into the lead boolit keeps the round better centered in the barrel; a soft lead boolit would not be able to keep centered under high-pressure conditions.

A direct link to the article is here:
http://www.riflemagazine.com/magazine/PDF/hl134partial.pdf
There are some advertisements in the beginning, but the article is intact at the time of this writing.


In the end I found laziness/lack of time to interfere with any utility the tool provided and in those days checks only cost a couple cents each ( or less ). Even now with retail checks going for 3 1/2 cents each I'm sticking with the commercial items for the same reasons.

SW: I understand that the BZO for a stock M1903 is 547 yards, which is pretty crazy by modern standards. I would appreciate seeing some elevation data that you have used on your M1903.

Me: I'm unsure what "BZO" means ~
Sorry; it's a part of the vernacular of being a Marine. BZO = Battlesight Zero, or the range at which your mechanical sight zero is set to..


The elevation data for my load of choice ( given previously ) is in minutes. Our closest target is 350 yards out and I do not have a number for anything closer, having long since been satisfied with the consistency of the load/rifle and I've pretty much quit shooting it at closer ranges.

The offhand "Bucket" at 350 needs 47 minutes on the tool and the more distant targets, running about an additional 35 to 45 yards further out each require about 3 to 5 minutes more elevation for center hits - on out to the 834 distance which is different, being + 164 yards further than the "Big Round" at 670. That needed a 25 minute elevation change to get on the steel ~ 113 minutes total elevation on the tool.

I'll take a picture of the sight card and see if it is readable for your consideration.

Good evening,
Forrest
Thanks, Forrest.

Any chance you could translate the "tool minutes" to what you're reading on the sight ramp?

I found this online history book as to the development of the M1903 and variants:
http://books.google.com/books?id=vb3dDN9FiekC&pg=PA561&lpg=PA561&dq=M1903+rear+sight+tool&source=bl&ots=M92dPCB0w-&sig=tZ4DoDr2cqeGi6b-gdu49htZmO4&hl=en&ei=YWHxTPmVLcSqlAf0ptzADA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CEIQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=M1903%20rear%20sight%20tool&f=false

In the book, they recommend using a bronze block and hammer on the barrel tangs to minimize the sight slop (see page 561). I'm kind of nervous about taking up 0.020 slack using a brass block and hammer. :idea:

[FAsmus]

SierraWhiskeyMC;

Roger the lighting deal. I have taken better pictures! and know the difference. These could certainly be better but worked anyway.

Yes - the tool is the basic micrometer design.

Good idea about the "public domain". The tool is simple enough for most any competent machinist to make but would be time-consuming so far as an efficient money-maker .. it would be kind of expensive. I forget how much this one cost but it was a bargain in any case.

Sure enough folks used quite a bit of high-pressure loads in single-heat M1903s and got away with it. Such "limitations" get blown out of proportion over time and especially in our culture today which is hung up on Safety above all else.

Ah! Very well, I have read about this Wiilk's idea but never tried it myself. I never tried it because it seemed like if a fellow needed that extra performance why not just go ahead and load up some jacketed in the first place?

The BZO makes sense of course. It sounds very much like the old cliche' : "Hold on his belt-buckle - that'll work as far out as you can see him." Lots of the old battle sights were calibrated that way - I know my M1891 Argentine is.

I don't have an old sight-card that shows the same load as this thread but I do retain cards showing a 4198 load with both the tool and the yardage elevations as per the battle sight;

Battle sight Perry tool

name & yards elevation elevation

100 450 --

sm dia 395 700 13
bear 440 825 16
T sq 470 860 19
S sq 503 870 21
Buff 552 900 28
B dia 587 975 30
Bull 606 1050 33
Chic 648 1085 39
B rnd 670 1100 42
B sq 830 1275 63

Roger the link to M1903 history - I'm always interested in things like that.

~ I'd never use a hammer on MY 1903 either! Bronze, or whatever.

If you ever get your hands on a tool like this one post me a PM and I'll try to detail my method of keeping slack going all one direction.

Good morning,
Forrest

PS: Now that didn't work out! The elevation data is all lined up on my draft and is all compressed here on the thread ~ I don't know why. Just open up each number and it should still make sense.

[SierraWhiskeyMC]

Good idea about the "public domain". The tool is simple enough for most any competent machinist to make but would be time-consuming so far as an efficient money-maker .. it would be kind of expensive. I forget how much this one cost but it was a bargain in any case.

