Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Gunsmithing Springfield 1903 customization

There was a time when '03 custom sporters were common. My Dad had one when I was young, but it was purloined in a move along the way.

98 Mausers are still used for custom high quality rifles these days, but not so with the Springfields. Tell me what the drawbacks are with the Springfields and why the Mauser endures.

I have had both, and I cannot see any drawbacks to the 03. Because of the coned barrel, the 03 is probably not as strong as the 98, but with factory loads and carefull handloads, this shouldn't present any problems.

For smoothness, it is hard to beat the older, double heat treated actions when compared to anything modern. The locktime of the 03 is slower than that of the 98, but the few milliseconds delay in ignigtion has never caused me to miss something I would have hit with a short lock time.

I prefer the 98 over the 03, but I cannot give a logical reason as to why.

The 98 gets a lot of it's strength and gas handling ability from it's design, but if there was a way to do a comparison test, I would bet that the steel, and the heat treatment, in the later 03s is far superior to that in the 98s.

People make a lot of the fact that the 98s case hardened outer skin and soft inner structure gives it great strength, but that method of hardening steel is one of the worst there is. Through and through hardening of a heat treatable steel is far superior.

The outer skin is hard, but the constanting pounding against the recoil lugs will cause the hard skin to imbed itself into the softer core, causing excessive headspace and difficulty in opening and closing the bolt.

But still, after all is said and done, I prefer the 98 in it's commercial configerations. With prices the way they are now, it would cost a fortune to convert a military action to a sporter with all the nicities such as an adjustable trigger, scope mounts and bent bolt handle, low scope safety, hinged magazine floorplate and all the other good things.

I love the '03 Springfield but Jack O'Connor nearly lost his thumb when the 2-piece firing pin broke back in the 30s.

Yup, the 2 piece firing pin can go south on occasion. The gas handling issue is better in the Mauser. IIRC, aftermarket one piece firing pins were available, maybe they still are. I like nice sporters built on the '98, but I really like 'em made out of Springfields.

who do you suggest for re-barreling a springfield?

Dave

I've had mine done locally. Others that come to mind are Westpac, John Farner (Eagle Machine), Redneck, Jim Kobe.

I think the main reason you don't see many '03 sporters these days is that their main worth lies in their originality. It would be a crime, in my opinion, to take a nice original '03 and sporterize it. Kind of contrary to good sense to take a $1000 rifle and turn it into a $400 one. Best bet is to locate an older conversion and use that as a basis for a new sporter, if you can find one that hasn't had the lettering and sharp edges rounded over by a ham-handed reblue artist.

Another reason you don't see many sporters now is because "Dad" or "Granddad" sporterized their (then) cheap '03s and now sons and grandsons are clinging to them for sentimental reasons.

I too am partial to 98s for the basis of elegant sporters, but a nice '03 done in the tradition of Griffin & Howe or R.G.Owen for example are instant head turners for me.

I have an '03 that's already sporterized, in 30-06. What's an easy caliber change? I already have a 257 wby so don't need a 25-06, can't really see the usefullness of a 338-06. I have a 308 win. How about a 308 norma mag? 300 win mag? Is a 30-06AI much of an improvement?

Rebarrel it to 9.3X62. You would then have a 375 H&H with five in the magazine!

Ted

If you want less of a butt thumper but great proven cartridge you might look at the 7x57 - classic cartridge, classic sporter. It'll do well all the hunting most of us will ever do. Might be a good fit.

Got a Win 70 in 375 HH, but good idea.

Nothing much wrong with leaving it in .30/06. Maybe a .270 or a .280, or an 8mm/06 (don't laugh, a friend did just that with a Springfield and man is it a shooter). .35 Whelen comes to mind. Or, a decent .30 caliber- great bullet selection being one really good reason (.30/06).

Okay then, do it up into a 358 Norma Mag.



Ted

I recently picked up a JC Higgins Model 50 (98 FN action) with a 3X9 Redfield USA scope for $175. The owner had painted the stock white and since the stock was checkered he covered that portion with pink fingernail polish!

I did a quicky stripping and refinish job (sanded it all down to bare wood) and now really like this rifle.

i dont get why lots say dont bother starting with a military action its to expensive......it aint all that expensive if yah search and find one someone already did most the work to for less than the work would cost now....ive got a 338-06 on a 1917 that didnt cost much to have the major work done cause i picked it up already sporterized for under $200.....

look around for one being sold with most the work already done and it aint near as expensive.....

This is an interesting (read: controversial) statement. Do you have documentation/experience that you can cite supporting this statement? The reason I'm asking is that there are a lot of case hardened components used in critical applications, particularly where a combination of fatigue resistance and wear resistance is required. This is an area that I am deeply interested in and I would like to see research data, particularly those with direct comparisons.

