These ones? Can they shoot modern .30-06? It would be cool to get an original 1903, but I hear they can't shoot modern loads, and the good ones are really expensive. Are these any good?
Anybody tried these remake 1903s?
- Thread starter Wrothgar
- Start date
Mike Irwin
Staff
I think you're confusing the issue of low-number Springfields, manufactured around World War I, with these later firearms built on World War II-era 1903-A3 actions.
I have two 1903-A3s, and both fire "modern" .30-06 just fine.
The fact is that .30-06 ammunition of 1906-1945 operates at the same pressures and specifications as modern (post 1945) ammunition.
I have two 1903-A3s, and both fire "modern" .30-06 just fine.
The fact is that .30-06 ammunition of 1906-1945 operates at the same pressures and specifications as modern (post 1945) ammunition.
I thought it was about Colt 1903 hammerless. Which in the new world of CC it would be a huge hit. But I was wrong.These rifles are built around M1903A3's receivers. These receivers were made from 1942 onwards from 8620 steel, which is a good steel for this application.
The strength of the A3's is totally adequate for modern cartridges.
The single heat treat receivers and double heat treat receivers were all made of plain carbon steels.
I am not so positive on these receivers.
This is an interesting read.
http://www.fulton-armory.com/LNSpringfieldLowRes.pdf
The strength of the A3's is totally adequate for modern cartridges.
The single heat treat receivers and double heat treat receivers were all made of plain carbon steels.
I am not so positive on these receivers.
This is an interesting read.
http://www.fulton-armory.com/LNSpringfieldLowRes.pdf
Powder changed? Maybe, but the SAAMI specs haven't. Ammo makers still stay within the specified pressure limits and pressure curves regardless of the type of powder used. Besides, many of the powders used today were around in WWII; the standard powder for milspec .30-'06 ammo was and is IMR 4895.
Jim
Jim
Wait a minute. I know on this very same website I have seen discussions on this subject, at length, with explanations showing a difference. It's not very easy to discard that information based on "nope, it's the same, trust me". Please understand my reply; I am only trying to clarify
I am certainly not casting stones and I know that your goal here is not to mislead. But it's quite difficult to accept that the ammunition is identical based on that previous information plus the fact that several companies make commercial ammunition designed to be fired from the M1 rifle. If the M2 ball is the same as the 30-06 commercial, then that loading is nothing but a gimmick, the adjustable gas plugs for M1 rifles are gimmicks too...this is very hard to believe. My understanding was that the pressure at the chamber of the M1 isn't the problem, it's the pressure at the gas port, even if the chamber pressure is below the specified maximum for M2 ball. I thought that the modern powder burned too slow compared to that made previously. The higher gas port pressures contributed to gas system damage or even cracked receiver heels in some cases- although honestly I've never seen a photo of a heel cracked due to this, all I've ever seen is talk. The point was that while the pressure in the chamber is the same, the pressure at the port isn't, according to that info
I realize that an M1 rifle is not an 03 but my point is that how can the powders be 'the same' if they do in fact burn slower today, and they are 'the same' powder?
I am certainly not casting stones and I know that your goal here is not to mislead. But it's quite difficult to accept that the ammunition is identical based on that previous information plus the fact that several companies make commercial ammunition designed to be fired from the M1 rifle. If the M2 ball is the same as the 30-06 commercial, then that loading is nothing but a gimmick, the adjustable gas plugs for M1 rifles are gimmicks too...this is very hard to believe. My understanding was that the pressure at the chamber of the M1 isn't the problem, it's the pressure at the gas port, even if the chamber pressure is below the specified maximum for M2 ball. I thought that the modern powder burned too slow compared to that made previously. The higher gas port pressures contributed to gas system damage or even cracked receiver heels in some cases- although honestly I've never seen a photo of a heel cracked due to this, all I've ever seen is talk. The point was that while the pressure in the chamber is the same, the pressure at the port isn't, according to that info
I realize that an M1 rifle is not an 03 but my point is that how can the powders be 'the same' if they do in fact burn slower today, and they are 'the same' powder?
