Hi, I'm new to all of this and was wondering if I could get some info on this rifle I had passed down to me... It's a Springfield model 1903 mark 1 as the title says, serial 1064xxx. Reading a bit about the rifle it's been said that some early models can't be fired? I was wondering if this particular model could, and maybe get the year of it etc. On the end of the barrel it says SA then a bomb logo, then 8- 42. It's in great condition... Bolt slides great and has what looks to be like the original strap on it... My dad says it's a 303 but from what I've been reading a little it's been said it's a 30.06? Any and all info would be greatly appreciated ! And if I could find out the value of this that would be a bonus as well. Thx for your time!
Springfield 1903 mark 1
- Thread starter Adam buck
- Start date
Hi. A Mk I was the designation of the rifles converted to use the Pedersen Device. That's a sub-calibre bolt replacement that allowed a .30 calibre pistol cartridge(about the same power as a .32 acp to be fired semi-automatically out of the rifle. Your rifle should have a slot on the left side of the receiver. It's the ejection port for the .30 cal pistol cartridge. With the 'Device' out, the rifle was operated just like any other 1903.
http://www.remingtonsociety.com/questions/Pedersen.htm
There's a whole chapter about the Pedersen Device in Hatcher's Notebook. About $30 from Amazon or your local gun shop. Worth every cent too. Should be required reading for any shooter.
There's good info about your rifle here. Note the menu on the right. http://surplusrifle.com/
The value depends on condition. There were far fewer Mk I's made, of course. They aren't exactly rare, but not common either.
"...some early models can't be fired?..." The S/N is above that of the change to double heat treating for a Springfield made rifle. S/N's below 800,000 on a Springfield made rifle are considered unsafe. Had to do with how the heat treating guys determined the temperature of the steel before pyrometers were used. The experienced guys did it by eye and were off by 300 degrees in bright sunlight vs a cloudy day.
"...dad says it's a 303..." He's confused. The Pattern 14 Enfield was chambered in .303 British. 1903's were not.
http://www.remingtonsociety.com/questions/Pedersen.htm
There's a whole chapter about the Pedersen Device in Hatcher's Notebook. About $30 from Amazon or your local gun shop. Worth every cent too. Should be required reading for any shooter.
There's good info about your rifle here. Note the menu on the right. http://surplusrifle.com/
The value depends on condition. There were far fewer Mk I's made, of course. They aren't exactly rare, but not common either.
"...some early models can't be fired?..." The S/N is above that of the change to double heat treating for a Springfield made rifle. S/N's below 800,000 on a Springfield made rifle are considered unsafe. Had to do with how the heat treating guys determined the temperature of the steel before pyrometers were used. The experienced guys did it by eye and were off by 300 degrees in bright sunlight vs a cloudy day.
"...dad says it's a 303..." He's confused. The Pattern 14 Enfield was chambered in .303 British. 1903's were not.
Art Eatman
Staff in Memoriam
Clean condition, they're worth somewhere north of $1,000...
The low number cut off for Rock Island 03's is 285,507
For Springfield Armory 03's, serial numbers below 800,000 are considered low numbers.
The double heat treat series, RIA to 319,921, SA to 1,275,767.
All of these receivers are made from Springfield Armory Class C materials. Plain carbon steels but apparently the process controls in the forging room were improved for the double heat treat, and the heat treatment itself was changed for the double heat treat.
Hatcher blame shifts the problems onto the poor guys in the forge shops, but he is simply providing CYA for Army leadership. The factory workers were not responsible for the process flow, on their pittance incomes could not go out and buy forging ovens, nor buy and install temperature gages. The fault is 100% with the Officer Corp who were drinking mint juleps between chucker’s, instead of managing their factory.
From RIA above 319,921 and SA 1,275,767 these were nickel steel, and back to the single heat treatment, apparently without carburizing unless the 30 minute draw in sodium nitrate is a carburizing cycle. Does not seem long enough.
All the Remington's 03's are either nickel steel, 4045 or 8620. I would guess that all A3's were 8620.
For Springfield Armory 03's, serial numbers below 800,000 are considered low numbers.
The double heat treat series, RIA to 319,921, SA to 1,275,767.
All of these receivers are made from Springfield Armory Class C materials. Plain carbon steels but apparently the process controls in the forging room were improved for the double heat treat, and the heat treatment itself was changed for the double heat treat.
Hatcher blame shifts the problems onto the poor guys in the forge shops, but he is simply providing CYA for Army leadership. The factory workers were not responsible for the process flow, on their pittance incomes could not go out and buy forging ovens, nor buy and install temperature gages. The fault is 100% with the Officer Corp who were drinking mint juleps between chucker’s, instead of managing their factory.
