Gibb A4 Query

[1750Shooter]

From comments here & elsewhere, I gather that the scope on the Giibs A4 isn't very durable. I have an original Alaskan, so that isn't really a problem, but how are the mounts? If they're not good, what can I replace them with that are period-correct (I want to shoot Vintage Sniper with this rifle). Thanks for any input.

[Sunray]

Gibb's '03A4's are supposedly cobbled together from drill and other questionable receivers. The Hi-Lux/Leatherwood scopes don't appear to be horrible though. You may find an early scope like that a gigantic pain to work with though. Windage is adjusted via the base.

[1750Shooter]

Sunray, thanks for your scope comments. PLEASE stop passing on this misinformation that has been floating around for a while - Gibbs are NOT built on drill rifle receivers, rewelded demils, reheatreated low-number receivers, or Israeli fakes made to pay for new fighters (How many receivers do you have to make to buy a $30mil. jet?)! They are from a huge bunch bought by Parker Hale after the war to convert into sporters - I had a 9.3x62 on a Rock Island receiver & a friend still has a 22-250 on a Springfield one. When PH went to commercial Mauser actions in the '70s, they just stored them. Val Folgett found & bought them with the intention of building "new/old" '03s but couldn't find a foolproof (or maybe forgery-proof) way to do it. So they sat again until he decided on an A4 that is too obvious a copy to "fix". Sorry about the rant, but it's -2*, the cat got me up early, & I'm trying to set people straight about this. It's unfair to Folgett, without whom tens of thousands of guns would have gone in smelters or burn piles.

[musketshooter]

The last name of the owner of Gibbs is Forgette.

[blackhawk2]

Head down to the Chantilly Va Gun Show this weekend, and look at the 03A3 receiver's on his table....Then report back.....regards alex

[BlitzKrieg]

Guy asks about optics and some good time expert wants to lecture him that his Gibbs is a POS .

Learning disorder or can't read and focus on an answer ?

To answer the question, the Chinese mount will work just fine on your Lyman Alaskan scope if you use the correct 7/8 size Redfield Jr Rings. Just go over to CMP board and you'll get more confirmation of this fact.

On drill rifle receivers. What is on that table at Chantilly is not what is on my Gibbs rifle. Anyhow, if the weld was on the On/Off tab as was the case on my rifle, it makes not a molecule of difference in the structural safety of my rifle.

The real bias , is repro 03A4 offend purists here and they are the same purists that don't shoot their O3A4 . They are behind the times, many folks today want to shoot history and the repro 03A4 allow that to happen.

[twh]

Then there is the subset of people who get their panties in a twist when someone correctly points out that Gibbs and others produce a poorly executed copy using recycled drill rifle receivers and Chinese repro parts. Tough to decide which is worse and to clarify your point he asked about the mounts not the optics. The mount should work fine and I would use it as is and see if a problem develops and then change as necessary with either the military version or the commercial production mounts which may be easier to find.

[joem]

Guy at the range hasor had one. Rifle looks pretty good, scope optics fell apart on 6th or 7 th shot. That's all I saw.

[blackhawk2]

BlitzKrieg, Perhaps you should read post #3...The OP has stated that Gibb's, thru Rock Ridge, are original...He is living in La La land....regards alex

[Col. Colt]

Why are all drill rifle recievers "questionable"? I'm a bit puzzled by all the concern over selected, usable drill rifle recievers being reclaimed when they would have been scrapped, assuming that was what was used on the rifle in question. From the ones I have examined, it's a non-issue, for a SHOOTER grade Rifle. Most have an easily broken small tack weld holding the barrel, which is unlikely to have generated enough heat to affect strength (usually on the bottom where it is invisible anyway). And the ugliness some find around the cutoff opening varies from unattractive to not even noticable. It can be fixed, if you care, but it at least makes sure a buyer does not purchase a rebuild thinking it is untouched GI, since it is hard to get the contours perfect or get finish to take evenly over the repair. I've been waiting for reports of these reborn rifles to develop headspace, failure or wear problems - so far - nothing.....