Jim Watson
New member
Pretty much the same powders as used in WW II are still available, 4895 and Ball C2, but there are powders made now that were not in production then and powders in production then that were not used in military ammunition.
The pressure curve and port pressure matter in an auto like the M1, they don't in a bolt action which will shoot safely as long as the chamber pressure is even close to spec.
The pressure curve and port pressure matter in an auto like the M1, they don't in a bolt action which will shoot safely as long as the chamber pressure is even close to spec.
Thanks Jim 
I understand completely about it not mattering in the 1903. But I used the M1 as an example to illustrate my bewilderment of it being the 'same powder' even though in another rifle the burn rate is different enough to matter
I respect your input but to my mind I can't categorize it as identical when there's any caveat attached. I agree that as far as chamber pressure goes yes...but if those 'same' military spec powders burned faster in yesteryear I'm not sure how I'll ever be on the same page with you
For the 03 (of the right s/n range) and the 03A3 for example, I appreciate the strong Mauser action and lack of a gas system, but couldn't you agree that if the two rounds were truly the same, then the commercial ammo would be just as viable for the M1 rifle as for the 03A3? I'm not trying to 'win' an argument; I am a US military arms enthusiast; I own an M1 rifle originally made in '44. I would like to be able to know where my supply of ammo is coming from in the near future when the surplus M2 ball dries up; all information helps.
I understand completely about it not mattering in the 1903. But I used the M1 as an example to illustrate my bewilderment of it being the 'same powder' even though in another rifle the burn rate is different enough to matter
I respect your input but to my mind I can't categorize it as identical when there's any caveat attached. I agree that as far as chamber pressure goes yes...but if those 'same' military spec powders burned faster in yesteryear I'm not sure how I'll ever be on the same page with you
For the 03 (of the right s/n range) and the 03A3 for example, I appreciate the strong Mauser action and lack of a gas system, but couldn't you agree that if the two rounds were truly the same, then the commercial ammo would be just as viable for the M1 rifle as for the 03A3? I'm not trying to 'win' an argument; I am a US military arms enthusiast; I own an M1 rifle originally made in '44. I would like to be able to know where my supply of ammo is coming from in the near future when the surplus M2 ball dries up; all information helps.
Mike Irwin
Staff
As Jim notes, it's the peak operating pressure that is the truly important factor for a cartridge.
Working pressure limits on the .30-06 haven't been ratcheted up 30,000 PSI since the end of World War II.
While of course there are many new powders on the market, these powders are loaded so that they will not exceed the working pressure limit.
The issue of the port pressure on the M1 Garand is a rifle-specific limitation, it's not an overall limitation on the cartridge. While a particular powder may not be suitable for use in the M1 Garand because of that rifle's design parameters, as long a working pressure limit is not exceeded that particular cartridge will be fine to fire in any bolt action .30-06.
Those limitations were apparently known early in the M1's life. I read a brief mention years ago that cartridges loaded with IMR 13 (used only during World War I to expedite production) or IMR 15 1/2 (a post World War I Du Pont military powder) gave problems in the M1 Garand because of port pressure issues, but these same cartridges did just fine when used in 1903 or 1917 model rifles.
Working pressure limits on the .30-06 haven't been ratcheted up 30,000 PSI since the end of World War II.
While of course there are many new powders on the market, these powders are loaded so that they will not exceed the working pressure limit.
The issue of the port pressure on the M1 Garand is a rifle-specific limitation, it's not an overall limitation on the cartridge. While a particular powder may not be suitable for use in the M1 Garand because of that rifle's design parameters, as long a working pressure limit is not exceeded that particular cartridge will be fine to fire in any bolt action .30-06.
Those limitations were apparently known early in the M1's life. I read a brief mention years ago that cartridges loaded with IMR 13 (used only during World War I to expedite production) or IMR 15 1/2 (a post World War I Du Pont military powder) gave problems in the M1 Garand because of port pressure issues, but these same cartridges did just fine when used in 1903 or 1917 model rifles.
