1903 stuck safety

[JHeath]

I searched the group and don't see what seems to be a known issue with the 1903 safety. Mine is a rebuilt Rem 03A3 I guess from the SC bbl and ground test dimple.

The safety won't swing out of "READY" unless I pull the striker slightly, or push the bolt handle forward.

The problem is that the "cam" surface on the safety does not clear the rear edge of the safety groove on the striker.

I'm confident that I can radius the corner of the groove on the striker and resolve the issue.

But do the experts here have any comments about how common this is, what to look for, etc?

This rifle was neatly configured as a match rifle in the 1960s and well cared for. I don't understand how this could have been unnoticed.

[waksupi]

Is there an after market trigger on it?

[Larry Gibson]

'This rifle was neatly configured as a match rifle in the 1960s"

My guess is if the trigger is still military it or the striker or both were honed too much causing misalignment of the notches. If you can radius the cam and it works you'd be good to go. Just make sure the safety pivots the striker back off the sear and it reconnects solidly when the safety is taken off "safe". Otherwise an unintentional discharge is probable.

If that doesn't work a replacement trigger and striker knob are needed.

[pietro]

'This rifle was neatly configured as a match rifle in the 1960s"

My guess is if the trigger is still military it or the striker or both were honed too much causing misalignment of the notches.

If that doesn't work a replacement trigger and striker knob are needed.

+1

[Streetwalker]

10/4 on Mr. Gibson's post.

[Adam Helmer]

I would replace the striker assembly in the bolt. Who knows how many times it was "honed."

Adam

[JHeath]

'This rifle was neatly configured as a match rifle in the 1960s"

My guess is if the trigger is still military it or the striker or both were honed too much causing misalignment of the notches. If you can radius the cam and it works you'd be good to go. Just make sure the safety pivots the striker back off the sear and it reconnects solidly when the safety is taken off "safe". Otherwise an unintentional discharge is probable.

If that doesn't work a replacement trigger and striker knob are needed.

Ah yes I forgot to mention the (Timney?) trigger.

Since the sear isn't now holding the striker back far enough for the groove to align, it seems that releasing the safety after modifying the corner of the groove would still lower the striker into the sear.

I'm not going to change the overall position of the groove, just radius or bevel the sharp corner of the groove so the safety can cam it. I guess the question is whether engaging the safety on the current striker backs it off sufficiently from the sear. I lack knowledge of whether a sear normally follows the striker back at all when the bolt is retracted. Only if the sear follows the striker back would the striker not disengage the sear when the safety is engaged.

I want to keep the aftermarket trigger. So it sounds like I should confirm that the striker is now engaging/disengaging the sear. If it's good now then it will still be good with the corner radiused.

I've seen multiple people ask online about the same problem with standard triggers. The answers are usually that the design stacks tolerances. Some people have replaced entire bolts, others replaced strikers.

With my current parts, the safety now cams the striker rearward a little, and if I modify the groove corner as planned the safety will still retract the striker a little. Not sure how much, maybe 1/32.

Btw Larry I've been gone a while. Good to hear your voice again. And thanks.

JNH

[Rich/WIS]

After you bevel the notches engage the safety, pull and release the trigger and then move the safety to the fire position. If the striker falls you need to start replacing parts.

[waksupi]

Ah yes I forgot to mention the (Timney?) trigger.

Since the sear isn't now holding the striker back far enough for the groove to align, it seems that releasing the safety after modifying the corner of the groove would still lower the striker into the sear.

I'm not going to change the overall position of the groove, just radius or bevel the sharp corner of the groove so the safety can cam it. I guess the question is whether engaging the safety on the current striker backs it off sufficiently from the sear. I lack knowledge of whether a sear normally follows the striker back at all when the bolt is retracted. Only if the sear follows the striker back would the striker not disengage the sear when the safety is engaged.

I want to keep the aftermarket trigger. So it sounds like I should confirm that the striker is now engaging/disengaging the sear. If it's good now then it will still be good with the corner radiused.

I've seen multiple people ask online about the same problem with standard triggers. The answers are usually that the design stacks tolerances. Some people have replaced entire bolts, others replaced strikers.

