Springfield 1903 rear sights

[lseries]

I searched the archives and didn't find anything specifically about this.

I'm considering buying a Springfield 1903. Not an A3, the version with the ladder rear sight.

How accurate are they? Assuming I can actually SEE the target at 100 yards, could the gun be sighted in to hit it, and be expected to stay reasonably in adjustment? What would be the minimum and maximum practical distances for using this rifle with the stock sights? I know that depends on vision to some extent (not to mention shooting ability). I have 20/20 vision with my glasses on.

I wish I had "20/20" shooting ability!

Thanks.

 

[Drmsparks]

yes.

There are literally like 4 different sights on the 1903. They can be dead nuts accurate if set up right.

I assume you are speaking of the military version, not a sporter. Sporters with glass bedding etc can be even more accurate.

 

[lseries]

Yes. I should have made it clear that it appears to be a relatively unmolested military version of WWI vintage. The bolt is not matching, though.

I have some pictures of it, but since it isn't mine, I don't think it's quite right to post them. Not to mention that the picture of the sight is too blurred to tell anything except that it's a ladder sight.

Thanks.

 

[Drmsparks]

http://www.sbsdistributing.com/index.php?pr=Sight_Tools

repro of the sight adjustment tool. Lets you do 1/2 minute adjustments to the sight. Very nice. I shot with a guy from the All guard team who used one on his rifle and it was unreal how accurate he was.

 

[lseries]

Thanks.

It looks more and more like I'm going to have to buy this thing. Next time I go to the shop I'm going to look at it more closely and have the money in my pocket to take it home. (Actually, to the range to shoot!)

Thanks again.

 

[Threeband]

Make sure it isn't a "low number" receiver, and be sure the non-matching bolt has a swept-back handle.

Google "low number Springfield" if you don't know what I'm talking about.

 

[lseries]

It's a Rock Island Arsenal, with an S/N about 75,000 above the last one with heat treatment problems. So it should be safe to shoot.

The bolt handle is 90 degrees to the bolt, but is angled down toward the stock. The bolt S/N is about 9,000 higher than the S/N on the receiver. It is not "swept back" toward the shooter.

Thanks for your advice.

 

[armedsks]

Sounds like a lend lease rifle. The only serial numbers on a normal us rifle would be on the reciever. The US didnt usually number everything like everywhere else in the world.

Could be a greek return from CMP?? or a older import.

 

[Threeband]

CMP warns against the older bolt handles which aren't swept back slightly. Same danger as the low number receivers.

Greeks elecropenciled the last four digits of the serial number on the bolt handle base. U.S. didn't number bolts.

That 03 sight is a highly refined target sight. I've been fascinated by that sight since I was a kid. I have my Grandfather's college military manual from about 1914, and my father's ROTC manual from 1940, and both have page after page devoted to that crazy rear sight. I always wanted to work through some of the exercises in those manuals. I finally got an '03 last year, but my eyes have deteriorated to the point that it really doesn't work well for me.

Find a good '03 and get it now, before your eyes deteriorate! And don't forget to post pictures of it.

 

[lseries]

I don't think I've ever seen a picture of a bolt handle that could be called swept back. Could someone please post one, or provide a link?

If it's ever mine, I'll post some pictures. I don't think it's right to do so now.

Even when I was a teenager, seeing a target, much less taking accurate aim at it, at 100 yards with iron sights was a problem. Now, with gray hair? Ha! However, when I was growing up these guns were in every Army surplus store. Lots of people had them, and to me they've always seemed like the only "proper" .30-06. That's my attraction to them.

However, if I do get it, I plan to shoot it, probably principally at targets, since I've never been hunting in my life, but possibly also at game animals, should the opportunity present itself.

I do not, however, plan to modify it. I figure the ones that have survived should be left as they are.

Thanks again for everyone's input. I really appreciate the advice.

 

[Threeband]

In addition to being bent down, the bolt handes after about serial # 750,000 were swept back about 10 degrees to the rear. It's not extreme, but it is obvious if you look for it. "Low number" rifles don't have that rearward curve.

When I got my two '03 rifles from the CMP last year, the booklets included with them were very explicit in warning about the earlier bolts. The CMP advises against shooting any rifle with the earlier bolt (not swept back), even if it is installed in a later, "high number" rifle.

Both of these rifles have the later-style bolt, with swept back handles. You can see it most clearly in the upper '03 rifle.