You might want to revisit the AIM Surplus website, and look at the ad. The rifles are rebuilt from original 1903 Remington receivers. They have a newly manufactured 4 groove barrel (the originals were 2 groove), a NICE walnut C-type stock, and a scope mounted.
I would not worry about the receiver strength. Springfield, 1917 Enfield and Mauser rifle actions were sporterized whole sale, and chambered in calibers from rimfires to the big boomers, like .416, .458 and .460. These receivers are plenty strong enough to handle .30-06 loads, from plinkers to heavy hunting loads. Shoot with confidence and have fun!!!
I would not worry about the receiver strength. Springfield, 1917 Enfield and Mauser rifle actions were sporterized whole sale, and chambered in calibers from rimfires to the big boomers, like .416, .458 and .460. These receivers are plenty strong enough to handle .30-06 loads, from plinkers to heavy hunting loads. Shoot with confidence and have fun!!!
Slightly frustrated, Mike
You folks are referring to the fact that in the rifle in question, both are fine. Both have the same pressures in the chamber. The specs back that up.
That’s fine and I agree. I also agree 100% that we are talking about a bolt action’s ammo
But you’re making the point with the sweeping statement "The fact is that .30-06 ammunition of 1906-1945 operates at the same pressures and specifications as modern (post 1945) ammunition" which implies the civvie ammo of today is identical to the M2 ball of yesteryear
Yes, for the rifle in question, civvie 30-06 is a fine and appropriate substitute for M2 ball. But that in and of itself does not mean that therefore civvie 30-06 is identical to M2 ball.
I apologize if I offend but when two things have different measurable qualities, they are not identical even though they may perform identically in some applications. If in even one application there is a difference, the two cannot be identical. Unfortunately I cannot back down from that standpoint.
I am concerned that because of the respected sources this fact is coming from, that this may breed misconception; clarification is my only goal here. I hope you can appreciate my motive. Despite the fact that the intent of this thread is to use the ammo in a bolt action, the perception produced is that 30-06 is M2 ball by another name
If we can agree that a measurable value (port pressure on an M1 rifle and/or powder burn rate overall) is in fact different between the two cartridges, then despite the fact that " .30-06 ammunition of 1906-1945 operates at the same pressures and specifications as modern (post 1945) ammunition", I respectfully submit to you that a difference absolutely exists. It cannot be identical and yet also have a distinct difference; the fact that this ammo is for a bolt action doesn't nullify the diffrence, it simply makes the difference irrelevent for this rifle
If Wrothgar were to buy an M1 rifle tomorrow and follow the "The fact is that .30-06 ammunition of 1906-1945 operates at the same pressures and specifications as modern (post 1945) ammunition" rule, then where does that leave him? In my opinion it leaves him under the impression that 30-06 is 'the same' as M2 Ball because respected and knowledgeable members told him so. The information I beleive to be an addendum to your truthful statements shows that the burn rate is slower, resulting in a higher pressure away from teh chamber, which could have implications despite the ammo having the same chamber pressure and specs
My goal is not win an argument. My goal is to show that yes, a difference does indeed exist, so folks who come to this forum for info on curios and relics can be aware
You folks are referring to the fact that in the rifle in question, both are fine. Both have the same pressures in the chamber. The specs back that up.
That’s fine and I agree. I also agree 100% that we are talking about a bolt action’s ammo
But you’re making the point with the sweeping statement "The fact is that .30-06 ammunition of 1906-1945 operates at the same pressures and specifications as modern (post 1945) ammunition" which implies the civvie ammo of today is identical to the M2 ball of yesteryear
Yes, for the rifle in question, civvie 30-06 is a fine and appropriate substitute for M2 ball. But that in and of itself does not mean that therefore civvie 30-06 is identical to M2 ball.
I apologize if I offend but when two things have different measurable qualities, they are not identical even though they may perform identically in some applications. If in even one application there is a difference, the two cannot be identical. Unfortunately I cannot back down from that standpoint.