With my current parts, the safety now cams the striker rearward a little, and if I modify the groove corner as planned the safety will still retract the striker a little. Not sure how much, maybe 1/32.

Btw Larry I've been gone a while. Good to hear your voice again. And thanks.

JNH

The thing is, do you have the RIGHT trigger? I had bought a custom Mauser my X liked, that would do the same thing yours is doing. It had a trigger for a 96, rather than the correct 98 trigger. Changed out, problem went away.

[JHeath]

The thing is, do you have the RIGHT trigger? I had bought a custom Mauser my X liked, that would do the same thing yours is doing. It had a trigger for a 96, rather than the correct 98 trigger. Changed out, problem went away.

Thanks. Well, the pin hole on the trigger housing is drilled in the right place . . . would a 98 trigger fit on an '03?

The trigger looks unmarked and 1960s like the rest of the build. I'll pull everything apart and check the engagements with and without the trigger, and examine the sear and striker to see if someone honed them too far trying to improve things.

The trigger works fairly well. Teensy little creep. If I can make the safety work *safely* with a little angle on the striker notch I'd be okay. Larry told me what to look out for on that.

The safety works when engaged. But to engage it I have to pull the striker back by the knob, maybe 1/32". I'd rather not be pulling on the striker over a loaded chamber to engage the safety . . .

[Eddie1971]

I have the same issue with a 1903A3 bolt I had bought in the wrapper. It's a Smith Corona made bolt too. Unmodified trigger and rifle.

[JHeath]

The thing is, do you have the RIGHT trigger? I had bought a custom Mauser my X liked, that would do the same thing yours is doing. It had a trigger for a 96, rather than the correct 98 trigger. Changed out, problem went away.

I need to buy-and-try another trigger.

Interesting note: I tried to close the bolt while holding the trigger, to ease down the striker as I closed the action, wanting a closed bolt uncocked. Instead, the cocking piece engaged the sear as I closed the bolt and remained cocked although I was holding down the trigger. I fully closed the bolt that way. Then I let go of the trigger, and the striker dropped. I.e. I basically dry-fired by letting go of the trigger instead of squeezing it.

[Larry Gibson]

Definitely sounds like the trigger is not for the M1903. A new commercial or original is probably needed as you surmise.

[JHeath]

Definitely sounds like the trigger is not for the M1903. A new commercial or original is probably needed as you surmise.

I tried the trigger against a 98 receiver and it doesn't remotely fit. I can't imagine this trigger fits anything but an 03.

Also, I learned that the striker sticks on the sear when I hold down the trigger to "de-cock" the rifle only because the trigger guard needs to be relieved so I can depress the trigger the tiniest bit further. With the trigger guard removed it's fine.

If I widened the safety notch on the cocking piece by about 1/16" to 3/32" I think the safety would work fine. Perhaps the trigger was part of a speed lock kit intended for a modified cocking piece? I don't know what those kits looked like.

I haven't tested a file on the cocking piece to see if I need to use a (shudder) Dremel.

[Rich/WIS]

A bevel on the striker may be all you need to mate to the bevel on the safety. If you have a GI trigger on hand swap it with the commercial trigger and see if it does the same thing. If not the problem is the current trigger. If it does then possibly the striker or bolt sleeve is out of spec or perhaps a stacking of tolerances. Both GI parts and commercial triggers are available.

[Gtek]

Way back when I modified several 03's/A3's with Timney's, if I remember correctly just about everyone required some relieving in trigger window both X and Y. What if you took assembled weapon (empty- have to say it, sorry) cocked, laid a good framing square or something with a ninety down side and measured distance from cocking piece rear to rear of shroud. Remove bolt and pull striker assembly, remove striker and spring, engage safety where it will on cocking piece then measure to find out how far your off. Mock up assembly less stock and see how it works? Maybe a wood issue?

[leadhead]

If you don't intend to shoot it in match's, I'd replace the trigger and bolt parts and be done with it.
Military parts are not that pricey and you would feel a lot safer not knowing if is going to go off when
you flip the safety off. Just my .02 cents.