It’s been a month for projects. My oldest son and I have started playing with some mil-surp stuff in the past year. I have a couple of CMP Garands, and we picked up an SMLE for him at auction in December. We’ve been having a lot of fun with that, researching the guns and their history, watching Forgotten Weapons and C&Rsenal, doing load development and wringing them out at the range. We even got a chance to do some 500-yard steel with the Garand back in November at a buddy’s place, which was a really good time.




Like many, I’ve often lamented passing up the chance to get into some of this stuff back in the day when it was cheap. But I have to remind myself that I was younger, at a different stage in life, and money was REALLY tight…so practically speaking they weren’t really any more affordable to me then than they are now. We started watching local auctions and browsing gunbroker, and realized that there are actually still some affordable options out there, depending upon what your intended goals are, and how much work you’re willing to put it. So I applied for and received my C&R license, and off to the races we went.

We’re not looking to amass a collection of correct-grade, numbers-matching historical artifacts. What we’re after are shooters as close to an original configuration that we can get for as cheap as we can find. That brings us to the current victim: A sporterized Remington 03A3. I’d been bidding on a few Krags, but they kept going way higher than what I was willing to pay, or in a few cases, got heartbreakingly outbid by a few bucks at the last minute. Then I stumbled across this thing from a seller in California…it was wearing a Bishop stock and had an aftermarket Redfield front sight on it, but otherwise looked unmolested in the photos. And best of all, it was cheap, and I didn’t get outbid.




When the gun got here, it was intact, but in worse shape than the photos had led me to believe. The stock was a poor fit, there was rust and crud and old varnish/cosmoline caked into every crevice, and worst of all, a large dent about midway down the left side of the barrel (which looks to have been poorly re-finished at some point). Just the downside of buying old milsurp sight-unseen, I guess. Thankfully everything else appeared to be intact and original…down to the 2-groove barrel. We took it out and shot it right out of the box (crummy weather be darned!), and it shot about 5” left at 50 yards, with the rear sight centered, but produced acceptable groups, including one cloverleaf. The rear-sight was so corroded that I couldn’t get it to move, so we weren’t able to try to establish a zero.






We took it home and completely detail stripped it. It took hours of scrubbing and we probably killed a bunch of brain cells breathing mineral spirit and acetone fumes, but we got all the crud out of it and everything is now functioning as it should (and we now know how everything works!). I was initially concerned that the old Redfield front sight was permanently affixed to the barrel, but I finally managed to find the part online and figured out that it actually uses a set screw located under the insert. I took that out and it still wouldn’t budge (turns out it was corroded on there), so I unfortunately ended up having to cut it off. I didn’t do any damage to the barrel, but the sight is toast (not sure what I would have used it for, but I hate breaking stuff, and it seemed like a decent piece). Underneath we found the flaming bomb logo on the barrel and a date stamp of 4-43. The receiver dates to August of 1943, so that could well be the original barrel.

I did some shopping and ordered a stock set, stock metal, and some small parts from Sarco. I also found a front sight and cover at Fulton Armory. The Sarco stuff was a mixed bag…the stock is kinda rough, with a few repaired cracks in the butt and what looks like marks from a belt-sander, but it seems solid and after some cleaning with linseed oil the barreled action dropped right in. You can still make out some of the markings, and there are some cool rack numbers stamped into it. Some of the metal parts feel like cheap aftermarket stuff, but they work, and the handguard is extremely nice. For the price and my intended purpose, I’m content, provided it holds together under recoil.






I finally got it all put together today and just wanted to share. We haven’t gotten to shoot the final product yet…hopefully this weekend. I’ll update when we do. I’m very much hoping that I don’t have to re-barrel it, but I guess if we do we’ll cross that bridge when we get there, and if nothing else I’ll acquire some new tools and learn a new skill. There were a lot of factors other than that dent at play in the sporterized configuration, though, so I’m hoping one of those was the issue.




If anybody has any wisdom to share regarding the 1903, I’m all ears…dos, don’ts, handloading info, anything at all….we’re looking to learn as much as we can!

Nice post! Great job on getting that looking better. Nothing like having a hobby to do with your kids. Unfortunately, I don't know jack about 03's. I have a friend who does though over on the M14 forum. Hoping it shoots better for you next time.

