Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Mausers and Military Rifles 03 Springfield info

Yeah, looks like cosmoline.

Out of curiosity what's the barrel date?

Check eBay - there’s a vendor on there with repro 1903 front sights in different heights. His are inexpensive - and probably not as hardened as a milsurp blade. You can buy a hardened target one when you get the height needed figured out.

It’s pretty common to swap the front sight out for a taller one to bring the battle zero down.

But, if you do that you disturb the utility of the sight ladder. The distance markings, while not necessarily exact (except they're pretty close with GI Ball-equivelant ammo) will have to be recalculated if a tall front sight is employed - all for the sake of bettering the utility of the battle sight, and then you're locked in at a single zero.

I say this based on my preference for the peep hole on the slide. Everyone's eyes are different and in my case I can actually use the peep so I eschew the use of the battle sight except for "rough and tumble plinking" where fine accuracy isn't called for.

Some guys open up the diameter of the peep hole and employ a Marine Corps wider (1/10th inch) standard height front sight blade so as not to have to resort to the battle sight if they can't see through the original peep hole.

Another solution is to handload some reduced loads. I find the battle sight with standard front sight works to put 1500-1600fps cast* loads onto beer cans at 100 yards. But if I want to hit clay targets/cans/steel at 200 yards or farther I'm back to using the sight ladder anyway.

*And jacketed. Reduced loads can be built as easily with jacketed as cast.

I did not see markings. I can make out an "06" near the muzzle.

Where should I look for a date stamp

-Jake

The peep, lowered all the way down, is about 6" high at 100.

I can't see myself using the flip up sight. I'm a hunter and that's what it'll be used for. That peep is so tiny it'd be tough for me to use in the thick stuff I hunt.

But I think I can get proficient 0-200 using the open sight. Just need to get used to it.

I'll also take a look at the higher front sights.

I'm primarily a still hunter in the PA hardwood's. So quick shooting is usually a must.

I've got a krag that hits high and I've taken several deer with it. Just have to adjust.

-Jake

First- thanks to everyone for the info and help so far. Appreciated.

What was the reasoning for this? I would think a 100 or 200 yard zero would be far more useful and then use the flip up sight for longer.

I've got a krag that shoots high as well.

I've got a nagant that shoots right on at 100. And that seems to make more sense to me.

Was there really a need for regular 500 yard shots that would be regular enough to justify having that as your zero?



-Jake

Date stamp is on top of the barrel behind the front sight. Month followed by year, example: "10-24".

Huh. With the slide all the way down I'm always close to zero at 100, but then again that's with Ball M2 equivalent loads. Lighter, heavier bullets and/or modern factory loads will skew that.

Reason for 500 yard battle sight: consider military tactics at the time. Volley fire on massed groups of enemy infantry in open country was how the brass hats reckoned it would be done. (Nonsense of course.) It was also considered, so I'm told, that theoretically holding on an enemy's waist would guarantee a body hit out as far as a guy could reliably see - up close and you hit him high center mass, at 500 yards you gut shot him. Oh well, who really knows? It is the foundation though of officers/sergeants yelling at their men to "hold low".

Stock is a replacement. AKA " scant" stock.
Front sight blades are easily replaced to get it to shoot to point of aim.
A bit of alcohol soak will tell you if that is dried grease.. probably a bunch on the stock as well. Although clearly some rust.
What are the markings on the top of the barrel behind the front sight?

Checking the barrel for markings when I get home.

-Jake

Also it appears to be parkerized finish. Is that correct?

It wasn't in bad shape after getting the dust off and oiling it up

Barrel code

WWII replacement barrel.

Not correct for an “as issued” rifle, should be a smoother dark blue or a dark olive green.

But, it could have been applied when the barrel was replaced.

WWII Parkerizing comes in many flavors. But that doesn't look like an arsenal job to me.

