The U.S. Model 1903 Springfield rifle

[Whitedog]

Does anyone here have thoughts or an opinion on the U.S.1903 Springfield or Rock Island rifle?

Fred

[Doc2]

Not sure quite what you are asking. The '03 Springfield was (and is) a great rifle, and superbly accurate. However, if you are thinking of shooting one, you need to check the Serial number. Some of the low-numbered ones (I think from Rock Island, but don't have time to look it up right now) are suspected of having inadequately heat-treated receivers, and are thus considered unsafe to fire.

[Khaki]

Generally speaking the Rock Island rifles are Great War rifles The Springfield 03's were manufactured before, during and after the war for many years appearing in a number of variations.

khaki

[Whitedog]

Yes, I do know about the single heat treat versus the double heat treat factor concerning 1903's. All of the 1903 rifles that I currently own are double heat treated and were manufactured during WWI. All have double heat treated bolts with the J5 stamping on the safety lugs as well. I have a Rock Island 1903 that is one of the approximate 10,000 R.I.A. rifles made with receiver serial numbers in the "Low Number range" which were actually double heat treated after being brought out of storage. The receivers hadn't received their heat treatment yet pending further developments and experiments with the double heat treatment process. Upon being double heat treated, they were assembled into rifles sometime after July of 1918 and issued. Anyway, here are some pictures of some of my 1903's that I thought I'd share. The first picture shows a Springfield Armory rifle with a barrel date of 7-18 next to a Rock Island Arsenal 1903 with a barrel date of 7-18.. Both of the rifle's seem to have avoided the usual wear and tear of service life. They've somehow survived 95 years in the same condition that they originally emerged in from their respective armories or arsenals. Among the later pictures is a Model 1903 Mark I Springfield that had escaped having its Mark I parts removed and replace with standard parts. Everything on the rifle is as it was when it came off of the assembly line. It's barrel date is 1-19, but that's close enough to WWI for a Mark I in the collecting world, so I'm including it here. Enjoy the photo's!

URL]

[Whitedog]

[Khaki]

Hello again Fred,

Great display of 03's, thank you for posting,

regards

khaki

[Whitedog]

Sure thing Khaki. Honestly, I haven't even fired a single one of my rifles yet. I've only just had my glasses for a few months, but even with the more than adequate amount of 30-06 that we have, the wife and I have never gotten around to shooting any of it in our rifles. Anyway, glad that you enjoyed the pictures Khaki! I've a fond regard for the 1903's produced up to WWII. That of course is tempered by my deep appreciation for the Long and short British Enfield's as well! I've owned several of the Long Lee Enfield's (not Metford's) and think that they're superior rifles. I decided to sell them all though so that I could get back into the 1903 Springfield's.

Cheers, Fred

[gew98]

While I find the lines an looks of the 1903 of the pre WW2 vintage "pretty" that's where my likes of it begin and end. Of the handfull I owned I found them to be less then stellar in ruggedness - alot of problems with the fine delicate sights. I even shouldered a minty Smith Corona 03A3 when I was a kid deer hunting and unkowingly knocked the rear sight off the receiver. Took some hours to backtrack in the snow to find it and I never took it out again.

Had two beautiful 03's... a 1918 Rock Island with USMC front and rear sights , and a minty 1921 made but reworked w/a '39 dated barrel. Both had early nickel oiler/pull throughs in their traps. The 1921 date had a fair amount of issues with the rear sight self walking windage under recoil. The Rock Island did not have that problem as the rear base had been staked with a centerpunch - for obvious reasons as noted. I had a well worn 1911 date made 03 with a 1917 barrel on it which was of course a nonshooter due to the heat treat potential IED issue.

The handguards are easily damaged on 03's and I have encountered more than one 03 with a blunted and or bent front sight blade...trying to shoot with the inadequate and not firm in place front sight cover was not fun either. I had two serious failures with two different 03's many years ago using WW2 surplus ball. In both instances the cause was a peirced primer. In both cases the firing pins brokesending the cock knob & rod back like a projectile. First time it sent my younger brother to the hospital with a chipped bone in his face where it pummled him in the cheek. Second time firing from the hip the other rifle's cock knob exited the bolt and holed the sleeve of my shirt. I retired from shooting 03's and traded them all off eventually towards other great war era rifles.

While it's a pretty rifle and a range queen , I feel personally it was less than adequate for a combat rifle of it's day.

[Whitedog]

I have a buddy who got his heart broken at an early age by a sleezy no account female who ran around on him and made his life a living Hell. He was convinced for years that all women were no damned good and couldn't be trusted until he finally met a good one who he married. It sounds to me like you've gotten your experience with 1903's from some worn out and abused rifles that shouldn't have been allowed to deteriorate to the point that they did. Rear sight lateral adjustment knobs can be easily and even imperceptibly bent if they are struck when the rifle falls over or is thrown down or dropped. That will cause the knob to alternate between tight and loose as it's turned, also causing the rear sight to be tight or loose depending on the position of the knob.

The front sight hood',s with the exception of the USMC front sight cover, weren't meant to be on the rifle while the rifle was being fired. Some have done it. the small hood will definitely interfere with the sight picture. WWII contract hoods made for the 1903A3 will actually fit loose on a 1903 rifle. The difference is in the design with one being snug and the other being loose on a rifle. A proper fitting hood will protect the front sight blade from damage while on the rifle. Of course, taken off for combat, the front sight might suffer damage, but it can be easily replaced in the field without having to send the rifle in for repairs. I don't know that the hand guard on a 1903 Springfield is more delicate than a hand guard on a GEW 98. Both are well designed for their purpose. I've fired many thousands of rounds through many dozens of 1903's and have never had a firing pin rod break at the junction of the striker and the rod. However yes, they could've designed this area to be solid like that on the Mauser and it would've been an improvement in my opinion. Still, when the firing pin or striker breaks at the cone on a 1903, it can be removed and replaced within a minute in the field and the rifle put back into immediate service, unlike the 98 Mauser with its one piece design. It's a give and take on that issue.

