Long live the '03 Springfield!

[Sprefix]

These are sumthin' for sure........

Cyrano, Oddly enough, I shoot mine on a semi-regular basis, but have never put it to a serious test as far as a group goes. I sighted it in, and shoot out to 300 yards on smaller things that I can see (of course), and the rifle does its' part every time. I can call the shot the instant the trigger breaks. It has a set of Redfield sights on it, peep on the rear and the same on front with a post. I got this from a good friend of mine that inherited it from his grandfather. He says his grandfather got the rifle in that configuration, but I have no proof of it nor have I checked into the history of the rifle. Is your K10 period correct, or just what you decided to put on it? I do have mine slotted for Kodiak Island for deer on my next trip. John, that is very nice and down right mean of you!! Now I really wish I purchased that rifle!!! I am a Keith fan and I should have bought it for that reason alone. Money was tight and I chickened out. The '03 just went on the range-list for next time out. Better try a group and see how bad I can embarrass myself.

 

[P&R Fan]

My late father had two of them, which today reside in my safe. One is a 1903 that is below the "safe" serial number range.I really like it, and am tempted to shoot it, but haven't so far.
The other is a sporterized 1903 that has an '03 rear sight, a ramp front sight, a jeweled bolt and a stock that Dad's friend made. When the DC snipers were at large my Mom was following the story and read that they were taking shots at about 100 yds. She asked if anybody could really hit somebody at that range. I laughed and said they were using a scoped rifle and it would not be difficult. I told her I could hit a man-sized target at that range offhand with iron sights. She looked doubtful. I went to the safe and got the aforementioned sporterized '03 out and took it to the range. I brought some ammo my Dad brought back from the Army in the '60s. It was headstamped 1956. I had never fired this rifle before, or any other '03 for that matter, but I decided to see how I could do. I fired 5 shots offhand just to get a feel for the rifle, then snuggled into the sling and concentrated on my next five. I had one called flyer about 4 inches low, but the other 4 I could cover with the palm of my hand. All shot offhand, at 100 yds with an unfamiliar 93 year old rifle I was not familiar with. Showed the target to Mom. Needless to say, she was impressed.
I really like '03s. I think I may shoot the older one, even though I really shouldn't. I'm a risk taker, I've even run with scissors on occasion.
Thanks for the interesting thread.
Jim

 

[Sprefix]

Three stampings?

One of my '03s, a MkI in original condition built in 1919, has Elmer's acceptance mark. Here's a pic of it:

John

If I remember correctly, there were three different stampings that could be confused for Keiths stamp. I don't remember what they were or who the stampings initials represented. Do you have any knowledge of these?

 

[PALADIN85020]

If I remember correctly, there were three different stampings that could be confused for Keiths stamp. I don't remember what they were or who the stampings initials represented. Do you have any knowledge of these?

I guess we live and learn. I just now did some research on that. If the "OGEK" was in a box outline, it was Keith's mark. The plain OGEK (without the box) was for one Ed Klouser, an inspector during the WWII period. So it looks like my rifle was stamped by Mr. Klouser, rather than ol' Elmer. Drat!

John

 

[gregintenn]

Great thread!
You caused me to dig mine out from the back of the safe. It is a Springfield reciever, and a Rock Island barrel. The barrel is dated 1918, and I believe the reciever serial number also dates to 1918. It has two "P"s stamped behind the trigger guard, which leads me to believe it was arsenal refurbished at some point.

I would be interested in any further information anyone could provide on this rifle.

 

[Sprefix]

Durn it! Sorry............

I guess we live and learn. I just now did some research on that. If the "OGEK" was in a box outline, it was Keith's mark. The plain OGEK (without the box) was for one Ed Klouser, an inspector during the WWII period. So it looks like my rifle was stamped by Mr. Klouser, rather than ol' Elmer. Drat!

John

I'm sorry about that John. I was scratching my head all the way 'til I nodded out. The one I passed on was in the box(initials). Thanks for checking and bummer that it wasn't Elmers stamp. Darn fine rifle in any case!!