 

[BlackBart]

In addition to being bent down, the bolt handes after about serial # 750,000 were swept back about 10 degrees to the rear. It's not extreme, but it is obvious if you look for it. "Low number" rifles don't have that rearward curve.

When I got my two '03 rifles from the CMP last year, the booklets included with them were very explicit in warning about the earlier bolts. The CMP advises against shooting any rifle with the earlier bolt (not swept back), even if it is installed in a later, "high number" fifle.

Both of these rifles have the later-style bolt, with swept back handles. You can see it most clearly in the upper '03 rifle.

Both gorgeous rifles, shades of Navy Bootcamp doing 96 count manual of arms with Springfields. Does one shoot better than the other? Is the later easier to sight in? I'm looking at a 03A3 similar to yours, price to be determined.

 

[lseries]

Ah, very clear now. Thanks for posting the picture.

The pictures I have of the gun I'm considering aren't taken from the proper angle to be able to tell about the bolt. I guess I'll have to go visit it in person one of these days soon.

Thanks again.

 

[Threeband]

Both gorgeous rifles, shades of Navy Bootcamp doing 96 count manual of arms with Springfields. Does one shoot better than the other? Is the later easier to sight in? I'm looking at a 03A3 similar to yours, price to be determined.

I've only had them out shooting one time so far. The aperture sight on the A3 is a lot better for my eyes. I couldn't use the tiny aperture on the 03 slide- had to use the tiny notch instead, and that was a challenge. The narrow front sight blades are tiring, also.

I shot an 86 with the Smith-Corona 03-A3, and an 84 with the 03. Then I shot a 90 and a 95 with my Remington 03-A3. Those were all 100 yards prone with the SR-1 target. I generally shoot in the 90s with the Garand.

I like the Garand sights more, especially the wider front sight blade. I'll probably put a wider blade on my Remington 03-A3. If you get one and it shoots high, Numrich has high replacement front sight blades. They're easy to switch.

 

[BlackBart]

I've only had them out shooting one time so far. The aperture sight on the A3 is a lot better for my eyes. I couldn't use the tiny aperture on the 03 slide- had to use the tiny notch instead, and that was a challenge. The narrow front sight blades are tiring, also.

I shot an 86 with the Smith-Corona 03-A3, and an 84 with the 03. Then I shot a 90 and a 95 with my Remington 03-A3. Those were all 100 yards prone with the SR-1 target. I generally shoot in the 90s with the Garand.

I like the Garand sights more, especially the wider front sight blade. I'll probably put a wider blade on my Remington 03-A3.

Good detailed answers, thanks. Both beautiful weapons. **** the evil black rifles, real men own old oil soaked wood!

 

[ChrisKnox]

Resurrecting an old thread here. I have an '03 and want to learn more about it.

That 03 sight is a highly refined target sight. I've been fascinated by that sight since I was a kid. I have my Grandfather's college military manual from about 1914, and my father's ROTC manual from 1940, and both have page after page devoted to that crazy rear sight. I always wanted to work through some of the exercises in those manuals. I finally got an '03 last year, but my eyes have deteriorated to the point that it really doesn't work well for me.

Would you be so kind as to take pictures of those old manuals and post them? I've been looking for information about this sight. It would be a valuable resource!

Find a good '03 and get it now, before your eyes deteriorate! And don't forget to post pictures of it.

Roger that!

 

[ANDYZ28]

Resurrecting an old thread here. I have an '03 and want to learn more about it.






Would you be so kind as to take pictures of those old manuals and post them? I've been looking for information about this sight. It would be a valuable resource!



Roger that!

Please do whatever you can to share the 1903 rear sight manual info with us.

 

[monsternav]

Google Is Your Friend

http://forums.thecmp.org/showthread.php?t=36681

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B0X...tZjUyZTBkZmRmM2Vj/edit?hl=en&authkey=COWRuN0O

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B0X...tYTQyNGQ1NjQyNTAw/edit?hl=en&authkey=CJmQ3ucB

This last one looks like a better scan.
http://archive.org/details/FM23-101943

 

[ANDYZ28]

For some reason I am unable to open any of the mentioned docs. Can you help me out?

Thanks, Andy

 

[monsternav]

Try the last link. Left side are various ways that you can download. Read online, PDF, epub, kindle, text.