Buying a M1903

[Griff Murphey]

Another factor you might look at particularly if you want to shoot CMP matches is how hard is the bolt lift. There are some 03s that have truly magic light bolt lifts that are a real blessing in rapid fire and then there are others not so butter smooth. I have seen bolts passed around at matches without checking headspace which is probably not a great idea but people do it.
I think as a rule 03's are better about this than A3s unless they are just worn in better.

Then there's your cock on closing 17 enfield - you better be a hard mo fo to slam that sucker in rapid fire.

[Merc]

Griff,

The three rifles I shoot most frequently are all cock on close so that's what I'm most familiar with. They include an early Winchester M1917, a 1944 Lee-Enfield No. 4 Mk 1* and a 1931 M1916 Spanish Mauser. I've had the No. 4 and the Mauser for a few years. The No. 4 is amazingly accurate firing flat based bullets. I'm still figuring out what ammo the Mauser likes.

The M1917 was acquired in January and has only been to the range once. It shoots a nice group through the original iron ladder sight in its lowest possible setting. It has a near minty Eddystone bolt that operates smoothly with medium main spring resistance on closing. I'd like to find a Winchester bolt to replace it but I doubt if I'll ever find one in the same condition. It never saw service in WW1 so the barrel and receiver are near minty.

Merc

[dave]

Dave,

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

Merc

I would guess but I have 3 ea. and that's all I need! Not to mention three classic sporters and a put together target rifle in a .22 M2 stock.

[jgaynor]

After WW1 US Ordnance was focused on the development of a semiautomatic infantry rifle. Many inventions were considered and various prototypes developed. Ultimately the M1 rifle designed by Springfield arsenals John Garand would take the honors. The "03" was considered a "dead duck" by many Ordnance personnel (see Sharpe, The Rifle in America). The introduction of the 03-A3 and 03-A4 sniper's rifles were simply wartime expedients.

The British P14 (later designated Rifle No.3 Mk1) and the US Rifle M1917 had the benefit of another decade's development over the Mauser 98 platform which would have been its principal opponent. But most important had it not been for the so-called "American Enfield" US forces in WW! probably would have been armed with pointy sticks or maybe just stayed home. 03's could not be turned out quickly enough and in sufficient quantity to arm our infantry.

[Merc]

J,

Knowing the history behind our old guns makes owning them a lot more interesting.

What's really interesting to me was how the US entered WW1 in April, 1917 but the Ordinance Dept. withheld all of the M1917 production in 1917 from the war. This meant more than 400,000 M1917s stayed home because of parts interchangeability issues. They finally allowed M1917s to be sent to war in March, 1918 and only allowed those made after January, 1918 to go. The M1903 and was their only choice to arm the doughboys for the first 11 months of the war.

Merc

[firstflabn]

This meant more than 400,000 M1917s stayed home because of parts interchangeability issues...The M1903 and was their only choice to arm the doughboys for the first 11 months of the war.
Merc

It didn't matter. Shipping space, not rifles, was the primary constraint in the first year. The AEF reported that by 31 Dec 17, 183,896 men had arrived in Europe. The rule of thumb in WWI was that a balanced force required one rifle for every two men for initial issuance. Thus, the available trained force (using that term loosely) in Europe on New Years Day in 1918 could have gotten by on 100k rifles. You might recall that the Army had about 600k M1903s at the declaration of war in Apr.

On 31 Mar 18, the AEF reported 329,005 men had arrived. Of these, an estimated 107,000 were noncombatants. The buildup didn't gather speed until May. By then, the interchangeability issue had been resolved (and you overstated the scope of the problem).

Best I can tell, the 82nd Division was the second National Army division to arrive in Europe (the 77th got there in mid-Apr). The 82nd Division reached full strength on 30 Nov 17. They received their M1917s at the beginning of Feb - that's two whole months. Considering most were raw recruits, two months was barely enough time to begin making soldiers of them. Wooden rifles upset the press, but had no effect on the entry of US troops into combat.

It was six weeks after the arrival of the lead elements of the 82nd before the division was complete on the ground in Britain - shipping priorities. Then another two months of field training with experienced British and French troops. Not until 25 Jun did elements of the 82nd enter the line. There's your 11 months - the division had been organized on 5 Aug 17.

[rebound]

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, sorry I'm so late in getting back to answering you.. But it happens... I think all the answers to your question have been answered by others.. And I don't so much dislike 1917s, I'll drive a Chevie too. A good car also.. But not the same as a Caddilac... Buytheway I own a Buick..

REBOUND

[blackhawknj]

1. The serial number. Low Number=basically collectible/wall hanger, High Number=shooter.
2. Factory correct vs. period correct. Since the M1903 was in service for close to fifty years many were subject to Uncle Sam's Clean and Repair programs. M1903 No. 1 was actually rebuilt from Rod Bayonet-30/03 configuration to 1906 specifications and issued to a Doughboy in France. My 1918 High Number is factory correct but in the WWII scant grip stock.
3. Manufacturer-Springfield ? Rock Island ? Remington? Which model-M1903, M1903 Mark I, M1903A1, M1903A3-?

[Merc]

It didn't matter. Shipping space, not rifles, was the primary constraint in the first year. The AEF reported that by 31 Dec 17, 183,896 men had arrived in Europe. The rule of thumb in WWI was that a balanced force required one rifle for every two men for initial issuance. Thus, the available trained force (using that term loosely) in Europe on New Years Day in 1918 could have gotten by on 100k rifles. You might recall that the Army had about 600k M1903s at the declaration of war in Apr.

