Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Mausers and Military Rifles barrel band stocks, useless?

Are full-length stocks and handguard rifle stocks with barrel bands just (useless) out-dated nostalgia?

My current conundrum is about replacing the stock(s) on a 1903 A1, that now sits in a sporter-ized stock, but otherwise looks to be vintage correct. The idea of adding more wood and barrel bands just runs counter to all my thoughts about the proper function of a rifle.

Changing the stock only seems to add up to functional negatives, adding weight and barrel pressure, maybe adding back some of the original aesthetics, but certainly not re-creating any historic relic value (, and of course there'd be the opportunity to hang a bayonet on it!).

And this opens the can of worms about the (accuracy) value of military 22 trainers (in the real shooting world), leaving me with the same thoughts about the value of aesthetics and nostalgia over precision and consistent accuracy.

You make some good points, but one thing to think about...if the sporter stocked 03-A3 is glassed, pillared, trigger tuned...will it ever be a real target rifle? If you restore it, will it be all that much worse accuracy wise? At least if you have access to the original military furniture at a good price...you can enhance the value of it much more than a mediocre accuracy modified battle rifle.

By many standards the 03-A3 is itself "outdated nostalgia" in sporter or military configuration! Chuck them both! :)* If your question goes to the wisdom of the military configuration, seems to me you're likely correct at least in part. Surely lighter weight alternatives such certain alloys! But price and fabrication factors, perhaps prohibitive. And not just American Military of WWII era the culprits! The G33/40 of German "lightweight" acclaim as intended, would reflect the same error. I'd suppose the worlds' militaries would have had good reason! Perhaps heat "branding" the soldier with it in hand or over his shoulder as bare metal on flesh! Maybe not something you'd want to carry in 'sporter style' in North African Desert or even Stalingrad Winter!

Your question isn't really unreasonable in the almost century later ways of war and materials available. Just that it truly is counter to the "nostalgia/collector realm. Guilty here!

In the precepts of "utility" my favorite Düsenberg Model J Dual Cowl Phaeton and our 03A3 rifles, both functionally outdated.

You need a titanium and carbon fiber rifle. Believe Remington (RIP) made them! Just watch the recoil in any heavy chamberings and mind your wallet in exotic materials/fabrication!
Just my take!
Best!
John

*Better, send them to me for "recycling"!

I dunno. I can't complain about the accuracy from any of my as-issued '03's, compared to sporters I've owned. But I've never made a direct comparison between an as-issued rifle versus it being in a sporter stock. An as-issued '03 can be a stunner as long as the stock is fitted properly. I have a 1930-vintage 03A1 that'll do MOA with select handloads and with issue sights - I swear it would do better if I didn't have to squint like a cross-eyed bear to see through the tiny peep out on the barrel. Not so well with military Ball ammo though admittedly.

IMO and that's all it's worth, it's one or the other.

The stock on a 1903 reflects not only the thinking of roughly the 1890s, but also a different design brief from a sporter or target rifle. The stock had to protect the soldier from a hot barrel after a string of rapid fire, give him somewhere to hold the rifle when using the rifle with a bayonet, and stand up to use as a club or for parrying the other bloke's attempts to stab or bash you. Accuracy was something of a secondary consideration.

Glass bedding was of course unknown, though bedding using cork or other materials was used, at least on similarly stocked rifles, to tune them up for match use. If you did want the rifle to look original you could do worse than to look into this.

I’ve got one on the way looks original except for the stock it’s 1903a-3 want to put back original where is the best place to buy the military stock?

Rifles made for fighting have handguards to guard your hand from a very hot barrel. So their "uselessness" is equal to what it was in 1920---- and just as important as it was in 1920. Depends of the mission statement for that rifle.

In truth a fully floated barrel is less likely to rub and vary it's vibrations during firing then one that can touch the foreshock, but do not think that all old full-stock rifles are inaccurate, Far from it. In fact many were made in such ways that the barrels were evenly supported with V blocks and springs (like SMLEs) and many Mausers, as well as 1914-1917 Enfield's, Styres, and Arisakas were stocks in ways to maximize their accuracy even when hot.

Sure, shortening the stocks and free floating the barrels can and often did improve accuracy, but to what extent differs from rifle to rifle. In MOST cases we have found the rifles in the hands of various militaries all over the world that has reputations for sub-standard accuracy were often more then victims of low quality ammo. (including many of our Vietnam era M16s)

When I was a younger man I had 20/10 vision, and I used to be able to fire some VERY respectable groups with iron sights. In fact, if conditions are good today, I can still shoot better than a LOT of men think I can with iron sighted rifles and I have won a LOT of bets over the years with a LOT of men by hitting targets they told me I could not hit. No bragging intended here, but the subject of this post is the possible accuracy of a rifle with a long stock and a full length handguard. With good ammo many such rifle will shoot under 2 MOA, some close to 1 MOA. It's a very rare man who can hit a nickel--------say 7 time in 10 shots at 100 yards on demand with an iron sighted rifle. MANY new rifle with excellent ammo will shoot that well, but how many men do you know that can do it 70% of the time even using a scope?
I know probably 50 men who say they can. I know about 4 who actually can. Take away the scopes and I currently know zero men who can.

