She's a mutt, but she's mine. Springfield 1903A3. How did I do?

W

WardenWolf

Moderator
And she's beautiful.

So on Saturday I went to a gun show and right in front of me there was this beautiful National Ordnance Springfield 1903A3. The guy gave me full disclosure: it's a mutt with parts from all over the place. But it has a brand new barrel properly installed, chamber-sized, and headspaced by a gunsmith. He said he was getting 1" groups out of with his handloads, and the barrel has a total round count of 67. He was asking $600 or best offer. I offered $550. He took it, and walked out with it. Given the going rate for 1903s nowadays, I don't think I did too bad.



How do you think I did?
 
Last edited:
IIRC those are after market cast receivers so the piece has no collector value. As for shooting, best keep it fed with standard ammo or the Garand specific "target" ammo. Just my opinion.
It does make a nice addition to an informal "collection" and a nice anchor piece for WW2 era display.
 
Nice looking '03, if it shoots as well as it looks I think you did well.
I actually prefer shooter to collector pieces anyway:cool:
 
National Ordnance (and a few other names--same outfit) made cast
receivers for 1903, 1903A3, M1 Carbine, Garand. They built guns
using the cast receivers and GI parts, or you could buy just the receiver and build your own. On the 1903A3, serial numbers are typically above 5,000,000,
higher than the military ever produced.

Mixed opinions of them, generally negative. A few reports of them blowing
up. Rifles built on them have no collector value, but if you get a good one it
might be OK as a shooter.
 
for a mutt a fellow should have been able to get it out the door for $450 but if all you want is a shooter then you could have done a lot worse. it'll probably be a good competition rifle.
 
Also, are the problems with these receivers severe enough that I should get one of these and have my barrel installed on it?
Click to expand...


Do a search on National Ordnance 1903A3. Read the reviews, posts and experiences of people that have had them. Then make an informed decision
for yourself. Kind of like low number 1903's---some people shoot them, some
don't.
 
S&B is the only factory ammo(243 Win) which I've found to show high pressure signs in a stock factory rifle(Savage 110). I can't say if the 30/06 is so hotly loaded since I've not shot any.
 
I've put a pretty good variety including Remington 180 gr core lokts through my Smith Corona. She is a tack driver. I doubt factory ammo is dangerous as long as it is 30-06 and not some sort of low yield nuclear ammo. Just my .02
 
Sounds to me like my best bet is to get a No-Go gauge. Apparently some of these receivers had soft steel and the headspace can open up over time. Since mine was checked out by a gunsmith only 67 rounds ago, it's a safe bet that it's okay to shoot, but I should keep an eye on it for loosening. If it gets bad enough, I can get a new receiver and transfer my barrel over.

Those seem to be the main complaints: soft steel which can cause long-term problems, and feeding problems. Mine does not have feeding problems, so I should be good to go.
 
My dad lets me babysit a A4 (or converted A3 I bet) sometimes & to date it's the rifle I've shot my best group with. And my first deer, a fat corn fed doe at 280 paces. She was nice & calm, when I sqeezed the trigger, it was like she got struck by lightning. It's a really good rifle, nothing fancy about it. If yours shoots as good as ours, I'd be tickled pink!

If you handload, I've been working on a light load with 130gr hornady bullets, Dupont 4350 & LC match cases that looks real good so far & takes the bite out of that steel buttplate!
 
Craig should be along shortly to give a definite yay or nay but from what I understand the only guns they ban are low serials.
 
From everything I've heard, "replicas" are allowed as long as they're to military spec and the gun is in a legitimate military configuration. So, for example, if I were to put a replica scope on it, it would count as an A4 for CMP purposes (which I find ironic, because any modern replica scope is going to be far clearer than the original). So I should be good.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top