Springfield 1903 A3 questions

Better setup for the battle, simple, right size.

Quick flip up ladder for long shots with good indentations and solid hold, nothing fancy.

No issues with adjusting it.

Battle sight stays fixed so if you flip down you are right back where you need to be.

My opinion YFMV
 
I started out with my GrandDads Remington 03A3 sporter, which hung on the wall of his bedroom with a bandoleer of clipped ammo all his life.
After I inherited it, I shot it quite a bit, and found the 03A3 rear sight to be quite good. Even though the front sight had been changed to a Lyman ramp with a brass bead, I shot 1.5-2" groups at 100yds using surplus '06 AP.

From there, I went on to owning many of the famous battle rifles at one time or another.
Cock on closing isn't bad...it's just different. Once you get the muscle memory going, it's about as quick.

My Dad was a Pre-war national guard cavalryman who went on to fight in Europe. He was a weapons guy, and he could shoot. He thought the Garand rear sight was just about perfect, and loved the ability of the 30.06 AP to shoot through trees, and take apart brick walls.
 
My Dad was a Pre-war national guard cavalryman who went on to fight in Europe. He was a weapons guy, and he could shoot. He thought the Garand rear sight was just about perfect,
Click to expand...

I agree with your father 100 %.

The M1 (and M14, same sights) are as about as perfect as a military rifle can get.

Sight the rifle in, at ANY Range, and you're sighted in as far as you can see the target. Just set the elevation dial to the distance you sighted it in.

Est. the range, crank the dial and you're there. The army taught a simple formula for adjusting for wind. Range (in 100 yards times wind velocity divided by 15) and you have the number of 1 mim clicks you need to correct.

The M1 also has a built in Range finder for shooting man size targets.

The average man's shoulder width is 19 inches (hence, the E Target (19X40).

I taught sniper schools before we used Mil Dot Scopes, or had laser range finders, using the M1C/D.

The average width of the front sight of the M1 Garand is 0.076. Take the shoulder width, divide it by the width of the front sight and you get the range.

Meaning, if the front sight is the same size as the target, (19/.076=250) your target is 250 yards away. If the front sight is half the size of the target, you're 125 yards away. If the front sight is twice the size of the target, you're 500 yards away.

Like the mil dot, the accuracy of your comparison determines the accuracy of your range est. Just takes a bit of practice.

The offset of the M-84 scope on the Garand, allows you to see the front sight to make your estimate.

During my sniper schools some got quite accurate. The problem with the M-84 is you were limited to 900 yards. (sight the scope at 50 yards, it has settings where you can set the sights to 900 yds. without counting clicks.

Many of my students learned to switch to irons (by shifting the eyes) and were getting hits up to 1400 yards (limit of our range).

Based on my shooting both rifles at the CMP Vintage Rifle Games the Springfield M1903A3 has a slight accuracy advantage over the Garand, but the advantage goes to Garand as a battle rifle in my opinion.

Compared to other army's the American Soldier has a repetition as Riflemen. I strongly believe a lot of that advantage is do to the ability to make windage adjustments on our rifles.

Again, I reference the scores fired in the CMP vintage rifle games (which are available for anyone to see at the CMP website). There are lots of accurate military rifles out there, but if you cant adjust for the wind, they loose out to the Springfield's and Garand's.
 
Just FWIW, a serious advantage of the M1 over the M1903 was shown up in tests prior to the adoption of the semi-auto rifle. The idea was to simulate firing from a trench at a mass enemy attack. Each soldier would be given 100 rounds to fire as fast as possible. Most soldiers with the Springfield could not fire half that many; some had to be taken to the hospital. The M1 shooters, though tired, fired all their ammo and remained capable of continuing.

Jim
 
FWIW: Don't quote me on the who and where. Memory has it that Elmer Keith commented in his "Hell, I Was There" that at the last Palma match before WW II, the British team with Enfields was quite competitive for rate of fire and accuracy against our guys with Garands.
Click to expand...

Art, the story is true, but the match oft quoted occurred in England. It's been a long time since I read an account of it, so I'm not sure where specifically it happened.
 
I think we need to differential well trained snipers from the general run of the mill infantry (no disrespect intended, they are the backbone of the armed forces) .

I also think that the American sharp shooter is a myth thing. Vast majority were and now are from cities and never those a gun before basic.

That does not mean there are not good American shooters, but if you watch the ebb and flow of snipers, WWI they got hot, dropped in between, got hot again in WWII and then dropped and then resurgence for Vietnam and got dropped.

Other countries kept that sniper tradition. Its an institution driven thing.