On 31 Mar 18, the AEF reported 329,005 men had arrived. Of these, an estimated 107,000 were noncombatants. The buildup didn't gather speed until May. By then, the interchangeability issue had been resolved (and you overstated the scope of the problem).

Best I can tell, the 82nd Division was the second National Army division to arrive in Europe (the 77th got there in mid-Apr). The 82nd Division reached full strength on 30 Nov 17. They received their M1917s at the beginning of Feb - that's two whole months. Considering most were raw recruits, two months was barely enough time to begin making soldiers of them. Wooden rifles upset the press, but had no effect on the entry of US troops into combat.

It was six weeks after the arrival of the lead elements of the 82nd before the division was complete on the ground in Britain - shipping priorities. Then another two months of field training with experienced British and French troops. Not until 25 Jun did elements of the 82nd enter the line. There's your 11 months - the division had been organized on 5 Aug 17.

That's an excellent description of the early US troop deployment in WW1. Thanks for sharing your knowledge.

Merc

[Merc]

Merc, sorry I'm so late in getting back to answering you.. But it happens... I think all the answers to your question have been answered by others.. And I don't so much dislike 1917s, I'll drive a Chevie too. A good car also.. But not the same as a Caddilac... Buytheway I own a Buick..

REBOUND

Actually, your analogy was pretty good. I've heard and read a lot about both rifles but no one has offered a side by side comparison. Yours was appreciated and reinforced my hunt for a 1903.

Merc

[Merc]

1. The serial number. Low Number=basically collectible/wall hanger, High Number=shooter.
2. Factory correct vs. period correct. Since the M1903 was in service for close to fifty years many were subject to Uncle Sam's Clean and Repair programs. M1903 No. 1 was actually rebuilt from Rod Bayonet-30/03 configuration to 1906 specifications and issued to a Doughboy in France. My 1918 High Number is factory correct but in the WWII scant grip stock.
3. Manufacturer-Springfield ? Rock Island ? Remington? Which model-M1903, M1903 Mark I, M1903A1, M1903A3-?

Thanks for the info. Which variants are the most common, scarce, interesting, desireable, etc?

[Fred]

The scarce 1903's of Any type are generally the ones that have remained in unmolested and original condition. The better condition they are, the more scarce they become.

A not very common Rod Bayonet 1903 Springfield...
Not very common in any condition. I've read that about half of the (about 100) rifles known are put together (sometimes many decades ago) from original parts that used to be available in the days of Francis Bannerman, but that are today nearly impossible to find. In the case of a Rod Bayonet 1903, even a rifle that is correctly assembled from original parts is uncommon to come across today. Original Rod Bayonet rifles in Unaltered condition are obviously even more rare and will bring prices around $50,000, give or take several thousand. Too steep for me. My Rod Bayonet 1903 Springfield is one of the re assembled ones but is still in its original 30-03 caliber. I think That's pretty neat. One of these such rifles is pretty darned difficult to obtain today unless a guy stumbles across one like I did or is willing to pay anywhere from the mid to high Four figures for one.

After wanting one for over 40 years, I one day Forest Gump'd my way across one and obtained it for what an Excellent conditioned M1 Garand would go for. That'll never happen again. Anyway, I've got mine and so will now be allowed into the Halls of Valhalla where St. Brophy is feasting and drinking with all 1903 Springfield lovers who've passed unto the next world.




A scarce 1917 assembled 1903 in unaltered, unmolested condition. The seller didn't know about the type or significance of this rifle, so I got it for under what it was worth.





A virtually unused 1920 National Match 1903 in Minty condition. Again, I just Forest Gump'd my way across this one... The seller didn't know what it was.




A very large part of obtaining any Collectable 1903 Springfield is being able to recognize one. Most sellers will go into a sales pitch about the rarity of such and such a rifle without knowing what they are talking about. Most of the rifles for sale aren't worth anywhere near what the seller is asking. However there are still a lot of very collectable rifles for sale that go under the radar and so are not recognized for their rarity. I look for and find those. Otherwise, I wouldn't be able to obtain any of them. I'm not even a collector. I just have a handful of collectable 1903's. One less now since I've sold my 1920 National Match rifle. The real collectors have a lot more Really nice rifles. A Lot more.

[Merc]

I've seen many military rifles but there are only a few that could be called handsome. The 1903 and 1917 are two that qualify.

Merc

[Rick the Librarian]

"Knowledge is power"!!

The pre-WWI M1903 in original condition is about the closest thing to "art" I have seen in military firearms.

IMG_0128.jpg

[Fred]

"Knowledge is power"!!

The pre-WWI M1903 in original condition is about the closest thing to "art" I have seen in military firearms.

Yep! They were often assembled by the same workers who assembled the Trapdoor Springfields and the Krag Jorgenson Springfields. Both of which have superior fitting of parts. Old World Craftmanship! I've yet to obtain one of Those!
However my mid 1917 assembled S.A. rifle seems to be of a much tighter and better fit everywhere than my two other (Springfield & Rock Island Arsenal) mid 1918 assembled 03's, so I think that it just might actually fit in with the Pre WWI craftsmanship 1903's.