Either way, a lot of fully functional, quite enjoyable Springfield rifles are reborn to continue their service to our nation as target rifles - and I have yet to hear of a single authenticated case of one failing and injuring someone - please cite documented, provable cases if you have one. Otherwise, what's wrong with a few thousand more M1903's in the world we thought were lost forever?? Is that somehow a bad thing?? Saves the pristine originals from being worn out on the range, or, worse, being drilled and tapped to make reproduction Sniper rifles! I care how it shoots, not it's ancestry, if I am building for the range. CC

[John L. Lucci]

Why are all drill rifle recievers "questionable"? I'm a bit puzzled by all the concern over selected, usable drill rifle recievers being reclaimed when they would have been scrapped, assuming that was what was used on the rifle in question. From the ones I have examined, it's a non-issue, for a SHOOTER grade Rifle. Most have an easily broken small tack weld holding the barrel, which is unlikely to have generated enough heat to affect strength (usually on the bottom where it is invisible anyway). And the ugliness some find around the cutoff opening varies from unattractive to not even noticable. It can be fixed, if you care, but it at least makes sure a buyer does not purchase a rebuild thinking it is untouched GI, since it is hard to get the contours perfect or get finish to take evenly over the repair. I've been waiting for reports of these reborn rifles to develop headspace, failure or wear problems - so far - nothing.....

Either way, a lot of fully functional, quite enjoyable Springfield rifles are reborn to continue their service to our nation as target rifles - and I have yet to hear of a single authenticated case of one failing and injuring someone - please cite documented, provable cases if you have one. Otherwise, what's wrong with a few thousand more M1903's in the world we thought were lost forever?? Is that somehow a bad thing?? Saves the pristine originals from being worn out on the range, or, worse, being drilled and tapped to make reproduction Sniper rifles! I care how it shoots, not it's ancestry, if I am building for the range. CC


I think the question hinges on why they were made into drill rifles in the first place. Were they out of spec? Worn out? Or surplus to the needs as they we're no longer front line rifles and made into drill rifles fresh out of the factory packing crate?

If it's one of the latter I'd have no qualms breaking a spot weld, spinning on a fresh tube then fixing the welds on the cut off. I doubt heating one spot will de-temper the whole receiver, the one small spot maybe but I don't think it would compromise the whole receiver.

[Col. Colt]

Here's how I see it, as an "old guy" who grew up in the 1950's. I would say there was nothing wrong with 99% of the Springfields that were turned into drill rifles.

As of the end of WWII in 1945, ALL Springfields, with the exception of a few Sniper Rifles, were OBSOLETE weapons. Most were in perfectly Servicable condition, or were refurbished to same in various Arsenals. Many were stored, many were given away as Military Assistance to new Allies and Countries to help shore up friendly governments against the Communist Menace (like all those Greek CMP Returns). Some were sold through the Director of Civilian Marksmanship.
But, as a front line issue rifle, the 03' was DONE! The M1 Garand quickly proved it's worth on the target range, and soon few but old timers used 1903s there. With the end of WWII, there were plenty of M1s for everybody - until Korea, that is.

But there was still a very healthy ROTC program at dozens of colleges all over the USA, and LOTS of new American Legion and VFW Organizations that could use obsolete military rifles for ceremonies. Live rifles were needed for firing salutes - but not for most parades and ceremonies. And there was always the worry of having live ammo get into functional rifles at inappropriate times. So the use of Drill rifles for schools and Drill Teams made a lot of sense. The US would never issue another bolt gun to the masses - but there was a lot of nostalgia and history that the 1903 had claim to.

In my opinion, the 1903s used for Drill Rifles were not converted because they were bad guns, but were just retasked for a different purpose. And they sure taught a lot of young people close order drill! CC

[da gimp]

Mr. Colt in some cases I'm sure you're correct, maybe it's even Most cases the rifles were ok, but I think Mr. Lucci has made a good point, that the receivers need to be checked to see if they're within specs, and that there are no defects in them. So far I've never heard or read here of a cracked receiver, bad bolt etc in any of them.........and if there were any, surely it would have been talked about long & hard here & on the CMP's own forum. I suspect even Val F. wishes he'd spent the extra money & bought Grade A receivers now, instead of getting the sweepings off the floor of the storage lockers of CMP.

[Nate]

Ok, I bought one of these Gibbs things. The scope was the later one and works fine. The receiver IS a recovered drill rifle and the repair of the bolt release is still impossible to get to correctly function. The extractor collar was so badly fitted it would bind at the back of the receiver. The barrel was so short chambered that the bolt would not close on a GO Gauge. Surprisingly, it is accurate. I would NOT recommend this rifle to anyone. My bad for not doing my homework before I bought.