I also have never installed an 03 barrel, but I believe there's more work to do than installing M14's and M1 barrels. Otherwise, I'd offer to re-barrel it.

Tony.

quote:

I also have never installed an 03 barrel, but I believe there's more work to do than installing M14's and M1 barrels. Otherwise, I'd offer to re-barrel it.

Thanks Benny. From what I've read, I think it's within my capabilities. Basically, there are witness marks on the barrel and on the receiver. You want to get them so they snug up about 5 degrees offset, then crank on it until they're in alignment. The trick is getting them indexed so that they thread in to that intital 5 degree offset. The right way to do it is a lathe, which I don't have...but I saw where one guy surfaced the front of his receiver on a flat surface with sandpaper.

It also requires an action wrench, barrel vice, finish reamer, and headspace gauges. The tools cost more than twice as much as the parts, but then you've got them the next time you need them. I'm still hoping I don't have to do it (looks like a lot of force is necessary to break it loose, and I can just see myself snapping something ), but from what I've seen, I've done worse jobs in the past.

I've got to get it out and shoot it first before I worry about it too much, anyway. Maybe the new stock and front sight will have corrected it on its own, or maybe it'll be close enough that I can just tweak the sights a bit and call it good. We'll know this weekend .

1903 and 1903A3's are easy to rebarrel,

as mentioned, line up the witness marks and check headspace
a new barrel will need to be reamed (which is easy, just take your time)

good thing about either (003's or A3's ) is that they can eat just about any ammo you can stand to shoot thru them,

my guns prefer AP (Black tip) or reloads in a similar weight (165's do well as do 168's)

Thank you for rescuing that poor, wretched thing.

Ah, I see. I thought you had to cut the extractor slot on the breech face. I didn't realize they were pre-cut. Looks easy!

Tony.

Well, I got done with my work detail early today, and when I got home nobody was there, so I snuck out to the range. Probably should have taken a nap since I woke up at 7:30 and have to work tonight till 6:00am, but priorities .

With the new stock and front sight, the rifle is actually hitting a bit to the right now. I bent the front post just a hair to the right (looking at it, it appeared to have been bent a bit to the left) and when I was done with that a couple of clicks left on the rear got it hitting in the center. Clearly the problem was with the aftermarket front sight or the stock...something other than the barrel.





I put about 50 rounds through it total, and all the targets above were shot at 100 yards. I had to hold a bit low, but that was expected as the rear sight bottoms out at 200. The limiting factor is definitely me, not the gun, and I don't think it's gonna need a new barrel.

Ultimately, it's nice to know that despite spending the last portion of it's life in California, my rifle is not a leftist !

quote:

Originally posted by 92fstech:
Well, I got done with my work detail early today, and when I got home nobody was there, so I snuck out to the range. Probably should have taken a nap since I woke up at 7:30 and have to work tonight till 6:00am, but priorities .

With the new stock and front sight, the rifle is actually hitting a bit to the right now. I bent the front post just a hair to the right (looking at it, it appeared to have been bent a bit to the left) and when I was done with that a couple of clicks left on the rear got it hitting in the center. Clearly the problem was with the aftermarket front sight or the stock...something other than the barrel.





I put about 50 rounds through it total, and all the targets above were shot at 100 yards. I had to hold a bit low, but that was expected as the rear sight bottoms out at 200. The limiting factor is definitely me, not the gun, and I don't think it's gonna need a new barrel.

Ultimately, it's nice to know that despite spending the last portion of it's life in California, my rifle is not a leftist !

You can get a taller front sight blade. I have an “A” marked blade which,IIRC, is the taller blade. It did bring down my groups.

quote:

You can get a taller front sight blade. I have an “A” marked blade which,IIRC, is the taller blade. It did bring down my groups.

Good thought! Mine is "E" marked, so it's likely the other end of the spectrum. I'll do some looking and see if I can source one. Most of my shooting with it will probably be about 100 yards, so the taller blade would be more practical for my purposes.

That clip-on hood does help a ton with acquiring the front sight...whoever came up with that was a genius. It's not just about protecting the blade. When I was initially monkeying with the front sight blade between groups I left it off because it was a pain to remove. I was having trouble picking up the tip of the front sight for the glare, but once I got it dialed in and I clipped the hood back on, the ease of acquisition was drastically improved.