From RIA above 319,921 and SA 1,275,767 these were nickel steel, and back to the single heat treatment, apparently without carburizing unless the 30 minute draw in sodium nitrate is a carburizing cycle. Does not seem long enough.
All the Remington's 03's are either nickel steel, 4045 or 8620. I would guess that all A3's were 8620.
The action was manufactured in 1919 so according to the barrel date, it has been rebarreled and maybe at an arsenal. There should be corresponding stamps on the stock to a specific arsenal if so. To say it CAN"T be a 303 is wrong. There were 500 prototypes given to the Brits and the New Zealand military for trials. The British units would have an English Crown stamp in the stock just in front of the floor plate on the bottom. The New Zealand rifles would have the letters NZ stamped in the stock along with triangle looking mark followed by a D. All of these units were chambered in .303. I doubt you have one of these but if you do, it's extremely rare. There's really no historic records of what happened to any of them but occasionally one pops up and the controversy begins. I would suggest trying to chamber a 3006 round. If it goes in and you can close the bolt- it's not a 303. The 303 chamber is considerably shorter than a 3006. Because the action is after the heat treatment issue, it should be a safe shooter. If there's any question your mind about it being safe, I'd suggest taking it to any gunsmith and have the headspace checked.
If you can take pics of the stamps on the stock, you most likely can follow the history of the rifle via these stamps. It may have been rebuilt several times which was not all that uncommon especially for an action as old as that one. Regardless, if it's in pristine condition, you have a treasure. Enjoy it.
If you can take pics of the stamps on the stock, you most likely can follow the history of the rifle via these stamps. It may have been rebuilt several times which was not all that uncommon especially for an action as old as that one. Regardless, if it's in pristine condition, you have a treasure. Enjoy it.
Thanks so much for the fast replies! I will go and check out the gun and see what it's chambered for for sure... But I'm leaning towards 30.06 . It doesn't have any markings on the stock at all. I'm happy it's fireable (pending it's checks out) its one of a few passed down to me.
I also have a model 1873 Winchester in very nice shape, 38-40, action is fast and smooth, as well as a 1945 long branch no4 mk1 I'm interested in getting some more info on... This site is the best! Thx for all your help everyone!
I also have a model 1873 Winchester in very nice shape, 38-40, action is fast and smooth, as well as a 1945 long branch no4 mk1 I'm interested in getting some more info on... This site is the best! Thx for all your help everyone!
Jim Watson
New member
Loader9, is there anyplace on the www or in a book where I can read about those .303 1903s? A run of 500 oddball guns would be enough to generate a book or website all its own, in some collecting fields.
All I get on Google is a page out of a Brophy book with a .303 Bannerman Frankengun.
P.S. My late Uncle was of no doubt that the rifle the Army issued him while in the Philippines between the wars was a .30-30. Yep, just like that one (My 1903 Mk I .30-06.) But you know, the caliber is nowhere shown on a Springfield or most other military rifles. So people get funny ideas.
All I get on Google is a page out of a Brophy book with a .303 Bannerman Frankengun.
P.S. My late Uncle was of no doubt that the rifle the Army issued him while in the Philippines between the wars was a .30-30. Yep, just like that one (My 1903 Mk I .30-06.) But you know, the caliber is nowhere shown on a Springfield or most other military rifles. So people get funny ideas.
IIRC the Mark I had a special sear and other parts in the trigger group to function properly with the Pedersen Device, so when you find yours (harharhar) you will need them to shoot it.
Hatcher's Notebook is well worth it.
We will be arguing about the shootability of Low Numbered M1903 for the next 100 years or so.
Hatcher's Notebook is well worth it.
We will be arguing about the shootability of Low Numbered M1903 for the next 100 years or so.