It is clearly an arsenal rebuild. Vast majority of them were.
When WWII started the military was woefully ill equipped..
The Garand didn't see field use until sometime in later 1942. Even then the Marines issued the 1903 as they thought the Garand wasted ammo. The Garand only seeing use in the Pacific after the first major campaigns.
National Guard units assigned duty at US bases were even issued Springfield Trapdoors for a while.
It is highly likely that your gun saw heavy service until being returned for rebuild in late 1944 or later.
Remember that for a long time the ammo was loaded with corrosive primers. Barrel.date was the earliest it would have been rebuilt. Early guns were heat treaded by hand and there are those who recommend not shooting low serial number guns. Here again there us some debate. Some say less than 750,000 and some say 1,000,000
FWIW, I had an early gun (1909) and parkerizing was light

The bore looks great. And it shot more than acceptable groups for me being behind the trigger and open sights.

Just high. But that's manageable.

My uncle is a member at a 600 yard range. Steel from 100-600. I'll get it out there eventually and play with the flip up sight.

The op's rifle has a Springfield Armory field replacement bolt and a WWII SA replacement barrel. How and when those parts got on that action is anybody's guess. The Parkerizing on the rifle was re-done commercially, IMO. It was obviously refinished after the bolt handle was "modified"; all the parts have the same finish, which would be unlikely for a WWII rebuild, and I doubt any arsenal would sandblast and re-park a barreled action with the complete rear sight assembly in place.

Cutoff serial numbers for low-numbered actions were determined a hundred years ago and generally accepted at 800,000 for SA; 285,507 for Rock Island. Not much debate on that. The debate is whether to shoot one or not.

A 1909 rifle with "light" Parkerizing would have been refinished. Rifles that early were originally blued.

The Marines entered the Pacific campaigns in mid-late 1942 armed mainly (but not entirely) with Springfields not because they felt the Garand "wasted ammo" rather because then as always in history the Marines sucked hind tit in the supply chain. There simply weren't enough Garands to go around to arm our burgeoning armed forces, and the Marines were last in line. By the time the Guadalcanal campaign was wrapped up in 1943 there was a preponderance of Garands in the Marine's hands.

The subject rifle here is obviously a put together rifle, whether by a gov't arsenal or by a civilian is up for debate. I feel it was a civilian job for much the same reasons that Primebeef outlined. Stop and consider that Springfield stuff overflowed the gov't warehouses and was sold by the ton as surplus after the war - all that stuff could be had for pennies, literally. I can remember as a kid seeing drums full of barrels, bolts, stocks, etc. for sale at giveaway prices in the Army surplus stores as late as 20 years after the war. Many a rifle was assembled in basements, garages, and small shops by guys with varying degrees of skill. Bubba got his initial training courtesy of cheap Springfield junk.

Don't get me wrong, the OP's rifle has merit, primarily as a shooter, even if it's a conglomeration of parts: late-war replacement barrel, 1903A3 bolt (probably a Smith-Corona one), wartime scant grip stock, etc. Pics of the stock furniture (bands, butt plate, etc.) would also be revelatory in that regard. My advice: shoot the hell out of it. If a "correct" rifle were to be built off of the high number receiver it would be difficult in this day and age - pre-war '03 barrels, bolts, stocks, and stock furniture have become ghastly expensive.

The Garand was commonly seen in the hands of troops in the Philippines 1941-42. Mostly 03's yes, and 1917's in the hands of Filipino troops, but Garands were there in good numbers too.

National Guard troops armed with Trapdoors? Maybe at the start of WWI, but most likely to have been armed with Krags in that situation. By WWII the Trapdoor was a distant memory. Think about it - we had millions of M1917 Enfields in secondary war reserve left over from WWI, why would we issue blackpowder single shot rifles even to "lowly" NG troops for any reason? If that indeed happened I would sure like to see the proof!

According to military nomenclature in Hatchers book the M1917 Enfields were considered Substitute standard and only issued when Garands and Springfields weren't availible to equip a unit. That is one of the reasons so many of the are in nice shape . In 1948 when decreed in excess of the.military's need they were to be disposed of to the public also mandated was a final inspection of all 17's and any showing excess headspace or even near it were to be rebarreled before sale. I have had 2 17's with damn near new barrels and both were good shooters. It's all in Hatchers Notebook the best source of 03, 03A3 and 1917.knowledge out there...mb

PS edit to add to the OP you got 03 battle sighted and a 600 yd range availible to you. It's youbegettner time. Make the most of it.