Let me know when you figure out what blade height you need. Have a bunch of them.

Also, the standard front sight cover was not intended to be used when shooting, the USMC cover was.

quote:

Originally posted by M1Garandy:
Let me know when you figure out what blade height you need. Have a bunch of them.

Also, the standard front sight cover was not intended to be used when shooting, the USMC cover was.

He is correct. If it helps you shoot accurately by all means use it. But…… technically…..(in my best nerdy know it all voice) it is not correct for U.S. military members (except Marines) during the WWII period while shooting the rifle.

quote:

Originally posted by 357fuzz:

quote:

Originally posted by M1Garandy:
Let me know when you figure out what blade height you need. Have a bunch of them.

Also, the standard front sight cover was not intended to be used when shooting, the USMC cover was.

He is correct. If it helps you shoot accurately by all means use it. But…… technically…..(in my best nerdy know it all voice) it is not correct for U.S. military members (except Marines) during the WWII period while shooting the rifle.

With a short front sight blade, the sight picture might be decent. With a tall blade, the sight picture is pretty poor IMO.

Also, if the OP got the front sight base with the blade already installed, the pin is small, but be prepared to break some punches trying to drive it out. Ask me how I know.....

quote:

Originally posted by M1Garandy:

quote:

Originally posted by 357fuzz:

quote:

Originally posted by M1Garandy:
Let me know when you figure out what blade height you need. Have a bunch of them.

Also, the standard front sight cover was not intended to be used when shooting, the USMC cover was.

He is correct. If it helps you shoot accurately by all means use it. But…… technically…..(in my best nerdy know it all voice) it is not correct for U.S. military members (except Marines) during the WWII period while shooting the rifle.

With a short front sight blade, the sight picture might be decent. With a tall blade, the sight picture is pretty poor IMO.

Also, if the OP got the front sight base with the blade already installed, the pin is small, but be prepared to break some punches trying to drive it out. Ask me how I know.....

Yep. I tried the A front sight blade w/ the cover on it. That did not work. The top of the blade was within a hair of touching the bottom of the sight cover.

quote:

Also, if the OP got the front sight base with the blade already installed, the pin is small, but be prepared to break some punches trying to drive it out. Ask me how I know.....

Oh good...stuff to look forward to .

quote:

Yep. I tried the A front sight blade w/ the cover on it. That did not work. The top of the blade was within a hair of touching the bottom of the sight cover.

Then yes, the "E" front sight is definitely shorter...the top of the blade was centered nicely in the window. So now I have to decide do I want to go with a taller front sight to bring it to a 100 yard zero, and lose the hood...or just leave it alone and deal with the hold-under?

This message has been edited. Last edited by: 92fstech,

quote:

Originally posted by benny6:
Ah, I see. I thought you had to cut the extractor slot on the breech face. I didn't realize they were pre-cut. Looks easy!

Tony.

if you buy an aftermarket barrel, you will have to cut the extractor, (not that hard, if you have a mill)

all GI barrels are marked and indexed with the extractor groove cut, I think Criterion's are as well

We got out and shot the SMLE, the 03A3, and one of the Garands at 200 this afternoon on steel. 200 is as far as our range offers, and you have to shut down half the other bays to do it, so we don't typically shoot that far back, but the weather sucked and nobody else was there so we figured this was our chance to get some longer range shooting in without inconveniencing anybody else.

The 03 is still hitting high...I think I'm definitely going to need to swap the front sight blade. Once we got the hold figured out, though, it was making consistent hits. I was able to hold center on my windage, too, which further alleviated my concerns about the barrel. That gun does thump the shoulder a little harder than the .303, that's for sure!

The SMLE was hitting pretty well, too. While I hate the sights and the cheek weld on that gun, I've gotta admit that the action is really smooth and fun to operate. We shot both cast (thanks again for the samples and loading advice on that, .357fuzz!) and factory PPU .303, and were able to make consistent hits on the steel...just had to adjust the rear sight up a bit for the slower cast loads.

The SMLE shooting ended when some of the inside of the stock disintegrated and jammed up the trigger mechanism. Nothing major, and nothing I can't fix...it's getting the JB Weld treatment at the moment...but it was enough to take it off the firing line for the day.