 

[DWalt]

Regarding Hatcher's information on the low-number Springfield '03s. He also relates that the Army concluded there was no evidence sufficient to warrant withdrawal of the low-numbered rifles from service, and so they kept soldiering on as long as the '03s were in military use. Many were rebuilt and re-issued during WWII. I have an all-original '03 dating from early 1917 (prior to the US's formal entry into WWI) and have fired it extensively with both military ammunition and handloads. I believed that if the Army felt there was no real risk in firing the old '03s, why should I doubt them? I have a friend who owns an even earlier '03 (1907) and he has fired his even more than I have fired mine.

 

[PALADIN85020]

Great thread!
You caused me to dig mine out from the back of the safe. It is a Springfield reciever, and a Rock Island barrel. The barrel is dated 1918, and I believe the reciever serial number also dates to 1918. It has two "P"s stamped behind the trigger guard, which leads me to believe it was arsenal refurbished at some point.

I would be interested in any further information anyone could provide on this rifle.

The rear sight is a WWII era replacement - note that the sight adjustment knobs are not dished, but flat. These were typical of Remington manufacture. The rear sight base is grooved, which indicates first-era manufacture. It seems what you have is a rework; typically parts were not matched as to time or manufacturer. Still a valid and collectible rifle, representing the rework process.

John

 

[gregintenn]

Thank you, sir. I believed it was a reworked rifle. They are interesting pieces of American history.
I think my father paid $30 for it. He knew I liked it, and once gave it to me for a birthday present.

 

[Fishslayer]

I also carried one at NTC San Diego boot camp. The firing pins had been taken out of them.

That's where I was and you are exactly right now that I recall. We were never required to do anything with them but carry them & the usual manual of arms drills. No polishing or oiling. We probably had a couple, three avalanches a day when trying to stack arms. Such things would make me cry to see today.

 

[Cyrano]

Sprefix; I bought mine at an Albuquerque NM gun show. It was sporterized then: bolt bent, drilled and tapped and stock cut down. I put an original stock on it and make a 'replica' 03-A4 out of it. The K 10 isn't period, but I use it for testing loads. It should have an old model Lyman Alaskan or a Weaver 330, but both are priced well out of my reach. I saw a military marked Weaver 330 at a recent gun show: $1100; I passed. I doubt they cost $30 new.

 

[Faulkner]

Here's a picture of my 1942 dated Remington 1903 modified, one of the '03's Remington made as they were transitioning to the 03A3.

 

[BLACKHAWKNJ]

I treasure my 3-a 1918 High Number with the WWII scant grip stock, a 1942 Remington, a Mark I that unfortunately Bubba got hold of-GI stock, sights, barrel, but receiver blued and drilled and tapped, bolt jeweled.
The version I read said we ended up paying $200,000 for rights-the stripper clip. I don't have my copy of Hatcher's book in front of me, but I recall clearly he found all the problem receivers dated from 1906-1907 and 1911 or, the story that the problems were caused by hiring new help to boost war production is just that-a story. The rod bayonet was eliminated due to the personal intervention of TR himself, while M1903 No. 1 was rebuilt to 1906 specs and actually issued to a doughboy in France. When he protested at having to turn in his unique rifle for an M1917 it was set aside and returned to the Armory.

 

[PALADIN85020]

I treasure my 3-a 1918 High Number with the WWII scant grip stock, a 1942 Remington, a Mark I that unfortunately Bubba got hold of-GI stock, sights, barrel, but receiver blued and drilled and tapped, bolt jeweled.
The version I read said we ended up paying $200,000 for rights-the stripper clip. I don't have my copy of Hatcher's book in front of me, but I recall clearly he found all the problem receivers dated from 1906-1907 and 1911 or, the story that the problems were caused by hiring new help to boost war production is just that-a story. The rod bayonet was eliminated due to the personal intervention of TR himself, while M1903 No. 1 was rebuilt to 1906 specs and actually issued to a doughboy in France. When he protested at having to turn in his unique rifle for an M1917 it was set aside and returned to the Armory.

I've handled that #1 '03 on a visit to Springfield Armory many years ago. I had written earlier for permission to visit their non-display collection upstairs. I photographed it with my crude early 35mm camera; maybe someday I will find the prints. Also examined the #1 M1 Garand and the #1 Krag-Jorgensen; I'm sure I also have pictures of them. After 40-something years and several household moves, the pics are probably in a forgotten box in the garage somewhere.