The 1903's that I've owned and fired have all been checked out by me first before buying them and that means taking them apart and looking at everything. If there was any indication of corrosion from water or escaped gas around the striker seat on the rod, I'd pass it up. A loose lateral adjustment knob on a rear sight can be quickly dismounted and gently straightened out in the proper manner and it will, in almost all cases, tighten up the rear sight.

When a rifle leaves the service and enters the surplus market, it is no longer cared for and examined by a trained soldier or an armorer. It can cease to be a precision instrument and can become a clunky pain in the a$$ for anyone who buys it along with its troubles. Just like it pays to look for and grab onto a good woman, it pays to look around for a good rifle and not one that's been neglected, abused and allowed to develope issues.

However, I do like the German GEW 98 and own one that was picked up from a trench in the Argonne by a soldier whose decendant I married. It's a beautiful rifle with history that's dated 1914. I really like it and plan on getting another soon.

Remember the old saying that a Mauser is a hunting rifle, an Enfield is a battle rifle and an 03 Springfield is a target rifle. That's kind of general but it does have its basis in fact.

Fred

[5thBatt]

While I find the lines an looks of the 1903 of the pre WW2 vintage "pretty" that's where my likes of it begin and end. Of the handfull I owned I found them to be less then stellar in ruggedness - alot of problems with the fine delicate sights. I even shouldered a minty Smith Corona 03A3 when I was a kid deer hunting and unkowingly knocked the rear sight off the receiver. Took some hours to backtrack in the snow to find it and I never took it out again.

Had two beautiful 03's... a 1918 Rock Island with USMC front and rear sights , and a minty 1921 made but reworked w/a '39 dated barrel. Both had early nickel oiler/pull throughs in their traps. The 1921 date had a fair amount of issues with the rear sight self walking windage under recoil. The Rock Island did not have that problem as the rear base had been staked with a centerpunch - for obvious reasons as noted. I had a well worn 1911 date made 03 with a 1917 barrel on it which was of course a nonshooter due to the heat treat potential IED issue.

The handguards are easily damaged on 03's and I have encountered more than one 03 with a blunted and or bent front sight blade...trying to shoot with the inadequate and not firm in place front sight cover was not fun either. I had two serious failures with two different 03's many years ago using WW2 surplus ball. In both instances the cause was a peirced primer. In both cases the firing pins brokesending the cock knob & rod back like a projectile. First time it sent my younger brother to the hospital with a chipped bone in his face where it pummled him in the cheek. Second time firing from the hip the other rifle's cock knob exited the bolt and holed the sleeve of my shirt. I retired from shooting 03's and traded them all off eventually towards other great war era rifles.

While it's a pretty rifle and a range queen , I feel personally it was less than adequate for a combat rifle of it's day.

& this is why you take the '03 to the range, the Mauser hunting & the Enfield into battle.

[Khaki]

I would have thought that enfield's would have killed more large game in NZ than both of the others put together.

khaki

[Whitedog]

Enfields are Great, aren't they?! Here are some photos of some of my long Lee's.

[Whitedog]

[Whitedog]

]

[Whitedog]

[Whitedog]

[Khaki]

Hi Fred,

Stunning photographs, very envious, again a fine display,

I think as far as the 03 Springfields go, people must remember that like all new developments you have to consider it's predecessor's such as 'the Krag and the Trapdoor varieties, although they had their merits I can imagine the sheer delight in being issued a fast handling modern magazine rifle in 30.06. No wonder it became a favourite of thosel who used it.

khaki

[Khaki]

I just noticed that in post #16 the Lieutenant in the photograph leading the troops with slung rifles is wearing the white metal "Imperial Service Badge", am I mistaken or is that unusual for an officer, I only recall seeing that on OR's?

khaki

[Andrew Upton]

I just noticed that in post #16 the Lieutenant in the photograph leading the troops with slung rifles is wearing the white metal "Imperial Service Badge", am I mistaken or is that unusual for an officer, I only recall seeing that on OR's?

It is the "Imperial Service" tablet - I used to think it was just an OR's thing, but have seen quite a few pictures of officers wearing it since.

[Khaki]

Thanks Andrew,

I don't want to hijack Fred's post, but I had always thought that there would have been an expectation that all officer's (TF) would have volunteered to serve outside GB in time of need thereby precluding the need for an officer to wear the Imperial Service Badge?

khaki

[Whitedog]

Please, continue the discussion on whatever arises! I'm learning a great deal from all of it! Very Interesting!

By the way, the soldier in the last photo of soldiers with his left hand on his hip and the scarf hanging around his neck was killed by an artillery round just moments after the photo was taken. I think his name was (Private) Perry.

[Khaki]

Can any member assist with the identity of the regiment mentioned above, the cap badge looks to be a London (TF) rifles badge but what are the collar badges worn by the Lieutenant?

thanks

khaki

[squirrel]

Can any member assist with the identity of the regiment mentioned above, the cap badge looks to be a London (TF) rifles badge but what are the collar badges worn by the Lieutenant?

thanks

khaki

The Officer's collar badges would have had a "T" above them which might make them look a bit odd. The Corporal behind the Officer is also wearing an "Imperial Service" brooch.

[Khaki]

I will have a guess at it being the 33rd battalion (City of London) The London Regiment (TF)

khaki

[Andrew Upton]

...The Officer's collar badges would have had a "T" above them...

Ahem, under is more usual, eg:

http://img.auctiva.com/imgdata/1/7/2/0/2/1/2/webimg/633842470_tp.gif