[Col. Colt]

Make them fix it - it may just be a fluke, but Gibbs needs to know about it. EVERY gunmaker makes an occasional lemon - the Big Question is how they treat the customer when it happens. Glad that it's at least accurate! CC

[Nate]

Col.Colt. I decided to take responsibility for my mistake and fix the problems. Finish reaming the chamber was new to me and I learned a lot. Replacing the collar was partly successful and I found out they were installed hot. A tiny round file worked for the cutoff. This experience has me doing my own smithing now and I am enjoying it.

[Col. Colt]

There is a lot of personal satisfaction (and a great deal of education!) in optimizing one of these old warhorses. I've read numerous positive reviews of the Gibbs rifles (early scopes were problamatic) and, as I said, all makers (to include all major brands) put out "lemons" once in a while. If the problems are minor and the new owner is willing to take them on, it is usually worthwhile rather than going through returns, repairs, waiting, correspondence - or finding another rifle, which may have it's own issues. When you said that at least it was accurate, that struck me as a reason to get it fixed, rather than to ditch it. But "doing it yourself" does have it's own rewards - you end up learning, and bonding with your new weapon - knowing it a bit better than you might have otherwise.

I usually advocate making the manufacturer make repairs because, having worked in Firearms Retail, feedback helps a good Company realize if something has gone awry in his process, and that he needs to boresight someone in the shop, or a supplier to ensure a good product for the next customer. If they do right, I give them credit. And if said company fails to respond, or refuses to fix a problem they are responsible for, I let them - and people I know (like here) know about it.

Congrats on taking it on, and enjoy your "new" Springfield. As long as they are structurally sound, I like using Drill Rifle recievers for "shooters" - saves wear and tear and nonreversable modifications on the classics and collectables out there, at a much reduced price! CC

[Darreld Walton]

From comments here & elsewhere, I gather that the scope on the Giibs A4 isn't very durable. I have an original Alaskan, so that isn't really a problem, but how are the mounts? If they're not good, what can I replace them with that are period-correct (I want to shoot Vintage Sniper with this rifle). Thanks for any input.

If you're absolutely convinced that you have to have "period correct" pieces, then you're gonna have to dig deep and pony up for stuff that was produced then. I just in the last week got a set of Redfield top-split rings for my Alaskan for $65 and a few bucks shipping, off E Pay. Just go ahead and get a Redfield base for an A3 and call 'er good. It'll work good, last a long time, and won't rust, bust nor collect dust!!!!

[jlacy]

I run some vintage sniper matches at my club. I have 3 shooters that have them. They shoot great and I would recomend them to anyone. The scopes are a copy of a Weaver 330 and they do work. Just like the Weaver they don't work that well. The Alaskan will make the rifle perform to the level that you can shoot.
http://forums.gunboards.com/showthread.php?360489-Sniper-Rifle-Matches

[nf1e]

I picked up an 03A4 reproduction by James River out at Camp Perry a few years ago. It has the Gibbs Hi Lux scope on it and what ever mount they were using at the time. I couldn't be happier with the performance of the rifle and scope. I use it on AR-500 prairie dogs at 200yds. My practice session ends when I can knock down 12 in a row, usually first set. I have run thousands of rounds of 135 gr. Berger FB handloads through the rifle and the scope has not needed to be re-zeroed since it's first trip out on my range.

http://i1180.photobucket.com/albums/x413/nf1e/IMG_0044_zpsa6cf5009.jpg (http://s1180.photobucket.com/user/nf1e/media/IMG_0044_zpsa6cf5009.jpg.html)

Semper Fi

Art

[Motorcop]