I was also privileged to view the non-display collection at Aberdeen Proving Grounds about 20 years ago. A former neighbor and good friend was then head of Security at the Proving Grounds, and hooked me up with Dr. Bill Atwater, who was then the curator of the museum there. Imagine handling one of the test trial FALS and other historic guns! I also got his expert's views as we toured their extensive collection of tanks from around the world. The German WWII King Tiger was incredible to view close up. If the Germans had made enough of them, they could have steamrollered Europe. Too bad for them it was not fast, not very maneuverable, expensive, heavy and unreliable. Still, it terrorized our Shermans. I wish I had the photo equipment I use now.

John

 

[DWalt]

The alleged problem with the low-number Springfield '03s was attributed mainly to metallurgy. Heat-treating was poorly understood at the time, and temperature measurements were rudimentary, relying mainly upon the eyeball of the employee doing the heat treating as to the color of the metal rather than instruments. That resulted in receivers which were occasionally too hard and brittle and prone to fracture. The Germans never had that problem with their contemporary Mausers, as their metals technology was much more advanced. There were similar problems with '03 bolts. Most of those were later replaced with newer ones, and it is unusual to find a low-number '03 with its original bolt (easily detected as the bolt handle was not swept back at all. The new bolts had a swept-back handle).

The King Tiger failed as it was far too heavy. It tore up roads, collapsed bridges, and bogged down in mud. A totally impractical tank, but it was Hitler's baby, and he got his way.

 

[Cyrano]

I guess it's up to me to play contrarian. Their excellence (and they are excellent rifles) is in how carefully they were made, not how well they were engineered. The 1903 action is a copy of the Mauser, and in most respects that it differed from the Mauser, it was a mistake.

The mettalurgy has already been gone into, and when a rifle got one of those barrels made in WW I that had burned steel, or one with a slag inclusion in the barrel, they were a grenade waiting to go off. The single heat treats are brittle, and when their strength is exceeded, they shatter rather than bend. After WW I the Ordnance Dept wanted to have the single heat treats declared obsolete, but there were so many of them that the Army said 'no'. However single heat treats in the possession of civilians could be exchanged for a double heat treat or nickle steel receiver.

Unfortunately the US kept the two piece firing pin of the Krag. It gave mushy ignition in the Springfield; the one piece Mauser design gives better ignition, particularly under rough conditions. The dolls's head was also subject to breakage, and if the tip of the firing pin was jammed hard enough in the bolt, a rapid and forceful operation of the rifle might give a premature ignition. John Garand designed a one piece firing pin for the Springfield; I dont know if anyone now is imitating that design, but I'd sure like to put one in my "03-A4".

The safety lug on the bolt is clumsy. It has to be large to bear on the receiver bridge, since the bridge has to have enough space for the locking lugs to pass during bolt removal. The top of the receiver bridge, in turn, has to be large enough to let this huge locking lug pass through. Look at the Mauser design with a small lug that rides in its own groove in the receiver.

The Springfield safety has four parts including a spring, pin and plunger. The Mauser does the same job with one.

The Springfield breech leaves a lot more of the case exposed at the base than other designs, not only the Mauser but the 1917 Enfield and the Arisaka.

In most respects, it would have been better to secure a license from Mauser to produce the rifle, and then modify it to US requirements. However probably BG Crozier, chief of Ordnance thought this wouldn't be politically possible. However a Mauser, modified to fit US requirements, but made to Springfield standards of quality would be something to behold.

Springfield enginners felld own badly on the sight. Good shooting can be done with it, but the design doesn't make it easy. The peep is too small, unusable in dim light, and too far away from the eye. Try shooting one someday and see for yourself. The 03-A3 and 1917 Enfield sights are much superior. True the Springfield was adjustable for windage, while the Enfield wasn't, but why did they calibrate the windage in 'points' instead of MOA or something more usable. The battle sight (rear sight leaf down) has a point-blank range of something like 525 yards. At normal battle distances, 300 yards and less, the bullet is quite high above the line of sight. No wonder that, durign Pancho Villa's raid on Columbus, Lt Lucas told his troops to aim low at targets about 150 yards away.

I'll get off my soapbox now.

 

[BLACKHAWKNJ]

The version I have seen says that "In World War I, the British had the best battle rifle, the Germans the best hunting rifle and the US the best target rifle."