I missed my first shot with the M1 because I'd been shooting the '03 and forgot that the Garand is zeroed with properly registered sights, so I don't have to hold under...just set it to 2, hold on the target, and squeeze. That gun is just a sweetheart...so comfortable to establish a proper cheek weld and sight picture, easy on the shoulder, and simple to make hits with. The only downside was having to chase the brass in the snow .

quote:

Originally posted by 92fstech: The SMLE was hitting pretty well, too. While I hate the sights and the cheek weld on that gun, I've gotta admit that the action is really smooth and fun to operate.

Maybe you ought to look for a Parker Hale, Central, Rawson, BSA, Clarke, Cooey or one of the other aperture sights available for the No1?

That would improve your sight picture. The PH5A is probably the most common, Cooey and Centrals are around too. Not cheap, but not super awful bad yet.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: M1Garandy,

quote:

Originally posted by M1Garandy:

Maybe you ought to look for a Parker Hale, Central, Rawson, BSA, Clarke, Cooey or one of the other aperture sights available for the No1?

That would improve your sight picture. The PH5A is probably the most common, Cooey and Centrals are around too. Not cheap, but not super awful bad yet.

I looked them up...those are pretty cool, although quite spendy! I think we'll probably leave it as-is ..it's his gun, and the sights don't seem to bother him (younger eyes and all that). Plus the goal is to keep them at least somewhat close to the config in which they were originally issued, so I don't really want to go away from that. I may pick up a P14 or a 1917 at some point, though, if I can find one affordable, so that would be my opportunity to try out an Enfield with aperture sights.

quote:

Originally posted by 92fstech:
The SMLE was hitting pretty well, too. While I hate the sights and the cheek weld on that gun, I've gotta admit that the action is really smooth and fun to operate.

I may pick up a P14 or a 1917 at some point, though, if I can find one affordable, so that would be my opportunity to try out an Enfield with aperture sights.

While the P14/M1917 are great rifles with excellent aperture sights, the No. 4 and No. 5 Lee-Enfield rifles also have aperture sights, and are much closer to the No. 1 SMLE than the P14/M1917 are.

The No. 4 and 5 are part of the same overall "family tree" of rifles as the No. 1 SMLE, being built around the same Lee action dating back to the earlier Lee Metford and Long Lee rifles of the late 1800s. (In the "Lee-Enfield" name, the Enfield portion - being so named after the Royal Small Arms Factory in Enfield - refers to the style of rifling, whereas the Lee portion refers to the style of action - named after its inventor James Paris Lee.)

P14s/M1917s are not part of the SMLE's "Lee-Enfield" family of rifles. The P14/M1917 are from a different rifle development tree, and do not share the same Lee action as the No. 1/4/5 Lee-Enfield rifles. Instead, they're based on a variation of the Mauser action. They are "Enfields" only in that the rifles' initial development took place at the Enfield arsenal.


Here's the sight picture on a No. 4 and No. 5 Lee-Enfield:

This message has been edited. Last edited by: RogueJSK,

quote:

Originally posted by RogueJSK:
The No. 4 and No. 5 Enfields also have aperture sights, and are overall closer to the SMLE than the P14/M1917.

True, but we have an SMLE and don't have a M1917 yet . Personally, I'm more attracted to the American stuff, while my son is more intrigued by the foreign. A Krag and a 1917 are on my short list. My son wants a Mauser, and we just lost a local auction on a nice Swedish one in 6.5 tonight by one bid.

The prices on No. 4s at Royal Tiger are admittedly pretty appealing right now, and the No. 5s aren't too bad, either. Personally, I find the .30-06 to be a much better cartridge than the .303, and much easier to source usable brass and other components for in the modern era. The Brits really liked their corrosive Berdan primers, and kept using them long past the point when they should have upgraded.

On the flip-side, we're already dealing with the .303 for the SMLE and have worked out most of the initial load hickups, so logistics are already in place to support a No. 4 or a No 5....but then I'd have to decide which one. I'm sure I'd enjoy one...
but I have to decide if I want to expend my spending cash on that or keep saving for something I want more. So many options, so little time and money. .

ETA: thanks or that sight picture photo...I do like that!