The big reason the Sprngfield wasn't used for as many custom rifles as the 98 Mauser is that there were a lot fewer made--and of the ones that were made, only the double-heat-treated action were considered truly top-notch. This amounts to only a tiny fraction of th 98 Mausers made, even if we limit the 98's to those considered being top-grade as well.

That said, a LOT of custom Springfields were made. I have had a number of them, and still own two, one I had put together and stocked myself, and a pre-WWII Pachmayr with a Lyman Alaskan in a Griffin & Howe mount, along with a Lyman 48 receiver sight. Before the war the Springfield was considered as good as the 98 and sometimes better, because the fit and finish were more consistent than with many 98's.

The two-piece firing pin was a bad idea but doesn't break all that often. I have been shooting Springfields for 35 years now and it hasn't happened in any of mine, for instance.

You can have a Springfield redone into about any cartridge no longer than the .30-06. My Pachmayr was originally a .35 Whelen but somewhere along the line was rechambered to the .358 Norma Magnum, probably in the 1950's when the Norma round first came out and the .35 Whelen was still a wildcat. It works fine, and so would any other belted magnum of .30-06 length. A lot of Springields were rechambered to the .300 Winchester Magnum after it came out.

My other 1903 has had several barrels on it, inclouding a .338-06. But eventually I decided that nothing really beat the .30-06, so had it rebarreled back to the original chambering. The new barrel is a #2 Shilen, which is somewhat lighter in contour than the original military barrel, and as a result the rifle is fairly light, which is what I wanted.

"This is an interesting (read: controversial) statement."

The only documention I can come up with right now is the tests John Olin did with the Win. 21 back in the early 30s.

During the first part of the century, ost, probably all of the better grade shotguns were made from case hardened steel. That includes Purdey, Parkers, Ithica, and many others. There were two reasons for that. No. 1 is that steel had not reached the development stage it has in modern times. No.2 two is soft, low carbon steel is very easy to machine, and many of the guns, especially the high grade English guns were made using hand tools, mostly files.

The downside to this was that the mild steel wasn't very strong, so the actions were case hardened to give the parts wear resistance and strength. The type of steel used was probably of such low carbon that it could not be heat treated by any method.

In John Olin's test mentioned earlier, a M 21 was test fired 2000 times with proof loads, and no measurable damage was done to the gun. The Model 21 was made from a more modern steel and was hardened all the way through.

Many of the other high grade guns of that era were tested as well. Parker, Ithica, Purdey, and others. I am writing this from memory, but IIRC, the Purdey lasted 160 shots before it was decided it was unsafe to fire. Some of the other high dollar guns only lasted 2 or three shots before they were deemed unsafe.

A M21 made from case hardened steel was also tested, but I have never seen the results of this test.

Another example would be a knife blade. A case hardened knife blade would probably be great for edge holding, and strong if you were to use it as a screwdriver. But, after using it and re-sharpening it repeatedly, you would soon wear the case off and down into the soft core, which would not hold an edge well at all.

The double heat treated 03s Mule Deer mentioned were sort of case hardened, but not actually. They were extrememly hard on the outside, but still had a strong and hard core. They made for a very strong action.

Some tools, like lathe beds and gear teeth are hardened, similiar to case hardening, but they are still pretty hard and tough inside.

Think of ice on a lake. The ice is very strong on the surface and you can walk across it, if it is thick enough.

But, underneath that ice is very soft water, and you will sink up into it if the hard outer shell, known as ice, breaks.

If the lake were frozen solid, you would not have to worry about falling through, and the solidly frozen lake would be much stonger than the sheet of ice on top of the water.

You might do a search and find more information on case hardening, but, and this is just my opinion, with modern developments in steel, case hardening is no longer needed to make a strong and wear resistant tool or part.

Color case hardening is a different matter, and I don't feel qualified to comment on it, other than to say that if the steel is low carbon, then the case colors are only for decoration and the strength is no better than case hardening without the color.

An example of a case-hardened 98 Mauser is the La Coruna 8x57mm used by Spain.

Case hardening is still used for very many applications. One example is the common CV Joint: The Outer and Inner Races are fabricated from SAE 8620 steel that is case hardened to a depth of around .010 to .015 in. This material and process results in hard and tough components that probably cannot be equaled with a through-hardening process.

Case hardening results in a composite structure. Theoretically, if a crack initiates at the surface, propagation will be halted by the tougher interior. Also, the act of hardening the surface (martensitic transformation) results in a surface with residual compressive stress (thereby increasing hoop strength, a very good thing in the case of the receiver of a rifle).

But which is better in the long run - surface or through hardening? I honestly don't know. That is why I am soliciting information.