Sarco Inc. M1903A3's

Mosin-Marauder

New member
Howdy Folks,
Since I can't get a Garand, the next best thing would be a Springfield 1903A3. I saw Sarco has Original US GI
A3's for sale for 6 big ones. I honestly think know I'd like a bolt gun better. Plus I could fire commercial loads. Anyone have any experience with Sarco? They say they're in excellent condition and the reviews say they're good shooters (which is what I want).
And I also had some general questions about A3's in general. Do any of you have any groups you can post so I get a sense of the accuracy? I know 2 MOA is average (which is good).
Lastly, I CAN fire commercial ammo put of them, right?
Any more general info on these rifles is appreciated.
Your input is appreciated, thanks you!
 
they are mixmasters and I've heard some disturbing stories from ex sarco employees and former customers(regarding forged markings and such). $600 is about going rate for a decent 1903A3, mixmasters... dunno.
 
have you thought about US model 1917s? I prefer them to springfields personally and they generally go for a little less than springfields.

here is an auction for a 1917 with a buy it now price of $500, it's also a mix master but I think it might be right up your alley.
 
Any commercial surplus coming on the market now is 'suspect', from an originality standpoint. Lots of refurbished stuff out there.

I would avoid such things and look for a good Springfield at a show or shop. You will pay more than $600, but get a better rifle, I believe.

As mentioned above, don't overlook the M1917, you can often find them for $750 in very nice, if not minty, condition.

If you're fine with a $600 mixmaster, then go ahead and get one, just be aware up front what it is. It's an iconic rifle, you won't lose money on it.
 
I don't know anything about the current ad but I do know there were a bunch of 03A3 "drill rifles" that were reworked and made into firing capable specimens. I wouldn't shoot one of those from MY shoulder, in front of MY face.
 
it's not that they are bad, it's that they have the POSSIBILITY of being bad. Gibbs got a number of those drill rifles and training rifles and completely reworked them into very nice looking and very good shooting rifles but they were asking outrageous prices for them when half the parts were brand new reproduction parts. these look like sarco got their hands on a number of similar rifles, and are selling as is in the old wood, with the old shot out barrels, and possibly with welds and soldering all over the place. they probably belonged to some military academies or are leftover from french warehouses somewhere(the french were not kind to the rifles we loaned them during WWII).

the 24/47 would likely be a safer bet. cheaper too.
 
^^^ This.

I almost bought one of these...

http://www.ows-ammo.com/store/index.php?main_page=product_info&products_id=454

MM, ...De-activated drill rifles had plugged and welded barrels, cutoffs, and bolt faces as I understand it. The safety concern relates to the locations and depths of the welds and whether they compromised the temper of the receiver steel.

IMO, it all depends on trust in whomever did the recovery in only doing it if the tack welds on the receiver-especially the barrel/receiver weld- was small and of minimal penetration that wouldn't allow the receiver to heat up. I can do a small "tack" weld to a bolt, and then pick it up...but it's not a proper weld and has no strength.

My digging at the time seemed to say that some of these de-activated (not de-milled) receivers had very minimal welds that wouldn't have had an effect on the receiver strength. Although I only read about one "documented" failure, I did see several reports of increasing headspace after firing which would indicate the receiver ring softened and the threads were able to stretch.

In any case, there are many that buy and shoot these, such as the Sarco ones, without issue and my feeling is that Sarco wouldn't sell them without confidence in the rifles used for the conversion and whomever did it. That said, six bills is pricey for a recovered drill rifle IMO...
 
Lets back up a minute:

What's wrong with the Springfield 1903A3..............Mix masters. Lets talk about Mix-Masters.

Just about all 1903s, have been rebuilt by the Army over the years. Most, several times. They don't rebuild Remington's with Remington Parts, and Smith Corona's with SC parts. They rebuild 1903s with 1903 parts regardless of who the contractor was.

Remington contract out their parts, Smith Corona contracts out their parts. The 1903 were designed, like most military rifles to be plug an play, meaning the parts are interchangeable.

Sarco 1903a3s may be parts guns. So were the 1903a3's sold by the CMP (when they had them)

The real question is, SO WHAT, they are M1903a3's.

Are M1903a3s shootable? Are they accurate?

The answer is YES. They are on the average the most accurate military rifles ever made.

We can all say my Model 19xx or surplus YY, is the most accurate. It shoots X moa ever time. We all have opinions what what's the most accurate. So to set aside prejudges how do we know.

Look at head to head match results. The CMP conducts GSM Matches. G=Garands, S = Springfields and M= all other military rifles used before 1954. Including the M1917s, Krags, Mausers, Swedes, Swiss, etc etc.

In the CMP Games awards are presented to individuals shooting min scores in the games. There are cut off scores for the Garand, Springfield, and Military matches. To keep things fair, their are different cut off scores for the different rifles simply because the scores are higher for different classes.

The Cut off scores are Higher for the Springfields then they are for the Military rifles, they are even higher then the Garands.

One only needs to check the winning (or overall average) scores at the CMP games to see which category has the higher scores.

Looking at this, you cannot dispute that the Springfields are, on the average, more accurate.

The Army uses a Mann Device to test their ammo. The Mann is a heavy super match barrel put on an action and fired from a v-type rest. The action used for the Mann of course is chosen for its accuracy.