Finally it seems to have sunk into the Army brass (Marines always took their shooting more; seriously) and we have a well supported sniper system that I think will stay.
 
I also think that the American sharp shooter is a myth thing. Vast majority were and now are from cities and never those a gun before basic.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily; Prior to WWII, this country was more much more rural and agrarian than after.
 
No disagreement, but not all hunted, and reality is that for military purposes the type of shooting was different.

Sgt York was not a sniper, but an example of an exception good shot (and yes rural) Still relatively rate and an adjustment to a 1917 vs V sights he was used to.

Russian was famous for its snipers, I have never read of any US snipers of any fame WWI or WWII, Korea. Now we are seeing the names come up.
 
Sgt York was not a sniper, but an example of an exception good shot (and yes rural) Still relatively rate and an adjustment to a 1917 vs V sights he was used to.
Click to expand...
not necessarily true. there is no definitive proof that york used a 1917. he was trained in basic with a 1903 (leaf sights) and shortly after arriving in france his diary stated that he traded his issued rifle out for one that was more accurate. he never mentioned whether he traded out for a 1917 or for a different 1903 that was just a better shooter than the one issued. for all any of us knows, it was a 1903 that used similar sights to what he was used to with his muzzle loaders back home. I like to think he was using the 1903, simply because he was interviewed extensively and consulted for the makers of the film based on his life and the film depicted him using a 1903.

granted I was not there, but I have read a little into the topic of snipers during WWII. one reason that there were no noted snipers in WWII was because american battle tactics did not allow for them. there were rifles made that in later years have been referred to as sniper rifles (the 1903A4 for example), but the U.S. military did not like the idea of sending a single person on a seek and destroy mission. instead marksmen were assigned to squads and used for counter sniper, pillbox operations ETC, so there were no noteworthy snipers in WWII because the entire squad received credit, not just the one sniper.

Another reason is the scopes, the 1903A4 had a terrible scope for a combat rifle and especially for a long distance sniper rifle at that, yes the rifles are plenty accurate but in combat environments they were shoddy at best. the earlier scoped 1903s were better for that purpose but by WWII almost all of those were used by the Marines and there is little room for proper sniper operations while storming beaches and holding off Bonzai charges.

lastly, the primary reason for making a sniper noteworthy in the first place was for propaganda purposes. Russia had Vasilli Zaitsev while Germany occupied over a third of the USSR, to keep up morale. the same for Simo Hayha when Russia had invaded Finnland. it's not easy to fight a war when it's on home soil, and propaganda is the best way to keep your people fighting and supporting the war effort. the U.S. used their propaganda too, but it took the place more as Rosie the Riveter and Uncle Sam.
 
Last edited:
was a 1903 that used similar sights to what he was used to with his muzzle loaders back home.
Click to expand...

I don't think I ever saw a muzzle loader with a "ladder" sight like the '03.

Has nobody thought of the USMC sight variant of the 1903?
As I understand it, the front blade is thicker, wider, taller, and undercut for a better sight picture. The added height brings the battle sight to a more reasonable 300 m.
Their rear drift slide had a single larger aperture to match the wider front blade with no confusing arches and notches.
 
A totally different solution

DavidB2 said:
Currently I have an Enfield Mk 4. However, .303 ammo is getting expensive. I figured going with a .30-.06 1903A3 would provide me the opportunity to shoot cheaper and more available ammo.
Click to expand...
The thread seems to have focused on the alternate rifle. I suggest focusing on an alternate ammunition source.

Have you considered reloading?

30 caliber bullets for the .303 are common and reasonable in price.

Loading for almost any rifle cartridge can generate a substantial savings over the cheapest factory ammo

If you pay attention, crafting your own ammo, you can tune your power levels to bring out the best accuracy of which your rifle is capable. (Some people enjoy this "hunt" as much as any aspect of shooting.) As you learn more about interior ballistics, you may become a better shooter yourself.

I daresay that for the price of 10 boxes of ammo you can assemble a decent starter kit (or buy a ready-made one assembled by some genius in marketing) plus enough powder, primers and bullets (you have enough factory brass-which is reusable-, right?) to give you those same 10 boxes worth of shooting.

Thanks for reading.

Lost Sheep
 
Last edited:
"Not necessarily; Prior to WWII, this country was more much more rural and agrarian than after."

Sure the country was more rural.

But that didn't translate into people who could shoot.

The National Rifle Association was formed in 1871, partially in response to the fact that most new recruits entering service during the Civil War couldn't shoot worth a crap.

