Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters Remington 03A3

I have a Remington 03A3 ser# 4,000,000 plus that has been rebored & chambered to 9.3x62. I was wondering what the consensus of opinion in this community about the strength of the action to handle loads as Mule Deer posted in the famous 9.3x62 thread I've been reading? I chronoed a load the other day with a Nosler 286 Partition, I can't get to my notes on powder and charge, but at 2208 fps seems to be a little slower then the data showed? Thanks for any opinions! Oh I took a monster buck with that load at 80 yards couple weeks ago, very accurate and quite deadly![img]http://[IMG]https://i559.photobucket.com/albums/ss33/otiscampbell62/IMG_1066_zpsz9htvjxm.jpg[/img][/img]

High serial number 03’s are strong. Under 800K ‘03’s are the ones to watch.

I think it’s as strong as any modern action.

DF

Thanks DF

Can't argue much with this but I'd prefer to say "as strong as any controlled round feed" rifle.

The 1917 Enfields were commonly rechambered to .375 H&H with no trouble whatever....the load data presented by MD isn't excessive at all according to the 60,000 PSI posted and we know that the Springfields were commonly rechambered to .308 Norma magnum .....I wouldn't hesitate to work up to the loads presented by MD on this forum for the 9.3 X 62....it is a lot of punch for a Springfield rifle but many have been upgraded to even more than that.

Go for it

My first custom rifle was a on a Remington-made 03 Springfield. I thought that it turned out too heavy for a .30-06, so I had it rechambered to .308 Norma Magnum.

Never had a problem with it--and I loaded my ammo pretty hot in those days.

They do tend to run a bit heavy, but are solid, very good actions.

DF

Ah, a Remington 1903-A3! I bought one through the Civilian Marksmanship Program in 1957 and then sporterized it - barrel cut to 20", polished and high gloss blue, drilled and taped for scope mounts and installed finished Fajen stock. Had I just left it alone and bought a pre-64 Model 70, I'd have 2 collectable rifles.

Yeah, if we’d have just known....

DF

have built many 338 wm's on the 03 action.

DF,

Amazing, ain't it?

I still hadn't learned in the early 1990's, when I bought a nearly-new Model 94 Mauser in 6.5x55 for around $100, which included shipping, from a dealer in the Midwest. Shot it some as-is, and with the military sights it would stay inside 1-1/2" at 100 yards "all day long."

So I "sporterized" it by cutting back the barrel and converting the bolt handle and safety for scope use, then fitted an injection-molded stock. Sold it to a friend who needed a cheap big game rifle for what I had in it--who sold it in less than a year, not because it didn't shoot well, but because he was usually short of cash. Wish I had it back in the original condition....

Rock Island 1903's were double heat treated with S/N before the SA. I think around 300,000. Since it's a Remington no need to worry

Pre-285,000, Rock Island '03's received the same carburizing (case hardening) of their low carbon steel as did the pre-800,000 receivers made at Springfield. After #285,000 (give or take) until the end of production, Rock Island receivers were made of nickel steel and through hardened as were later Springfield Armory receivers. In fact leftover RI nickel steel receivers were taken to to Springfield Armory and incorporated into production there.

I wouldn't hesitate to use a late '03 nickel steel action as the basis for a pre-war style sporter chambered for many things under the sun (and I have). The only downside to them is the "sticky" nature of them in terms of working the bolt. They just aren't as smooth to operate as the earlier single and double-heat treated '03's.

M1903A3's are kind of sticky feeling too but that's due as much to the crappy wartime machining found in them as their steel alloy makeup. They can be made smooth but it takes some elbow grease and/or cycling about a half million times. IMO 03A3's were a solid wartime expedient but because of their overall crudeness shouldn't be compared to a pre-war 03 or 03A1. 03A3's can be made up into right nice sporters but OMG the amount of work necessary as opposed to other candidates makes them less than desirable, IMO.

All this is a moot point as the days of taking Springfield milsurps and "sporterizing" them are way behind us. But, plenty of Bubba'ed examples exist that are fair game for the hobbyist to mess with.

An 03A3 will be fine. It’s the low number 03’s that you have to worry about.

Gnoahhh's post here is spot on and + 10, sticky is as good a way to describe it as I've ever heard. Mine is the same way, both my Springfield 03 and Remington 03 are smooth and slick. I have an 03A# Smith -Corona that is pretty slick also and another 03A3 Remington that is a 308 Norma Mag that shoots very well.. Around here anymore the "hot 03 or 03A3" is one that is partially sporterized , no drill and tap job ,full length barrel with parkerized finish still present. I know several guys who take them back to full military dress and peddle them for up to a 1K bucks. An 03 Springfield to me is still a fine rifle for the field if QUALITY work was done to it, I like them period. Magnum Bob

I have two sporterized 03A3 rifles, one a 280AI and the other a 30-06. The 30-06 has been through a lot of bad weather and rough hunting without issue and I am certain I have put over 3000 rounds through it mostly at whatever the manuals said was tops for the particular powder no problems either. The 280AI has been fired maybe 100 times mostly for accuracy load workups and it truly is an accurate rifle though it's hunting carreer has been limited to one hog hunt. Neither action was particularly rough and both feed just fine.

How are the rear sights on the A3 attached?

I have two US Remingtons. One "as issued" but for the stock having been shortened into a sporter configuration of sorts. The other was already sporterized when I got it about 25 years ago. Nicely done walnut stock, glass bedded, D/T'd w/Weaver bases and low scope safety. Both are very accurate. Serial numbers in the 3 million range, barrel dates are both 6/42.

From what I've determined, these rifles were early WWII Remington production and therefore are not 03A3s, since they share the same parts as the Springfields (no sheet metal parts).

Similar to what MD mentioned, years ago I turned a 1939 K98 into a deer rifle, now with a 20" barrel, Timney, Buehler, Fajen walnut stock that I slimmed down for less weight and still in 8x57.

Matching numbers and 100% original when I got it, should have let it be. On the bright side, it's taken several deer and is a dandy rifle to carry.

I understand that 03A3's are plenty strong. But I prefer Mauser 98 type rifles or modern enclosed head actions, both for their better gas handling if getting adventurous with my loading. I use moderate loads in my CZ 9.3X62 to go easy on the slightly hard to find brass. I'm sure MD's loads are safe, but mine shoot accurately; and they exceed the original factory loads, that made the cartridge so popular in Africa and Europe. If MD's loads weren't safe we would be hearing about problems by now.

Virtually no difference in a 1903 bolt head and a M98 bolt head. Nor have I ever noticed any difference in the gas handling capabilities of either action. They are identical enough, that we paid royalties to Germany for basically copying the M98 action with the 1903, up until WWI.

The only rifle whose gas handling worth I've ever personally "tested", was the Savage M110. Have a wildcat built on that action, in which I once managed to blow a primer. Gas went where it was supposed to, after a blown primer. Years ago a friend had a 264 Winchester varmint rifle built on a Springfield 1903 action.He blew several primers in that thing, before he finally settled down and stuck to published load data.

That is a dandy of a buck, Otis!