If one had computer-controlled machines, they could be cranked out pretty quickly - it's the set-up time that's the killer.


Sure enough folks used quite a bit of high-pressure loads in single-heat M1903s and got away with it. Such "limitations" get blown out of proportion over time and especially in our culture today which is hung up on Safety above all else.

Yep. Too many attorneys getting rich. :p


Ah! Very well, I have read about this Wilk's idea but never tried it myself. I never tried it because it seemed like if a fellow needed that extra performance why not just go ahead and load up some jacketed in the first place?

Well, I have several thousand J-word bullets sitting around here idle, but became intrigued by the idea of using the Wilks check in conjunction with this old Ideal/Lyman #311413 mould that's been in the family since longer than I can remember. The boolits that drop from this mould look like one that should work very well; but unfortunately it only works well at low velocities because of the long unsupported nose. Adding a Wilks check should help stabilize it a great deal, yet most of the barrel-to-metal contact will still be that gorgeous galena. ;)


The BZO makes sense of course. It sounds very much like the old cliche' : "Hold on his belt-buckle - that'll work as far out as you can see him." Lots of the old battle sights were calibrated that way - I know my M1891 Argentine is.

I've been doing some reading up on the old .45-70 Trapdoor Springfields; they certainly were optimistic on those battle sights!


I don't have an old sight-card that shows the same load as this thread but I do retain cards showing a 4198 load with both the tool and the yardage elevations as per the battle sight;


Battle sight Perry tool
name & yards elevation elevation
100 450 --
sm dia 395 700 13
bear 440 825 16
T sq 470 860 19
S sq 503 870 21
Buff 552 900 28
B dia 587 975 30
Bull 606 1050 33
Chic 648 1085 39
B rnd 670 1100 42
B sq 830 1275 63

Roger the link to M1903 history - I'm always interested in things like that.

~ I'd never use a hammer on MY 1903 either! Bronze, or whatever.

I'm thinking of just using some thin bronze stock as a shim between the barrel and the bottom of the pivoting sight. I can bend up a couple of "fingers" so that it'll stay put when the rifle fires.


If you ever get your hands on a tool like this one post me a PM and I'll try to detail my method of keeping slack going all one direction.

Thanks! I may very well take you up on your offer.


PS: Now that didn't work out! The elevation data is all lined up on my draft and is all compressed here on the thread ~ I don't know why. Just open up each number and it should still make sense.

I took the liberty of re-formatting your table.

Basically, you start out using a fixed-width (non-porportional) font like Courier New using Notepad, and get it looking proper. Then use [ code] and [ /code] tags around your text (no space after the [) so that the board won't eliminate the extra spaces, and will display your text in a fixed font. The CODE tags are usually used for posting computer programming source code in text format; if you omit the code tags, the program would lose all of it's formatting and would be much more difficult to understand.

[MakeMineA10mm]

I have a buddy with a CNC machine who might just love making a run of these. If you get the plans let me know, and I'll see what he says!

[FAsmus]

MakeMine10mm;

In a previous life I was a 'master' machinist. This tool is not complex really but involves the typical several assemblies to work. ~ Like the click-stops at every minute of the spindle requiring detents, springs, a small ball-bearing and the drilled hole to align/hold them - a fellow would really need to make a jig to do the work in any kind of a production run. The lead screw and threaded bushing are steel ~ seems to be about 10/32 ~ The graduations on the thimble are perfect too - looks like the work of a well-run pantograph.

~ Anyway; a CNC machine would be OK but the real profitability problem would be associated with the hand assembly of the tool.

Good morning,
Forrest

[FAsmus]

SierraWhiskey;

I have some jacketed in inventory myself. The boxes are still marked $7.50/hundred. ~ I guess I haven't needed them lately!

But, sure, I understand how the Wilks idea could catch a fellow's interest too; good luck.

Roger the Trap-Door sights. Somebody had the idea way back when and it stuck.

You say; I'm thinking of just using some thin bronze stock as a shim between the barrel and the bottom of the pivoting sight. I can bend up a couple of "fingers" so that it'll stay put when the rifle fires.

Me; Here I don't have the details of that sight clearly enough in mind to understand your idea.

Thanks for reformatting the table. Now everyone can read it properly.

