1903 Springfield (circa 1929) Help with hieroglyphics please

As it relates to sights I have a Remington '03 and a Remington '03-a3 and for me the '03 sights are virtually useless for anything other than shooting from a bench. For most all shooting the 'a3 sights are vastly superior.
 
Last edited:
Col. Crossman and the "Rookie's Delight"

Without a doubt the Model 1903 service rifle sights are generally best suited to a young man’s eyes. (Dad Farr’s performance at the 1921 National Match is a notable exception).

In Capt. E.C. Crossman’s 1932 book “The Book of the Springfield” he devotes a chapter to M1903 Springfield and M1917 Enfield sights. When you first look at the M1903’s rear sights it seems like a bewildering set of notches and apertures to choose from but Crossman added another: “As the slide clears the 400 yard mark it exposes below it a shallow U shaped opening known as the Rookie‘s Delight. You may not find this name in the Springfield handbook… This is particularly appealing to said rookie at about 600 yards, one reason being that it is much larger and juicier and easier to use than the stingy peep above it….”

With the advent of the M1903A3 rifle's rear sight the rifleman was down to a single aperture to aim thru. A much better arrangement for most folks.
 
I took the old boy to the indoor range to see if it works. Its only 20 yards so no surprise it shot tiny groups (2” above point of aim) with the ratty box of 150 grain Core Lokts I scrounged up. I had to wear my reading glasses to make out the sights.

It functioned beautifully and turned a few heads when I touched it off.
 
DWalt said:
My only '03 at present (I have owned several others in the past) is a fairly pristine Springfield from early 1917 (pre-US entry into WWI), apparently all original and complete. The only thing I did was get a later bolt for shooting use, as some of the earlier bolts are suspect. Of course, I still have the original bolt. There is considerable fiction out there about how dangerous the early "Low Number" Springfields are, due to poor heat treatment of the receivers. In fact the Army never considered them dangerous, and never pulled them out of service. "Hatcher's Notebook" contains a lengthy discussion concerning the "Low Number" Springfields, concluding most of the blowups were more likely the result of bad ammunition and attempts to fire 8mm Mauser ammunition in them. I once had a friend who owned a very early '03, I think from around 1905 or thereabouts, and I have fired it a fair amount with military ammunition without consequences. My main complaint about the '03 is that I consider their sights an abomination. I am not sure how the '03 draws such honors for its accuracy. The M1917 Enfields, also from the WWI era, have vastly better sights, as do the WWII 03A3s. Had I been a WWI Doughboy, I would have greatly preferred being armed with the 1917 Enfield. Allegedly, that is what Sgt. York used.
Click to expand...

York did not use a 1917 during his exploits. History shows, as confirmed by his nephew, who was a park ranger at the York grist mill, Sgt. Alvin C. York used a 1903 Springfield. He acquired the rifle, as his nephew relayed the story, by "midnight requisition" from a company of Marines that were bivouacked near the 82nd All American Division in France.

My Dad acquired the 1903 Springfield from Montgomery Ward in downtown Jackson, TN for $39.95 in the late 60's. They were advertised as arsenal "new" and came in arsenal crates packed 10 rifles, in cosmoline, to a crate.

This rifle was rebuilt at the Ogden, Utah arsenal, as the cartouche stamp shows, along with the stamp of the commanding officer, Elmer Keith. It is superbly accurate and I have placed 2nd a couple of times in vintage military matches with this rifle.

The photos show the stamps, barrel date and its companion in the safe, a Remington 1903A3
 

Attachments

  • IMG_0275.jpg
    IMG_0275.jpg
    122.5 KB · Views: 36
  • IMG_0274.jpg
    IMG_0274.jpg
    63.4 KB · Views: 33
  • IMG_0270.jpg
    IMG_0270.jpg
    108 KB · Views: 36
Last edited:
I note that your '03 is wearing one half of a M1923 sling rigged to compensate for the missing second strap. The anchor on the keeper is the logo of North & Judd, the maker of the keeper.
 
Greyman50 said:
View attachment 536842 Use this with reading glasses with magnification needed for about 12”, my eye surgeon did mine for me. Have had many 03’s over the years.
Click to expand...

The USMC had a similar approach with some of their rear sights - the slide only had one, larger, aperture. I've heard it referred to as a "No. 10" rear sight but I don't know if that is official nomenclature. To go with it they used a wider, undercut front sight blade. Many of the target shooters of the era bought P.J. O'Hare rear sight and front sight protectors plus a rear sight micrometer.
 