I am concerned that because of the respected sources this fact is coming from, that this may breed misconception; clarification is my only goal here. I hope you can appreciate my motive. Despite the fact that the intent of this thread is to use the ammo in a bolt action, the perception produced is that 30-06 is M2 ball by another name
If we can agree that a measurable value (port pressure on an M1 rifle and/or powder burn rate overall) is in fact different between the two cartridges, then despite the fact that " .30-06 ammunition of 1906-1945 operates at the same pressures and specifications as modern (post 1945) ammunition", I respectfully submit to you that a difference absolutely exists. It cannot be identical and yet also have a distinct difference; the fact that this ammo is for a bolt action doesn't nullify the diffrence, it simply makes the difference irrelevent for this rifle
If Wrothgar were to buy an M1 rifle tomorrow and follow the "The fact is that .30-06 ammunition of 1906-1945 operates at the same pressures and specifications as modern (post 1945) ammunition" rule, then where does that leave him? In my opinion it leaves him under the impression that 30-06 is 'the same' as M2 Ball because respected and knowledgeable members told him so. The information I beleive to be an addendum to your truthful statements shows that the burn rate is slower, resulting in a higher pressure away from teh chamber, which could have implications despite the ammo having the same chamber pressure and specs
My goal is not win an argument. My goal is to show that yes, a difference does indeed exist, so folks who come to this forum for info on curios and relics can be aware
Last edited:
Somebody slap me down if I'm spreading FUD, but I wonder if the OP's question was regarding the rumor that I'd heard that the rifles in question were built on de-milled receivers that had been reactivated. Unless I'm mistaken, that seems like a fair amount of welding on relatively soft metal.
Seriously, though, if I'm wrong, I do want to know about it.
Seriously, though, if I'm wrong, I do want to know about it.
DAVID NANCARROW
New member
Chris B, read the posts a bit more closely. The gentleman states that loads for the Garand were caliber specific. My heartburn is that I went to that site with those purty A4's and they are sold out
That's not the point David, although I read the posts before I replied and now I've skimmed them again and found no reference to what you're saying
If you meant that the loads are rifle specific then it merely reinforces my standpoint that civvie 30-06 is not to be confused with 'the same thing as' M2 ball, as the M2 ball is not rifle specific in that regard
Although the statement was not specifically made that this was the case, only that ".30-06 ammunition of 1906-1945 operates at the same pressures and specifications as modern (post 1945) ammunition", as well as the powders being the same, it suggests that 30-06 is M2 ball and vice-versa
regardless of the specific caliber or rifle, if one things needs a caveat to be identical to another, I cannot agree they are the same
If you meant that the loads are rifle specific then it merely reinforces my standpoint that civvie 30-06 is not to be confused with 'the same thing as' M2 ball, as the M2 ball is not rifle specific in that regard
Although the statement was not specifically made that this was the case, only that ".30-06 ammunition of 1906-1945 operates at the same pressures and specifications as modern (post 1945) ammunition", as well as the powders being the same, it suggests that 30-06 is M2 ball and vice-versa
regardless of the specific caliber or rifle, if one things needs a caveat to be identical to another, I cannot agree they are the same
Chris, you're comparing apples and oranges.
The answer to your question is quite simply this:
If the rifles in question are redone from original Remington receivers, they are safe to fire with ANY available .30-06 load, as well as any safe recipe from a current reloading manual.
Garands are more specific and more picky about their ammunition specs because they are gas operated.
If you want one of the remade 1903's, then BUY one, and shoot it silly!
Don't overthink it. Go to the range and have fun.
The answer to your question is quite simply this:
If the rifles in question are redone from original Remington receivers, they are safe to fire with ANY available .30-06 load, as well as any safe recipe from a current reloading manual.
Garands are more specific and more picky about their ammunition specs because they are gas operated.
If you want one of the remade 1903's, then BUY one, and shoot it silly!
Don't overthink it. Go to the range and have fun.
I am not even sure how to begin explaining how much you've misunderstood me, PowdermanRespectfully, please read all my comments in this thread, and bear in mind that the question I posed in my first post in this thread is rhetorical- I know that an improved Mauser action can handle it and I have posted that in this thread
My biggest concern now is that since I'm being "proved wrong" by three people, the casual reader will feel that civvie 30-06 and M2 ball are the same thing
Last edited: