New (to me) Remington M1903 Modified Joins Springfield

[bill-in-texas]

The first gun I ever became truly enamored with was my dad’s old Springfield Model 1903 (SA 5-18 bbl.). When he surprised me with it on a visit about 15 years ago, (he is now 90) I couldn’t believe it. It was the first long gun I ever shot and, although it has had some arsenal refurbishment, it’s “right as rain” to me. Dad ordered it for $29.95 from an ad in Field & Stream in 1957. So, I know it’s history since then.

I recently came across an arsenal refurbished Remington Model 1903 Modified (RA 2-42 bbl.).
Mostly original, 100% correct, it bears 3 Rockwell hardness punch marks along with other corresponding indicators of being pulled from duty for inspection and overhaul, if necessary.

I’m thrilled to have a 2nd example of this fine battle rifle.
Comments welcomed.*
Thanks for looking!

*Compare the standard .06” peep on the Remington vs. the rarely seen (for good reason!) .04” peep on the Springfield. Also, notice the early, first type trigger on the Remington (1903-1910).
Due to poor indoor lighting, I’ve brightened some pics.

 

[Greyman50]

03s are lots of fun to collect. Had many years ago but all gone now due to arthritis.

 

[Rocketmedic40]

I have never been able to understand what angry, non-infantry, mean-spirited soul designed the original 1903 sights (or Krag, or Trapdoor) without any sort of accommodations for anything other than a hawk-eyed shooter in perfect light picking off stationary targets at 547 yards or more.

Like, for the ranges of Camp Perry or Quantico on a brightly-lit morning? Great. But in lower light, or glare, or shooting downhill, or uphill, or quickly after moving, or at moving targets, or at a small target? Absolutely worthless unless it’s close enough to center the front blade and hope. It’s a testament to the grit and skillof the Marines and selected soldiers in WW1 that they were able to make it as effective as it was; but the Enfield and 03A3 are far, far better combat rifles.

 

[bill-in-texas]

I have never been able to understand what angry, non-infantry, mean-spirited soul designed the original 1903 sights (or Krag, or Trapdoor) without any sort of accommodations for anything other than a hawk-eyed shooter in perfect light picking off stationary targets at 547 yards or more.

Like, for the ranges of Camp Perry or Quantico on a brightly-lit morning? Great. But in lower light, or glare, or shooting downhill, or uphill, or quickly after moving, or at moving targets, or at a small target? Absolutely worthless unless it’s close enough to center the front blade and hope. It’s a testament to the grit and skillof the Marines and selected soldiers in WW1 that they were able to make it as effective as it was; but the Enfield and 03A3 are far, far better combat rifles.

It might surprise you to know that I completely agree with you… Well said, sir!

Fortunately for me, my shooting of the M1903 Springfield is limited to such perfect conditions as you describe.

For SHTF scenarios, I would not rely on this able work horse of a century ago.

 

[Rocketmedic40]

It might surprise you to know that I completely agree with you… Well said, sir!

Fortunately for me, my shooting of the M1903 Springfield is limited to such perfect conditions as you describe.

For SHTF scenarios, I would not rely on this able work horse of a century ago.

I’ve got a Sporterized 03 with a rear peep sight that’s perfectly Ok and even has a compass embedded in the stock. I’d trust it. I’ve also got an 03A3 and a 1917 I’d trust hands down, and over a garand.

 

[LVSteve]

I have never been able to understand what angry, non-infantry, mean-spirited soul designed the original 1903 sights (or Krag, or Trapdoor) without any sort of accommodations for anything other than a hawk-eyed shooter in perfect light picking off stationary targets at 547 yards or more.

Like, for the ranges of Camp Perry or Quantico on a brightly-lit morning? Great. But in lower light, or glare, or shooting downhill, or uphill, or quickly after moving, or at moving targets, or at a small target? Absolutely worthless unless it’s close enough to center the front blade and hope. It’s a testament to the grit and skillof the Marines and selected soldiers in WW1 that they were able to make it as effective as it was; but the Enfield and 03A3 are far, far better combat rifles.

This^ and more. As a milsurp guy I've seen pretty much every variation of iron sight there is. As stated, many seem to have been designed for perfect lighting. German Mauser sights have always driven me nuts. That barleycorn front sight "walks around" for me in strong side light, and the minimal divot in the rear sight makes quick acquisition a no-no. I once commented to a German guy that his people must have been the master race if they could shoot straight with those awful sights. "Do you think that is why we lost the last war?" He had a great sense of humor.

Mosins with the post front sight were great until the Soviets decided to go with the minimal rear sight notch. AAGHH!! I don't know if this was a wartime shortcut or a copycat move having inspected captured German rifles. Then there is the entirely weird sight picture needed for post 1940 Carcanos when using the battle sight. You bury the front sight in the bottom of the huge notch in the rear sight leaf, contrary to just about any other iron sight picture. Even post WWII rifles had poor sights. The worst I have is an Egyptian FN-49 with a rear peep so small you can hear the light squeak trying to get through it.

 

[Rocketmedic40]

Conversely, in the land of “these are pretty good to excellent”, I’ve got to say the SMLE No.1 sights are good, the 1914/1917 sights are great, and the irons on the older Mosins are excellent. And ofc there’s the majesty of the Garand.

 

[Dave Haynes]

I remember years ago at a gun show running into one of these beautiful Remington 1903s. It was like brand new and so pretty that you wanted to cry. Was way too much in those days. That's a wonderful find. I agree with the sight info, the 03A3 sights are so much better. Long range target shooting the 03 are the cats meow. I would not want to fight a war with them. + 98K sights are a beautiful piece of work but hard to see where you are. The dead deer didn't agree but when you are used to the peeps everything else seems difficult.

 

[Mongo Safari]

My 1903's started breeding so I have to keep them separate now. Same with a few Enfield rifles. The worst breeders are 1911 pistols and revolvers.

The oldest is SA 1903 is a low number (100% original), 1942 Remington (Lend-Lease unissued), SA 03A3"s & SC 03A3 Nickel plated Presentation (butt is perfect not a drill gun, fully functional- shoots great). Sporterized 1903, 1920 shoots like a dream.

Enfield table: Front rifle is Eddystone US 1917 30-06 (1917).
No.1 MK III Lithgow Australian 303, No. 1 MK III2A* Ishapor India 7.62, and No.4 MK II Fazakerley, England. I'd have to check the mfg. dates.

 

[cowboy94916]

I had a number of 1903, 1903 a1 and 1903 a3 plus a couple of 1917 Enfields over the years. Enjoyed shooting them in cmp bolt gun annual matches at our club. But my eyes with age and those sights, turned joy to frustration. Luckly for me I have a nephew who has a love for these weapons. He got the best of each before i disposed of the rest. Love to watch him shoot them. I did keep an 03a3, sporterized by a local smith, with a nice Redfield receiver sight and ivory bead post for myself, as shooter and deer hunting backup.

 

[Mongo Safari]

My eyes are getting old too. I had to start shooting rifles left-handed because of a cataract up in my right eye. Handgun were fairly easy to simply shift over to the left eye.