Good morning,
Forrest

[MakeMineA10mm]

MakeMine10mm;

In a previous life I was a 'master' machinist. This tool is not complex really but involves the typical several assemblies to work. ~ Like the click-stops at every minute of the spindle requiring detents, springs, a small ball-bearing and the drilled hole to align/hold them - a fellow would really need to make a jig to do the work in any kind of a production run. The lead screw and threaded bushing are steel ~ seems to be about 10/32 ~ The graduations on the thimble are perfect too - looks like the work of a well-run pantograph.

~ Anyway; a CNC machine would be OK but the real profitability problem would be associated with the hand assembly of the tool.

Good morning,
Forrest

Thanks Forrest! My buddy has been a machinist all his life and is an MM in charge of the tool and die shop at a large subcontractor in our area, so he gets to apply his mind to new projects all the time.

I see exactly what you mean about the assembly time. The CNC could crank out the parts, but sitting there and putting them together could be the bottleneck. Of course, if we kept the production numbers low, I wouldn't mind sitting and putting them together.

Since you are an MM, something that may help greatly is if you have any ideas on how to take all the slack out of the device in the manufacturing process. Could make them even better?

[FAsmus]

MakeMine10mm;

Thanks for the post.

The tool itself is pretty much free of slack. The way a fellow has to operate the tool on the firing line is where things can get messed up without a consistent operating technique.

For example - imagine yourself needing to lower your impact down-range. Obviously the sight has to be adjusted to a lower elevation and to do this consistently you have to memorize the too-high elevation number, loosen the issue sight elevation bar somewhat below the location needed to change impact the desired amount, lower the tool's setting as well to match, tighten the elevation bar sightly such that it is tight enough to maintain the setting you want but still move when you adjust the Perry tool and then, after all this, crank in the tool's elevation to the desired setting ~ hoping in the meantime you have remembered the too-high number correctly!

~ In short, all slack has to be UP as far as the issue sight's setting is concerned.

And don't forget to loosen the Perry tool's lead screw tension before removing it from the issue sight or its "feet", being brass, will wear out way too soon.

If this exchange ever results in more Camp Perry tools becoming available it would be a very good thing! The interest is there, perhaps small enough to be filled by one or two men carefully machining parts and assembling them.

Good morning,
Forrest

[MakeMineA10mm]

I see what you mean, Forrest.

After looking at the photos you've posted, combined with the description you just gave, I think I have a grasp of the problem. I also think there's a good solution that will get rid of that problem.

What if, instead of the foot holding onto the bottom of the sight's elevation bar and the micrometer "head" of the tool pulling upward on that foot (leaving slack if you have to go downward with the elevator), if we made a clamp that replaces the foot and the clamp firmly grabs the sight's elevation bar both top and bottom. Once the clamp is attached, you would just leave the sight's elevator tension screw loose. Then, the micrometer adjustment on the "Improved Perry Tool" would work on the clamp, and there would be no slack moving either up or down...

What do you think??

[FAsmus]

MakeMine10mm;

I do see what you're getting at ~ the concept reminds me somewhat of the target-class tang sights commonly seen on the Sharps (and other) long range target single-shots. ~ A "clinch" device of some kind is designed to hold the elevation portion of the sight solidly in place except when a change is needed, up, or down.

Here, with the already rather heavy Perry tool such additional bulk involving clamping devises and the need to conveniently attach/detach fairly frequently could very well complicate things instead of simplifying them.

Having used the tool some I would venture the idea that a way to improve the Springfield issue sight for precision long range shooting would be to figure out some method other than eye-ball guess work for making windage corrections. ~ After all, the condition changes come more rapidly and require nearly constant sight changes as compared to the less frequent elevation differences and are pretty hard to figure out and keep up with!

Now, I have not used this tool in actual competition ~ only over the long range course we have here for my own enjoyment where time is open and pressure is negligible. Perhaps, if there is someone out there who HAS experience using the Perry tool on the firing line of a match his insight could be of considerable value to us all.

Good evening,
Forrest

PS ~ It comes to mind that perhaps I really should know what each mark of the issue sight windage scale stands for. That is how many minutes each graduation means down-range. If I were to estimate I'd say each one of those marks has to be around 5 to 6 minutes change of impact. ~ Darn! I know I should know.

[MakeMineA10mm]

Yeah, I see what you mean Forrest. I'll have to do some thinking on it, and you're absolutely right, the windage is a bigger hassle than the elevation...

