A Springfield 1903 woods rifle

[Trooper224]

Others could disagree, but it seems to my mind that all 6" groups are not the same. For example, a 6 incher with the holes scattered randomly over the target tells an entirely different story than if the rounds were (ex 1) clustered within a in narrow N/S column, or (ex 2) closely packed within a horizontal area that may be 6 inches long, but also is 2 inches wide.

I'd be quite satisfied with targets like yours, expecially with iron sights atop a century-old rifle.


Duces

I would be more than satisfied with consistent six-inch groups from that rifle, from two hundred yards and fired from a field position.

I need to put this thread on ignore, before it costs me some money.

[okie john]

Do 1903s typically like being free floated? Or do they typically like a little pressure on the barrel?

I'd treat it like a Mauser. Without bedding, tighten the front action screw farmer tight. Do the same with the rear, then back it out 1/3 to 1/4 turn. If you bed it, then bed the action and the first couple of inches of barrel then free-float the rest. I'm not sure that I'd use pillars but they couldn't hurt.

I'd only try a pressure pad if that didn't work. You can experiment with paper shims.


Okie John

[Hambo]

I found this old girl on gunbroker for $400. I understand the risks of low numbered 03s but I figure this gun looks like it's been well used.

Sights were dead on with my generic m2 ball type reloads. My first group at 200 yards was just under 6" shooting off a stump.

I plan on hunting with her and on some of our camping trips. It's just under 8lbs and carries so well in one hand. It feels almost as slim as a winchester lever.

You'll be kilt in the snow without a 6.5 CM and a ballistic calculator! Great find, and I'm glad there you appreciate a fine rifle.

If you're gonna sporterize one, then that's not a bad way for it to end up.

In deference to the low-numbered action, I'd be tempted to set it up for a 170-grain flat-point built for the 30-30 at 2,300 fps over H4895. Ken Waters used to call that the "30-30-06." It should handle almost anything you'd care to tackle with peep sights and might even put some newer rifles to shame.

Okie John

I wasn't aware of Waters' idea but I was thinking that starting loads with heavy bullets would be the perfect thing for this rifle. Cast bullets would be a good option as well.
l

[03RN]

[03RN]

Just found this remington for $350. I'm going to keep the weaver K3 on it and putting a A3 stock on it.

[Lex Luthier]

Just found this remington for $350. I'm going to keep the weaver K3 on it and putting a A3 stock on it.

Great price! What era is it?

[03RN]

Great price! What era is it?

It's an A3. Yeah, even with $300 for all the wood and metal I think it's still a good deal. I've always liked the old weaver scopes too.

[Malamute]

Just found this remington for $350. I'm going to keep the weaver K3 on it and putting a A3 stock on it.

Nice!

If you want the scope line of sight lower, the Beuler, Leupold or redfield base and rings are generally lower than the weaver bases. I have no idea why the Weaver bases are so high.

If the scope handle interferes with a lower scope, it should stand up to some grinding and be safe. It looks like its forged/lowered, (if its not, Id suggest getting it forged/lowered for scope use) some are just thicker where it goes under the rear scope bell. I had weaver bases made for one of mine to fit the older type Leatherwood ART scope with external trajectory cam, but when I put a regular scope back on it sat too high, so back went the Beuler base/rings.

I have some parts to build a Krag carbine looking 1903, one of many projects I hope I live long enough to finish and enjoy.

[03RN]

Nice!

If you want the scope line of sight lower, the Beuler, Leupold or redfield base and rings are generally lower than the weaver bases. I have no idea why the Weaver bases are so high.

If the scope handle interferes with a lower scope, it should stand up to some grinding and be safe. It looks like its forged/lowered, (if its not, Id suggest getting it forged/lowered for scope use) some are just thicker where it goes under the rear scope bell. I had weaver bases made for one of mine to fit the older type Leatherwood ART scope with external trajectory cam, but when I put a regular scope back on it sat too high, so back went the Beuler base/rings.

I have some parts to build a Krag carbine looking 1903, one of many projects I hope I live long enough to finish and enjoy.

Do you think the holes will line up? I'll have to try it as is.

[Malamute]

Do you think the holes will line up? I'll have to try it as is.

No way to know without trying one, or more? I dont know if there was any standardization in hole spacing between brands. If it were me, Id probably try to get the scope as low as possible after seeing the difference, besides the one piece or two piece bases with twist in rings look much better than weaver type bases and rings. The holes on a base might be able to be changed to fit your existing holes on the gun. I dont know if they made bases without holes that fit the 1903 receiver profile, I think the common method was with holes and just drill and tap the receiver to match.

Also, the rear receiver bridge on original 03-A3s was an inverted dovetail with flats, mounts specifically made for A3s were flat at the rear, but many were ground down to the rounded 1903 shape since it was cleaner looking. Also, double check your gun, I assumed one I had was an A3 but when I took the front mount off it was a 1903. So if you changed the mount, youd want to be certain which it was or if the rear bridge was altered.*

Forging the bolt handle used to be standard work for sporterizing a 1903 or Mauser, most gunsmiths could do it back in the day, it allows the scope to be set much lower. There may have been aftermarket bolts made back when all this was common, I dont know, or some places may have altered original bolts for sale. 1903 bolts are still fairly available and relatively cheap, it seems like $40 was an average going price when I last looked.

*I just zoomed your picture, its not clear when zoomed in close but it does look like an A3 rear bridge.