1903a3

S

stepbolt

Inactive
I'm new to this forum so bear with me. I have the milsurp disease and just acquired my first 1903a3. It has a threaded muzzle and a raised front sight blade. I emailed Remington to see if they ever manufactured these this configuration. They said their record keeping ended in 1943. This barrel was manufactured in 5/43. I've seen these with herters muzzle brakes on them. Did I buy a mutt or have I got something other than a good shooter?
 
Canfield doesn't seem to reference any threaded 1903 or 1903A3 barrels.

There was a silencer in use before the second world war but 5/43? Not that I can tell

How about some photos?
 
The Army experimented with at least two different kinds of "silencer" for the M1903 rifle, but gave up the idea when it proved impossible to suppress the noise of the bullet without reducing the power of the round below optimal levels. Both types of silencer were attached by clamping to the front sight fixed base, though, not by threading the barrel. No silencers were made for or issued with the M1903A3/A4, although a flash hider was issued with the A4..

Jim
 
The only bolt military rifle that I can think of with a threaded muzzle is the Swedish 1896 Mauser, where the threading was allegedly to allow the use of screw-on device to shred wooden practice bullets.

More than likely, someone, somewhere got the bright idea that he was going to put a can (silencer) on his Springfield. I'd always heard that there were a lot of poachers in the Maine woods; A can would be a reasonable item if it worked on a .30-06, which it doesn't.
 
There have been muzzle brakes available for a long time. It was probably threaded for one by somebody who didn't want that surplus plinking ammo kicking him around.

The old Maxim silencer was probably not worth the trouble in WWI combat.
Even though it cannot affect the supersonic "Crack!", it is an effective muzzle blast muffler, flash hider, and recoil reducer. In some situations that would be handy because the enemy would not know where shots were coming from. Not handy enough for the Army to keep buying them, though.
 
A can would be a reasonable item if it worked on a .30-06, which it doesn't.
Click to expand...
A 'can' can absolutely work on a .30-06, as long as the 'can' is designed for the pressures of supersonic loads. A 'can' will not stop the crack of a supersonic bullet, but it will still drastically reduce the sound of the gun firing, eliminate flash, and reduce recoil.

Checkout this 25-06, supersonic bullets. The sound is a whisper compared to an unsuppressed gun in the same caliber.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Joyhp-MRv5E

Here's another comparison. Supersonic unsuppressed, supersonic suppressed, subsonic suppressed. The supersonics are still way quieter than when unsuppressed.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZbxz6ORXFo
 
A 'can' can absolutely work on a .30-06, as long as the 'can' is designed for the pressures of supersonic loads. A 'can' will not stop the crack of a supersonic bullet, but it will still drastically reduce the sound of the gun firing, eliminate flash, and reduce recoil.
Click to expand...

Yes, I know they can work; I have been very surprised at some of our local NFA shoots by how much they reduce the noise of, for example, a .308, and even a bolt action .50 BMG

I just don't think one would work as well as a poacher might want it to.
 
The only full bores I have been around shot with suppressors were .308s.
They were not naked ear safe.


Mike, I should add that the occasion was a 1000 yard Long Range and F-Class match. Not much scope for subsonic ammunition there.
 
Last edited:
I've fired a suppressed .308 that was naked ear safe, as it used subsonic ammunition.

Owner said the difference in suppressor life between firing subsonic ammunition vs standard velocity was pretty dramatic.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top