I have known about 5 men who could do it in the last 50 years, all older than I was, and all now dead.

If we look back to military match shooting about 60 to 90 years ago, and see what modifications were made on such rifle to maximize their accuracy we do see improvements over the level of accuracy available in most rack-grade rifles. But those that have not studied such rifles and their use going back to the WW2 years and before may be shocked to see how little the average increase in accuracy truly is.

The importance of accuracy is directly relative to the mission of the weapon. Even if you have the best grade of iron sight ever made on rifles, my guess is that 999 shooters out of 1000 could not tell the difference between a 1/4 MOA rifle and a 1.5 MOA rifle because once you have any rifle that shoots under 2 MOA the real weak link is the ability to define sight alignment and eyesight of the shooter is the key. That's why a scope is such a HUGH advantage in practical accuracy over the iron sights. But putting a scope on any rifle DOES NOT make the rifle more accurate. It can make the shooter more accurate.

As a former competitive shooter, a gunsmith with near 60 years of experience and a fan of shooting who has shot the throats out of several rifle barrels I know that advantages of scopes, yet for most of my own hunting I still use iron sights. Why? Why not! I like them. I hunt well enough that I seldom return home after a hunt with no game. I simply enjoy using older iron sighted rifles more. As a shooter who loves gun-work and also loves shooting I have learned to do various things to various rifles to make them shoot as well as I can, but until the season runs short for me I don't take out scoped rifles to shoot game much. If time runs short I do, just because I do want to fill my freezer.
As such a fan of older rifles I have learned that many of them (most actually) can shoot better then I can from field positions --- given ammo they like. If using a rifle with big course open sights with a big bead on the front I know I must get closer then if I am hunting with my M1 Garand. And I must get closer with my M1 than I have to with my scoped 270 or my 300 Magnum. No big surprise there. None of my iron sighted rifles are as easy to make hits with as ANY of my scoped rifles. However that's more a function of my limits, not the limits of the rifle or the ammo. Over the last 60 years or so I have owned and used many rifle with irons only, that would fire a whole magazine into a mark under 1.5" in size at 100 yards, and I have owned 2 in my life that would do about 1/2 that. And those 2 iron sighted rifles both had full length stocks.

So before you make you decision you'd be well advised answer 2 questions for yourself.

#1 How well does your rifle shoot now?
#2 What use will you have in the future for that rifle--- and does that use allow for the application of better accuracy at all, and if so can YOU use that degree of accuracy in the real world?

Speaking only for myself, I see many rifles with huge scopes today that can and do shoot under 1/2 MOA and the owners of those rifles love them. I am one of them in fact.
But I am FAR more impressed with a man that can hit a poker chip ON DEMAND (as in 100% of the time) with a rifle at 100 yards sitting on his butt than I am with any person that can hit a garden pea at the same range shooting over a bench rest.

In the world of shooting many seem to have forgotten the real use of a rifle and ignore it in favor of technical excellence. That's OK too, as it increases the knowledge base of the shooter.

But does little to increase the skills of the shooter.

Well stated real experience here szihn!

Thank You! for your complete answer, and tolerating yet another arm-chair shooter's idle (addled) questions,

Bear in mind Jeff that the pre-War standard for acceptance set by the Ordnance dept. for new Service Springfields was 2MOA. Testing was done by humans sitting at a benchrest firing issue ammo. The standard for acceptance for National Match rifles and NRA Sporters was 1.5MOA. Rarely was the standard not met, and if it didn't then the rifle went back to the Armory for rework. In fact the average accuracy was typically closer to 1.5 MOA for Service rifles and 1 MOA for the NM's and Sporters. One of the protocols they employed was to instill 3-5 pounds pressure on the barrel by the forearm tip. No particular care (hand fitting) of receiver inletting was done on the Service rifles - the stock turning machinery they employed was excellent even by today's standards and wasn't required for meeting basic requirements. NM and Sporter stocks were tickled a bit by crafty hands (as well as careful fitting of the working parts of the rifles and use of barrels that passed the rigorous star gauge test for bore dimension uniformity) - and all were test fired via the iron sights that lived on the guns.

I've seen pictures of the Springfield test range - a long row of benches under roof, and guys sitting shooting 03's, literally ankle deep in brass and long racks of fresh rifles waiting their turn. What a hardy bunch of fellas they must've been to do that 8-9 hours a day, and no hearing/eye protection in sight! They formed a club that met off-site on Saturdays to engage in a favorite pastime - shooting!