So, things got better, right?

Nope. Teddy Roosevelt formed the office of the Director of Civilian Marksmanship during his presidency because during the Spanish-American war most recruits, and more than a few members of the state guard units called to action, couldn't shoot worth a crap.

The situation wasn't much, if any, better when the US entered World War I, and many recruits went to Europe and into combat with only a rudimentary ability to use the rifles they were issued.

The situation finally got a lot better in World War II because of the National Rifle Association. When the US started to rebuilt the national defense, military training resources were quickly swamped.

NRA stepped up and offered its ranges, training materials, training programs, and, perhaps most importantly, its instructors.

By the end of the war, most recruits had had at least their initial training from NRA trained instructors.
 
"I like to think he was using the 1903, simply because he was interviewed extensively and consulted for the makers of the film based on his life and the film depicted him using a 1903."

The film also depicted him using a Luger during his exploits.

We know for a fact that that isn't true at all.
 
I know someone will know this...

What was the windage/elevation adjustable peep sight used on a US military rifle?

And yes, I know.
 
NRA stepped up and offered its ranges, training materials, training programs, and, perhaps most importantly, its instructors.

By the end of the war, most recruits had had at least their initial training from NRA trained instructors.
Click to expand...

I have an extensive library of American Rifleman magazines and I have most of the WW2 editions. The American Rifleman was interested in marksmanship and combat effectiveness and there was one reporter who toured Europe looking for accounts of heroic marksmanship saving the day. Early in the war they were able to find British and Norwegian accounts of extreme marksmanship against the German Blitzkrieg. It was all stirring reading, but guess what, the Germans still kicked the British out of France and took over Norway. Hitting Germans at 1200 yards with a Krag rifle did not change the outcome of the war. Now when it came to American accounts, there were stirring accounts of marksmanship saving the day, but these are also early in the war. Somewhere around 1944 the NRA reporter is having trouble finding accounts of extreme marksmanship. I remember he reported Officer's not allowing their men to shoot at anything beyond 300 yards because the men could not hit anything, and most likely, the German retaliated with artillery. I believe I heard that between 80 and 90% of causalities during WW2 were due to artillery. I don't know if mortars count, but plenty of guys were killed by mortars too. Still, I would hate to be shot at by a MG42, the things shoot 25 rounds a second. How good of a shooter do you have to be to hit a target when your gun fires 25 rounds per second? I assume it is like using a water hose, just point and move the end till you saturate the area.

The experience of WW2 lead to the Army repudiating the concept of aimed fire. It took too much time and effort to train men to shoot well, that time was not available in a war that sent 2,000 men home in a box every week, and those who could shoot well at the start of the war, were in a box before the year ended. If you want to die, joining a major war early is a good way to ensure a short lifetime.
 
"The experience of WW2 lead to the Army repudiating the concept of aimed fire."

Well, yes and no.

It finally got the military, at least some of them, thinking that no, not every soldier was an instant long range death dealing machine, and that training would never make them so.

But, there were quite a few generals still wedded to the concept, as can be seen in the adoption of the M14, its full power cartridge, its long barrel, and it's long-range sights.

And it was largely a failure for a wide variety of reasons in its first combat test.

Even with the deficiencies of the M14 shown in the Vietnamese jungles, which helped point the way toward a new direction, some in the military continued to drag their feet, totally wedded to the concept of every soldier a sniper.

Bleh.
 
I know someone will know this...

What was the windage/elevation adjustable peep sight used on a US military rifle?

And yes, I know.
Click to expand...



Are you asking to see how many know, or want us to post them.

Not the same on all our rifles.

They started windage adjustments with the 1873 Springfield Trap door though the M-4
 
"Not the same on all our rifles."

Ah, crap.

I screwed up.

My question should have read "What was the FIRST....."

Missing the word first makes it, well, a pointless question.

Since I screwed it up, I'll post it...

It was the Model 1884 Buffington sight.

It's the sight that finally formalized the myth of every soldier a long-range death dealer, the direct descendant of the hoards of buckskin-clad riflemen who destroyed the British army by firing two shots each and who rode to Britain on the backs of dolphins and spanked King George and his parliament with their ramrods.
 
not necessarily true. there is no definitive proof that york used a 1917. he was trained in basic with a 1903 (leaf sights) and shortly after arriving in france his diary stated that he traded his issued rifle out for one that was more accurate
Click to expand...

For that matter, he could have been carrying an issued Krag. There are ample photos and films that show AEF troops arriving in France with Krag rifles, which were immediately exchanged for Springfields or Enfields,
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top