I'm not so sure that Val F. would have done anything different than what he did. When you really think about it, he was a genius using recovered drill rifles to build these clone 03A4's. Many years ago before the rage of having an 03A4 really started, I took a 03A3 that I had and turned it into an A4 clone. When I told people what I had done you would have thought I had kidnapped their first born child. The usual comment was something to the effect,"How could you ruin that valuable piece of history by poking holes in it?" Well my response was, "valuable to who? And who owns the rifle? Me or you?" I wasn't shooting the rifle much because I just couldn't dial in the sights very well with my eyesight at the time. So drilling the receiver and installing a Redfield mount and Weaver K-3.0 scope on it seemed like a good idea to me. Since that time I have had a Weaver K-2.5 scope on it and a very nice Weaver 330 that I now have on my Gibbs 03A4 clone. I later took the scope and mount off that 03A3 and I D&T'd it for a Lyman receiver sight and globe front sight similar to match rifles back in the day. The rifle has been through a lot of transitions and has served me very well.
Later on when Gibbs came out with their 03A4 clones based on recovered drill rifles I thought "Wow what a stroke of genius!" Someone actually took rifles that probably would have been destroyed and created something that a lot of people could put to good use. Many of the people that purchased Gibbs rifles would never have been able to afford a real 03A4 and even if they could, most probably would have decided the rifle was too valuable to shoot. So until the Gibbs rifles appeared what choice was there? Shoot a very expensive piece of history or D&T a virgin 03A3? Gibbs solved that problem and gave people another choice and one that made a tremendous amount of sense especially with the onset of the Vintage Sniper Match.

Since these Gibbs rifles came on the scene I have had the opportunity of working on six on them including my first one. While these are not "perfect" rifles, they are very good foundations. None of the ones I have worked one had anything major wrong with them and all I have done is cleaned up some tapped holes, checked them for barrel pressure and in a couple of cases worked on the triggers. For the price these rifles are a great bargain and if you turn your nose up at them for being a recovered drill rifle you are truly missing out on a fun rifle. Personally I will never understand the dislike generated by some over the use of these recovered drill rifle receivers. There have been no reported incidents of major problems and if there have been issues they have been taken care of by the manufacturer. I should also note that everyone I have seen or worked on has shot pretty darn well.

Simply put, the use of these recovered drill rifle receivers is a "win-win" for everyone and if you don't give one try you are missing the boat.

Rick H.


Mr. Colt in some cases I'm sure you're correct, maybe it's even Most cases the rifles were ok, but I think Mr. Lucci has made a good point, that the receivers need to be checked to see if they're within specs, and that there are no defects in them. So far I've never heard or read here of a cracked receiver, bad bolt etc in any of them.........and if there were any, surely it would have been talked about long & hard here & on the CMP's own forum. I suspect even Val F. wishes he'd spent the extra money & bought Grade A receivers now, instead of getting the sweepings off the floor of the storage lockers of CMP.

[jgaynor]

The initial batch of Gibbs M1903A4 rifles which hit the market in about 2008 if i recall were built on rifles of at least actions sourced from parker hale. They initially used Pedersoli barrels made in Italy and reproduction scopes Made by FM Optics in China. The initial retail price was $999.00 and some of the big mail order dealers discounted that even further. At that selling price I would suspect the manufacturers standard cost before profit and markup would probably be about $300.- $400.

[BlitzKrieg]

If you want a sniper rifle to shoot, the reproduction 03a4 are the way to go.

If you collect sniper rifles , these just won't do. They are horrors of horrors.

Purists vs. Shooters.

Shooters don't want an original, they cost too much and you chance damaging the value.

Purists don't want reproduction sniper rifles to gain favor, for fear their originals lose value on the open market.

[chuckindenver]

Drill rifles.
heres why they were made up.
Daisy offered ROTC drill rifles at 15.00 each. War Dept, noticed they had some 90,000 1903 and A3 rifles in surplus stash.
they also noted, that they have a few privates that they feed and house..
so... they pulled some 60K 1903 and A3s from stock, had them changed up for drill use.
grinding off or removing the front sight blade.
plugging the chamber with carbon steel rod.
welding with stainless steel rod, barrel to the action.
cutting hole into the chamber area.
remove bolt.
grind off striker pin,
weld striker hole at the end of the bolt face.
replace said bolt.
with the cut off down, weld across the lever so it cant be moved.
some of these rifles were new, and had never even been issued.
before drill use mods.. all were in serviceable order..
keep in mind.
though a recovered drill rifle can be a great shooter..
the quality is suspect on the persons skill level who removed the welded parts..some are nice,,, some not so much.
also keep in mind.
the average person that buys a Gibbs rifle... doesnt care if it will shoot 1 inch groups.. he wants something that looks like a real sniper rifle, and likely will shoot beer cans at 75 yards..
some do shoot them, and with some changes can be made to shoot well.
you get what you pay for.