They are Springfield actions, Not Enfields, Swiss, Swedes, Mausers, but Springfields. They made manns in '06, 308, 30 Carbine, 45 ACP, 22 Hornet using Springfield actions. (I do have a Mann in 5.56 that was made on a Remington Action, but the majority of calibers used by the Army are tested in Mann's using a Springfield action.

All versions of the Springfields, 1903, 1903a1, and 1903a3s, are accurate. Its just in my opinion the M1903a3's are easier to shoot accurately because of the sights. The 'A3's have a rear peep, and longer sight radius.

Saco and others buy surplus parts and build their rifles. They function, and they shoot. They are Springfield's. Mix master or not, (just like the Army's Springfield's)

When I built my M1903a4, someone on these forums gave me the action and a bag of parts. I got a few different parts, a surplus barrel (from Sarco), a Stock from CMP and at a small gun shop a Weaver K 2.5 and I built my M1903a4 from parts. Its a faux or mixmaster, call it what you want, its a M1903a4. All CMP legal parts, that I put together like putting together any kit.

Sighted it in, took it to Cody for a CMP GSM Vintage sniper rifle, used handloaded 168 A-max bullets and won a Bronze medal the first time I shot it.

If one doesn't like Springfield's, don't buy one, but if you're looking for a surplus military shooter. You wont go wrong with the Springfields, Mix Master or Not.

I said that the Springfields are on the average the most accurate surplus rifle ever made, I'm going to go one step further. I'm going to say they are the most accurate military rifles made, surplus or modern.

I'm not talking about match M14s or Garands, I'm talking as issued Arms Room Guns. If you take 5 surplus Springfields and 5 M16a3s or M4s from the arms room and go head to head, you'll find the Springfields will win.

Some are going to chime in and say I'm prejudges toward the Springfield. I'll beat them to it, I am. So don't take my word for this, don't take anyone's word. Look at the scores fired at the matches listed on the CMP's website. I think they bare me out.
 
Kraig, although you do bring a good point with arsenal rebuilds and plug and play parts, most of that really applies to the original 1903 and A1s. those served in two world wars and by the time WWII came along, neither springfield or rock island armory were making 1903s anymore, leaving remington to provide all replacement parts. by the time the A3s came along, most US grunts were either packing the M1 or stuck with the old 1903s. the A3s did not see a whole lot of service and as a result many went through their post war arsenal inspections with a clean bill of health and retained all their original parts. CMP may have swapped some parts around to make their service grades as nice as possible, but as I understand it, most of them hit civilian hands with factory correct parts.
 
I like my K-31 and I must disagree. From the 1903A3's I've seen. They're a lot more refined and are a better battle rifle in all aspects. Mine is very accurate. Plus their surplus ammo is match grade ammunition.
 
A 1903a3 is high on my list of 'want to buy when I find one for sale'. I had the chance to shoot one at the range some years back, and it was love at first shot. Compared to my 98 Mauser, the 1903 was incredibly awesome to shoot.

Perhaps you should call Sarco up and talk to one of their people about the 1903a3s? Get an idea of how they feel about it, what sales pitch would they use? I wouldnt so quickly walk away from a chance to add a piece of American history to my gun collection.
 
personally I like 1903-A3's and have shot a few, I also have shot several Yugo M24/47's as well as own a couple. and with military iron sights (in my experience) they are equals (1"-2" MOA) when it comes to accuracy (albeit the 03 has better sights). Not being a "rich man" I can get 2 - M24/47's for the price of an 03, so I did, I turned one into a sporter and it is my main hunting arm, and kept the other one in military dress to go with my M98 and M48.
The M24/47's out-shoot both the M98 & M48 with the same ammo, but I can tailor ammo to each gun and they will all perform equally well.
Still nothing wrong with an "03" if that's your bag !! I just haven't found one at a price I'm willing to pay (spelled; cheap ba$tard) I can find mauser's for $300 or less all day long that give me all the accuracy I need. :D
 
^^^ Good stuff to post.
Like I said, it's all about trust in whomever did the recovery. Glad Gibbs posted about thorough inspection, and hardness testing of the receivers.

Might have to reconsider getting that receiver now...;)
 
This kid (op with 1300 posts in nine months) sure has a knack for starting pitched wars in his posts and since he vacillates from weapon to weapon the participants are usually different each time. Keep it up Mosin you help keep life in the forum!
 
This kid (op with 1300 posts in nine months) sure has a knack for starting pitched wars in his posts and since he vacillates from weapon to weapon the participants are usually different each time. Keep it up Mosin you help keep life in the forum!
I get bored alot and am indecisive, and want to be sure of what I get. Rest assured I have made up my mind and there wont be any more of these posts in a while. So, sorry I post so much. :P
 
heck, I've been starting model wars here for 3 years and I've never got so much as a nod:D

It's easy to get bored and nothing spurs interest like learning about new designs. I have never been interested in carcanos, the later mauser designs and several others, but I still know a little bit about them from starting baiting little threads all over this fine forum... it's the best way to learn. not that I think this thread was baiting or even had the slightest intention of being such.

then again what do I know? I've got infractions on the board still :D
 
Back
Top