I couldn't remember the windage adjustment size either, but knew I had read it somewhere in the past. Google search turned up two different places that said each windage mark is 4 MOA. One of the sights said that each windage mark is a "Point" and 1 Point = 4 MOA. I'd never heard the "Point" term before.

[FAsmus]

MakeMine10mm;

Thanks for looking up the windage information - it really will help me out the next time it warms up enough to go shooting!

The term "point" is commonly heard on our firing line. The shooters that use it define it as about 0.010 travel of the rear sight (elevation or wind) when adjusting for changes. This, if you do the arithmetic, amounts to one MOA IF the sight radius is 34 inches, which is pretty close to what lots of those purpose-built rifles have between sights. ~ Shorter radius and a "point" provides equivalently more change in POI downrange.

Thus, my little Type 38 JAP carbine with a radius of 24 inches can reach out to 834 yards with only the 60 "minutes" available on the Williams receiver sight staff..

Good morning,
Forrest

[FAsmus]

Gentlemen;

I have recently been experimenting with a 3X Leupold on my M70 ~ then I remembered the M1903 Springfield I bought when I turned 18..

Since I have owned it for these 49 years it has seen many changes – one of which was scope mounting. I dug out my box of scopes (there must be thousands of bucks of optics in there) and found some scopes and bases and rings. I spent an afternoon when it was too cold for much else making shims, testing them and fitting them together, then I assembled the pieces and checked to see how it looked.

During this preparation I also wound up disassembling the old K-10 Weaver I had chosen for the job because it had some kind of contamination on the inside of the objective lens. The scope is old enough that nitrogen-filling was unknown and the work went well. This scope even has the capability to adjust for parallax – so that assembly had to be dealt with with care.

I loaded 100 rounds of known accurate components and on the next favorable day I headed for the range. I zeroed the scope off the concrete bench and then took the rifle up to the hill-top long range area to see if the outfit would reach out the way I wanted it to.

Shooting solo was hard since the ground is wet and/or frozen – showing little or no bare eye-ball evidence of bullet strikes as viewed from anything beyond – say – 350 yards. Sure the steel would ring if hit but a miss? Who knows where to correct? I sure needed a spotter.

I got in the 350 yard Bucket and the 395 yard Diamond OK but wasted 20 rounds just trying to find the 440 yard Bear. In disgust I moved to the 470 Rectangle and Wow! I suddenly noted that at the 470 yard distance I had just enough time to recover from recoil and move the focus of my eye from the cross-hairs to the right side of the field of vision and see the bullet strike in the 10-power magnification of the scope! I could self-spot! Just the additional 30 yards made the difference. My; what a relief.

I continued to shoot with very satisfactory results, getting elevation numbers for the scope and writing them down for future reference until I ran out of ammunition. It had been a good day even though I ran out before reaching the furthest targets.

At home I thought about it all and tested the scope to see what I had left after the elevation needed for the 648 yard "Big Chicken" ~ the last target I had fired that day. I estimated that I would have enough travel left in the scope's elevation adjustment to reach the 670 yard Big Round but never for the 834 yard Big Square.

I thought that over and have changed scopes to a good 6X Burris which I think may have more travel in its adjustment. Next will be to experiment and see if this is so. If it doesn't work out I'll be changing over to scopes that really won't fit the M1903 very well ~ stuff like big 12 and 24X Leopold target scopes is all I have remaining. They will "fit" but look mighty strange on an M1903 that still wears its full military wood.

The trouble is that I have not used the M1903 for very much for many years. It shoots wonderfully well but I have been using it "as issued" with the issue sights adjusted with the Camp Perry tool for some time. This is lots of fun of course but the short sight-radius combined with the narrow front sight made it tough too attain a good sight picture and the slightest error in holding would toss the miss. It is a world of difference in comparison with a single shot with its 30+ inch sight radius!

This being the case I did not have any bullets remaining in my inventory suitable for further testing since I fired all I had available that first day. ~ I'll get right on that.

Good evening,
Forrest

[FAsmus]

Gentlemen;

Here is a shot of me with the M1903 + 6x Burris on the Hill-Top long range firing point.

Good shooting in the snow.
Forrest




54761

[junkbug]

Keep up the great work. Is that an older picture, or do you already have snow on the ground?

Thanks.

[FAsmus]

Junkbug;

Yes, we already have that much snow.

