I didn't get any traction with this article on the Hunter's Campfire, but I thought it was a good article:

M1903 Springfield Article

Looks interesting! On back burner to read later! Under Navy Department, the pre & early WWII Marines were something of orphan children despite their historic records. The Army was 'the land service'. I'm within walking distance of the huge Camp Pendleton Marine Base in N San Diego County. Of course, they've long come into their own and those amphibious landings were a bit part of putting them on the WWII and postwar map. Retired military, but not a Marine myself. I have loads of respect and end up casually interacting with them often as my wife works with them. I hear their cannons about every week as soft distant thunder. Nuff said.

The 1903 was a great era rifle and putting us right up there in "Great War" era tech. That along with the P1917! "Getting traction doesn't necessarily mean no one noted and read, but zilch responses does send a message. When you simply present reference material, lot of folks don't feel obligated to respond. If you're disposed to "personalize the material perhaps by your own military experience or concerning the '03 rifle, likely to get more 'record' reaction.
Best!
John

iskra: Duly notes and thanks.

You should have mentioned how the MSM, RINOs, and Democrats were using them to cheat on elections.

But thanks for linking it here.

There’s one in the gunrack of the spare bedroom here at the ranch. Still wearing all it’s military kit. Hanging with it is an old blue Krag Mills bandoleer full of ‘06 ball ammo!

For just in case! 😉

My great uncle told me that when he was drafted in WWII they trained with Springfield 03s and never saw an M1 Garand until they got to the Philippines

One of my uncles was drafted in 1940 and trained with an 03. Assigned to 1st Inf Div and carried it through North Africa, Sicily, and France/Germany. Was an infantry scout and as such was allowed to choose armament, he elected to stick with the Springfield. (Wounded three times, dammed lucky to make it home.)

Nice article, High Noon.

My first center fire was a 8mm that dad rebarreled as a 6mm within a few weeks. But I was envious of my older brothers ‘03’s. Deer hunting we used one of dad’s ‘03’s and cast bullets. (I personally didn’t feel my 6mm was a deer rifle.)
I couldn’t wait until I had my own ‘03. I had close to a dozen before I went back to grad school. I sold all but three.
I’ll be keeping one for sure. It will be on my estate sale unless one of the kids grabs it. It has international match sights and is set up for military style 500 meters match shooting.
I had a very nice still-in-military dress 1903 Remington. Of all the rifles I let go over the years that is #1 regret!

My regretful '03 was a minty WWI-vintage Mark I (altered for the Pederson Device) I bought at The Baltimore Gun Show in 1971, as an 18 year old kid at the tail end of my freshman year in college, for the princely sum of $70. My buddy that day thought I was nuts because nice service '03's could be had for $50 or so. I had gone out on a limb financially to buy it, but having practically memorized Clark Campbell's book at the local library I knew what it was and just had to have it. It was my second '03, the first being a Bubba'ed low-number sporter that along with a Krag cavalry carbine helped cement my passion for cast bullet shooting. That Mark I sure was a shooter.

The regretful part of the story occurred a year or two later when school books (and beer) became a more pressing issue than owning/shooting an old Army rifle, so away it went. I do remember getting $100 for it - that $30 profit took some of the sting out of it, but the regret lives on today 50 years later. Many '03's have come and gone, and a bunch reside here today, but that Mark I has never been properly replaced - sort of fits in with Thomas Wolfe's quote that "you can never go home again."

Out of all the Springfields I've owned there was never an 03A3, and only one Remington '03. Admittedly I'm prejudiced for pre-war guns.

Just bought my first Springfield 1903. 03-A3. Shoots great but I cannot get the peep to hold elevation. Ordered a replacement from Numrich Arms. Hope it works.

I just came home with a low # 03 ,made at Springfield. It is in awesome shape with its original barrel still. I got it for such an awesome price, I could no turn it down. I want to shoot it, even though it is a low number. I know the risks, but I am willing to accept that by only shooting high quality factory ammo or carefully reloaded once fired brass that has been fully resized.