Adam, since there are no markings on the stock, it's not a full military weapon. I'll assume it's been sporterized which destroys the value....unless all that was done was a different stock. then all you'd have to do is get a military stock and the correct fittings and you'd have a dandy again. Here's what it should look like- the top rifle:
Jim, I was fortunate enough to have as a friend a lady that worked at Camp Stanley during WWII. I had taken her back there around 1995 for a tour and she was in the records keeping dept. While there they asked her if she wanted copies of the work she had done since they had it on disc and obviously not any secret documents. I have those records of the reloading, rebuilding, most anything Camp Stanley did during the War including these odd Springfields. The commentary though is a little questionable as it states there were 500 rebuilds from various on hand actions chambered for the 303 and sent to the British and the New Zealanders for trials. I have no idea who got how many or if they made 500 for each, it really doesn't say. On a side note, while I've never seen any documentation in regards to any 30-30's actually in combat, there are numerous old GIs that claim they had them including the old Winchester 94's. Again, no documentation but it's hard to argue with someone who was there and also complained about having the oddball ammo to carry. As I've been an 03 collector for about 40 years now, you learn fairly quick that there wasn't much they didn't try and records keeping was not a priority. I bought a gentlemans collection that accepted rifles for the military back in WW2 and I have a couple of 03 carbines that were issued only for the Phillipines campaign with 16" barrels. I have Remington rifles with Marlin 6 groove barrels, Remington rifles with Savage 5 groove barrels, a Model NB national match which only 19 were ever made. Mine is still in the bag, unfired. Mark I's, trench rifles, and a few others that you don't see much of and some are just unknowns like the floor plate that takes an M14 clip that was invented before the M14 came to be. So the 30-30 might not be real but then again......
No Mark I as designed ever saw combat. All of the rifles made were put into storage as the war was over before they could be issued. The devices were also put in storage. In the 1930's all devices were ordered to be destroyed but apparently some escaped destruction and are now museum pieces. All Mark I rifles were refitted with proper sears and fittings before being issued. There will be no Mark I sears.
Jim, I was fortunate enough to have as a friend a lady that worked at Camp Stanley during WWII. I had taken her back there around 1995 for a tour and she was in the records keeping dept. While there they asked her if she wanted copies of the work she had done since they had it on disc and obviously not any secret documents. I have those records of the reloading, rebuilding, most anything Camp Stanley did during the War including these odd Springfields. The commentary though is a little questionable as it states there were 500 rebuilds from various on hand actions chambered for the 303 and sent to the British and the New Zealanders for trials. I have no idea who got how many or if they made 500 for each, it really doesn't say. On a side note, while I've never seen any documentation in regards to any 30-30's actually in combat, there are numerous old GIs that claim they had them including the old Winchester 94's. Again, no documentation but it's hard to argue with someone who was there and also complained about having the oddball ammo to carry. As I've been an 03 collector for about 40 years now, you learn fairly quick that there wasn't much they didn't try and records keeping was not a priority. I bought a gentlemans collection that accepted rifles for the military back in WW2 and I have a couple of 03 carbines that were issued only for the Phillipines campaign with 16" barrels. I have Remington rifles with Marlin 6 groove barrels, Remington rifles with Savage 5 groove barrels, a Model NB national match which only 19 were ever made. Mine is still in the bag, unfired. Mark I's, trench rifles, and a few others that you don't see much of and some are just unknowns like the floor plate that takes an M14 clip that was invented before the M14 came to be. So the 30-30 might not be real but then again......
No Mark I as designed ever saw combat. All of the rifles made were put into storage as the war was over before they could be issued. The devices were also put in storage. In the 1930's all devices were ordered to be destroyed but apparently some escaped destruction and are now museum pieces. All Mark I rifles were refitted with proper sears and fittings before being issued. There will be no Mark I sears.
Loader9! Mine looks identical to those pics u posted....mine has a bayonet to go with it as well.... Like I posted before it's in great shape... Maybe it wasn't in combat???? But it looks like it was.. For the age... There's a few dents and scratches that are not recent but I think adds character ... What do u think? Like I said I'm new and judging ... Comparing to my new guns it's pretty similar shape wise... (considering age of wood..pitina etc)
You stated that the stock has no markings. That would mean somebody apparently sanded it down and did a refinish on it. The inspector stamps are the history of the rifle if they are original to each other. The stamps should look like this:
This particular stamp is from Lt Col Frank J Atwood. There should be others as well along with a P in a circle for the proof of the weapon. If these are gone, the value is nil but a replacement stock of the correct era would bring it back.
In the pics in the above post, the rifles are not the same. The top one is a 1903 and the bottom is a 1917.
This particular stamp is from Lt Col Frank J Atwood. There should be others as well along with a P in a circle for the proof of the weapon. If these are gone, the value is nil but a replacement stock of the correct era would bring it back.
In the pics in the above post, the rifles are not the same. The top one is a 1903 and the bottom is a 1917.
Hmm... I'll they and figure out how to take a pic and put it on here... The wood looks very aged and untouched.... It is a 1903 for sure, same as the top pic u posted. So every 1903 had markings on the stock? I don't think this gun has been sanded at all... There all a few marks that look to be very old and finish looks identical to the pic u just posted.. I'll try and post a few pics!