Still, it beats shooting in the heat of summer - I really dislike that 90 degree stuff.

~ Forrest

[725]

Think about a shim under the rear scope contact? Might give you more elevation before adjustment run out.

[smokeywolf]

FAsmus,

You sir, are a shootist extraordinaire. My eyes are only 57 years old and I'm lucky to keep a six inch group at 200 yards with the old 03.

smokeywolf

[Dobetown]

Thanks to all, a really great thread. I started shooting high power in the 60's with the o3. Still have a garden variety o3a3 I use with cast.

[FAsmus]

"725" ~

The shim under the rear mounting block was the first thing I made for the scope-mounting procedure.

This puts a bit of a bind on the scope tube, but when the pressure came on the scope during mounting I just didn't screw down the rings as firmly as I do in a straight-forward scope system.

As-is the Burris has plenty of travel for me to get on the 834 yard target. That comes to 32 minutes up from the 350 yard zero with the 22 grain load of 4759.

Good morning,
Forrest.

[MakeMineA10mm]

Gentlemen;

Here is a shot of me with the M1903 + 6x Burris on the Hill-Top long range firing point.

Good shooting in the snow.
Forrest




54761

Forrest,
Thank you for that picture, and thanks for resurrecting this thread! It's great to hear from you and see you (and that beautiful Springfield) shooting!

[legend]

gents,i have enjoyed reading this post. thanks everyone who has had something to say in it.

[FAsmus]

SmokeyWolf:

Do you take your non-human friend with you to the range? I take my Ginger every time:

55015

Here she is at the 470 yard Small Rectangle.

When we take a brake from shooting I toss the throw-ring for her.

Good evening,
Forrest

[smokeywolf]

No FAsmus, "The Goofy Wolf" stays home with Mommy. I take the boys to the range with me and although they are very well behaved at the range. It is one of those times when I feel they should have ALL of my attention.

55027 55025 55026

The Goofy Wolf. That's the 12 year old shootin' the '03, his favorite. The 11 year old shootin' the OLLLLLLD 1911.

smokeywolf

[I'll Make Mine]

Don't let the SPCA find out that gunfire is just as damaging to a dog's hearing as it is to ours (if not more so, since they have more high frequency sensitivity to lose). Next thing you know it'll be illegal to take your dog to the range, or even hunt with 'em...

[FAsmus]

Smokey Wolf;

The place we shoot is fairly wide-open ~ no benches or anything like that.

During beaks in the shooting I turn them loose from the car, where their hearing is protected and loosen up my stiffness and get them some fun exercise with the throw-ring.

There is no traffic at all and the prairie is wide open for them to enjoy. If one of them gets enthusiastic and disappears over the horizon all I have to do is sound the car horn and he comes a-running.

Good morning,
Forrest

[smokeywolf]

Forrest, you have an enviable situation. Here in SoCal, because there is so much anti-gun sentiment we have a lot fewer places to shoot and also coincidentally a higher crime rate (sarcasm intended). Almost got a chance to relocate to Cheyenne back in 1979. Went up there and spent a week testing for Cheyenne Police Dept.. Passed all their tests, was put on a hire list and the city rescinded their funding for new officers.
As it is, I'm lucky to be only 40-45 minutes away from the range. Every time I go and take the boys it costs $35.00 in range fees and about $12.00 in gas and wear & tear on the truck. The time with my kids is worth it, but it's still a $50.00 day if you count reloading components.
We've been making plans and looking forward to vacating this tax and socialist nightmare they call California, but right now my health coverage limits me to using only the Motion Picture Hospital and its local satellite health care centers. It looks like I may be stuck here in libland for at least another 1 1/2 years.

smokeywolf

[FAsmus]

SmokeyWolf;

I have heard similar stories before about Southern California. It is unfortunate that you're kind of trapped there.

I won't brag about my blessings here - but I do know that I'm a very fortunate fellow.

Good morning,
Forrest

[motorcycle_dan]

Great stories. I have an O3 but my shooting it doesn't work well with my physique. Where my thumb crosses the stock is very near my cheek weld. Such that on recoil, I end up with a fat lip. First shot of the day is usually good then I start flinching because my lip is starting to swell. Be happy to hear how to fix this. On the 03 and an Argentine mauser both pop me in the lip when fired.

[I'll Make Mine]

Try laying your thumb forward along the stock, instead of across it by your lip?