Buying a M1903

[Merc]

I'm considering buying a shootable M1903. I never buy a rifle sight unseen so it will be coming from a gun show or, more likely a local gun dealer. I will be prepared to look at bore, throat erosion, muzzle condition and head space. What are some of the pros, cons and peculiarities that I should be aware of with this particular model?

Merc

[IditarodJoe]

Merc,

In my limited experience, 1903s are fairly straightforward rifles. At the risk of stating the obvious, make sure everything works. Check the operation of the bolt, the safety, the magazine cutoff, and the rear sight (the sight ladder should snap smartly into place; the windage adjustment should be smooth but not loose). If possible, take along a snap cap and dry fire it a few times to feel the trigger pull. Also take along five dummy rounds to make sure it cycles properly through the entire magazine. (I've seen feeding problems with these in the past that were the result of improper receiver geometry.) Look for stock cracks and stock fit - does the trigger guard fit snugly against the stock? Look for any signs of cracking behind the receiver tang. Also, carefully check the bolt lugs. These are pretty much the same things I'd look at on any older bolt action rifle.

Keep in mind that, if the barrel and receiver are good and headspace checks out, just about any other problem can be fixed - sometimes cheaply (weak magazine spring), sometimes more costly (cracked stock). Small problems can sometimes provide you with considerable bargaining leverage. HTH. Good luck!

[Merc]

Joe,

What's an average price to pay for a better than average '03?

Merc

[IditarodJoe]

Whew, that's tough. So many big variables . . . your local market, the rifle itself, your bargaining skills, old fashion luck ... Others here are far more qualified than I am to answer your question, but to give you a straight SWAG answer, say somewhere in the $600-$800 range.

[IditarodJoe]

Merc,

I was thinking, you mentioned above that you're looking for a "shootable M1903". If by "above average" you just mean "full military configuration, everything works as it should, and the rifle shoots well" and you're willing to accept the mix of replacement parts as well as the dings, dents, and finish wear that comes with being a nearly 100 year old battle rifle, then with luck you might find a good shooter for a couple hundred less. Just a thought, and still a SWAG ("Scientific Wild-A$$ Guess").

[Merc]

I kinda figured M'03s would be similar to M'17s in value since they were fairly similar rifles.

[rebound]

I kinda figured M'03s would be similar to M'17s in value since they were fairly similar rifles.

Similar === Thy are military, bolt action, and 30-06 cal...... other than that fact, its a Caddilac to a Chevie.

[dave]

Since the CMP sold '03's, prices have went way up. 1917 have also gone up (like most guns) the last few years but they have not reached '03 prices, which are very popular since CMP sold out. Saw a nice Rem. to day for 500 and change, blued or that black park they used. '03's around here run upwards of 700 bucks.

[Merc]

Rebound,

This is what I want to hear. Caddy vs. Chevy! I have had no experience with M'03s other than what I read. I obviously admire the rifle since it was chosen as the regulation US Army rifle until replaced by the M1 Garand. Give me the reasons for your high opinion of the M'03 and your low opinion of the M'17.

[Merc]

Dave,

WW1's 100th anniversary is probably going to make '03s and '17s even more expensive.

Merc

[IditarodJoe]

Merc,

It's more a case of sleek sports car vs. rugged 4WD truck. The 1903 is lighter in weight and more nimble to handle than the 1917, and it has finer rear sight adjustment capability. The 1917 has a stronger receiver, more rugged and better protected front and rear sights, a longer sight radius, and it holds six rounds instead of five. The 1903 was a great target rifle. The 1917 was a great battle rifle. By the end of WW1, three of every four rifles in the hands of American soldiers in Europe were Model of 1917s. The 1917 won WW1 for the US. The Garand won WW2. The 1903 won ... well, er, nothing actually, other than the hearts of American collectors. Although its significance in the military history of the US is rather limited, the 1903 is a beautiful rifle and a joy to shoot. You REALLY need to own one of each!

[Merc]

Joe,

That's a great comparison and a statement that critizes neither. They both have their advantages although I admit that I'm in awe of the size and strength of the '17. What a rifle!

Is there a book on the '03 similar to the book by Ferris on the '17s?

Merc

[Merc]

Some observations that seem obvious to me:

I think the engineers who designed the P-14 that eventually became the M1917 probably learned a lot from the M1903. The '17s more robust receiver and the size and strength of everything else that was built around it to prevent rupturing seems to be one of the more obvious lessons learned. Yet, wasn't the same added strength in the '17's design that added size and weight held against it later by the Ordinance Dept. that resulted in the '03 being chosen as the standard Army rifle over the '17 until the M1 Garand was developed?

The '17's rear sight was criticized because didn't include a windage adjustment. Why didn't they just incorporate or retrofit the '03's sight in the P-14 and '17's design since it was still available if they considered the original sight inferior?

Last, but not least, was there a degree of prejudice towards the Brits since the '17 was based on their original design? Both designs could have been rightly and accurately called a Mauser.

Merc

[IditarodJoe]

Is there a book on the '03 similar to the book by Ferris on the '17s?

No. While the Model of 1917 began as a relatively mature design and saw few changes during its short two years of production, the history of the development and production of the Model 1903 spans five decades and includes numerous design modifications. Taken together, the major works by Brophy, Campbell, and Canfield encompass much of what is known about the 1903, but there are a number of other good sources as well including an excellent book published by Nick Ferris and John Beard that focuses specifically on the early (1905-1910) 1903s and a book by Ferris dedicated solely to the 1903s made at the Rock Island Arsenal. Additional information on these rifles remains unpublished.

[Merc]

OK, so here's what I think I know about the M1903:

Avoid Springfields under Ser. No. 805000 and Rock Islands under Ser. No. 285507 due to bad receivers.

1941 and 1942 Remington's offer classic 1903 look at lower prices but sacrifice the WW1 connection.

1903A3 from Remington or Smith Corona are strong but saw little use and have different sights. Stamped parts make them less desireable if you want the classic look.

Things I still don't know:

The meaning of a "SRS Check."

Prices:

(Nice shooters will have good rifling, minimal TE and MW and will pass HS field gauge test.)

Nice shooter in average or less condition - $500

Nice shooter in good shape - $600 to $900

Nice shooter in minty condition - $1200 to $1500

Totally correct, never arsenal overhauled, late WW1 or 1920s - $ ???

Feel free to add to, or correct any of the above information.

Merc