Your call, but if I were to shoot a low number '03 I wouldn't do it with current factory ammo. I would load some highly reduced loads in the 15-20K psi range or lower still with "mouse fart" loads like 7-8 grains Red Dot and a 150 grain lead bullet. And definitely with high quality new unfired brass, for sure. I don't know a single experienced Springfield man who would tempt fate, but again in the end it's your call.

Most of the receivers that failed (and there were some more in recent years) were in the batch made in 1917 when we entered the war and the Armory added night shifts in the heat treating department to boost production, comprised of newbies who didn't have "the eye" for gauging heat temperature. That they (and the old guys who were training them) were also operating under electric lights didn't help with that. (The old guys on day shift worked under natural light provided by big skylights and were adept at eyeballing temperatures.) When they started getting a bunch of reports of blowups from the field, they shut things down until they got to the bottom of it. That resulted in a new improved carburization process (the "double heat treat"), and more importantly the introduction of pyrometers to accurately gauge the temperature of the parts that got them away from "eyeballing". If you can gauge the production date of your rifle to have fallen in that time period of 1917 I would most definitely not risk shooting it.

A lot of the accidents that happened were the result of dumbasses doing stupid tricks, and terrible quality wartime brass cartridge cases that sometimes ruptured - not necessarily the kiss of death to a good rifle, but since the safety margin of the compromised low number rifles wasn't very significant in the first place such events spelled catastrophe. If you shoot it make doubly dammed sure headspace is minimal, low pressure loads are employed, and excellent new brass is utilized - as well as making triple dammed sure that you don't concoct an overload. They absolutely will not withstand escalated pressures such as like a Remington 700 would shrug off.

If you have the wherewithal to do it, drilling a "Hatcher Hole" in the left side of the receiver ring in front of the locking lug seat is a smart idea. It vents gasses out into the atmosphere in the event of a case failure. It was a trick that was employed on many of the low number rifles that the Marines found themselves saddled with in the days leading up to WWII, when they were sucking hind tit in the supply chain and weren't getting "the good stuff".

My father relieved them. Americal Division, US Army! He was very proud of his service, in the South Pacific! He also said ,his words, " them japs were tough little bastards" ! I sure miss him.

My father was in the 1st Marine Division in Guadalcanal. He had high praise for the 164th National Guard Division from North (or South) Dakota. Later, he had high praise for the Americal Division. Good soldiers.

I have a mint Remington 03 in the cosmoline, I think in issues, and the same but used very good/ excellent. What are they worth?

In issues?

Impossible to categorically state a value without at least seeing detailed pictures.

It was made late November 1942. Barrel date 12 / 42

A above is the issued rifle, the other one is not used I think. Metal is great on this one, but stock was banged around.

Looks like a good honest rifle. Barrel dates aren't exactly meaningless but not necessarily a true indicator of when the gun was built. NOS barrels sold on the surplus market after the war for just a couple bucks, and a lot of tinkerers swapped new barrels onto their tired older rifles - no way to guarantee a barrel was installed at the factory or not. (And I'm guilty of that too. I've rebarreled a few with original nicer barrels and you couldn't tell that it wasn't done at a gov't facility. Pick one: c'est la vie or caveat emptor.)

I would rate this one at a bit over $1K in today's market. If it had a straight wrist stock or a Type C pistol grip stock, then a little more. Maybe into the $12-1400 range.

The scant grip stocks like on this one were a stopgap measure that allowed them to use the scads of old straight grip stock blanks on hand in the machinery used for making the pistol grip stock that was the official standard by then. Some say that scant grip stocks were only put into the pipeline as replacements for broken other type stocks, some say they were used in actual production. I don't know of a definitive answer in that regard and would welcome some insight. I do know I never cared for the scant grip stock as it's neither fish nor fowl.

I wish I still had that 03, but hard times is hard times. Here's a nice deer rifle Remington 03-A3. I have a different scope on it now.