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]

Wandering zero here

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