Attachments

  • PA090230.JPG
    PA090230.JPG
    163.5 KB · Views: 14
  • PA090231.jpg
    PA090231.jpg
    38.5 KB · Views: 15
  • PA090232.jpg
    PA090232.jpg
    86.7 KB · Views: 14
Just sold my last 03 to friend in club, thinning the herd and down to a very nice 03-A1 that can be shot pretty good with my eyes using my regular close up glasses. Had many over the years including several early 03’s,1907 and 1909 that had not been overhauled. Son got the 09 with my WWI collection, sold the 07 at SOS years ago. Some times I regret selling a few firearms, the 07 always comes to mind but hey, you can’t keep everything. Story of the 07, went in a gun shop when traveling from N.C. to Va. when my Dad was fighting cancer, walked in . clerk was in middle of a sale so did’t say anything, just looked around. When the customer left with a pump riot gun saw clerk put this 03 on the wall. From 20’ away I saw everything I needed to and asked to see it. Clerk proudly said, “ just traded that LEO for this, he wanted a riot gun”. Causally asked what he wanted for the 03, he said, “ well I gave him $250 for it so how about $275? About broke my arm getting wallet out, did the paper work and out the door. Other than minor rust under wood it was in excellent condition. Had a 09 dated 07 sling at home so it was complete. Not sure of a pic of it but may be in a stack of pics in storage. I fired it a couple of times with 17 dated ball ammo, complete cleaning afterwards naturally. Also had a 07 dated 05 bayonet in correct scabbard. Used it in several WWI displays.
 
sigp220.45 said:
I took the old boy to the indoor range to see if it works. Its only 20 yards so no surprise it shot tiny groups (2” above point of aim) with the ratty box of 150 grain Core Lokts I scrounged up. I had to wear my reading glasses to make out the sights.

It functioned beautifully and turned a few heads when I touched it off.
Click to expand...

Nice 1903, I have two currently, both I believe to be Greek CMP returns. One is a 1942 Remington in a Type C stock, the other is a 1918 Springfield that was rebarreled in 1932. 1903’s are great pieces of history.

Shooting 30-06 at 20 yards at an indoor range, I bet that you turned some heads.
 
"York did not use a 1917 during his exploits. History shows, as confirmed by his nephew, who was a park ranger at the York grist mill, Sgt. Alvin C. York used a 1903 Springfield. He acquired the rifle, as his nephew relayed the story, by "midnight requisition" from a company of Marines that were bivouacked near the 82nd All American Division in France."

According to the U.S. 82nd Division history, there is no doubt that Sgt. York was issued a 1917 Enfield. And most references claim that is what he used in his famous encounter with the Germans. There are others who claim that he may have later picked up a M1903 Springfield, and used it against the Germans. Just why York would pick up and use a different rifle which he probably had little familiarity with is unanswered. The 1941 movie with Gary Cooper in the leading role shows him as using a Springfield. But the correctness of anything shown in a movie is always suspect. For example, it is virtually certain York also used an M1911 pistol, yet the movie presents him as using a Luger. I was unable to find any information that Alvin York himself ever said definitively which rifle he used, and information from any other source (even his nephew who was never anywhere near the actual event) is also suspect as to its correctness.

This type of discussion brings to mind the debate about what gun Frank Hamer used in the Bonnie and Clyde ambush, another equally historic encounter. Hamer's son always claimed that Frank used a Remington Model 81 semiauto rifle, but that is clearly impossible, as the Model 81 did not even exist at that time. Others say he used a Remington Model 8, possible, but unlikely in light of other evidence (there were indeed at least two Model 8s at the ambush, but used by others). The best scholarship on the event strongly suggests that Hamer actually used a Remington Model 11 12 gauge shotgun. Again, there is no known record of Hamer actually stating what gun he used that day.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

E
Please help
Replies
8
Views
674
Muley Gil
M
chief38
Fabrique National Auto 5 12 gauge shotgun from 1927 - 1929
Replies
8
Views
545
67tempest
6
sigp220.45
“Low number” Springfield 1903
2 3 4
Replies
62
Views
4K
SnidelyWhiplash
S
Bald1
Grip ID help with maker.
Replies
3
Views
386
Bald1
Bald1
444 Magnum
Custom 1903 Springfield
2
Replies
37
Views
2K
2152hq
2

Latest posts

Back
Top