As a M1903 fanatic, I was very excited to see this pop up in my feed. I've noticed that the lighting drastically affects my group sizes. I've had everything from 9 rounds touching at 100 yards to barely holding black on the SR-1, all with the same rifle, same ammunition, and similar temperatures. I found that using the sight hood helped a little with focusing on the front sight. Henry is probably well aware, but I'll throw this out for everyone else. The USMC actually had similar observations around 1918 and developed their own sight system consisting of a larger rear aperture (the #10 sight) and a thicker, taller front sight with an undercut. A larger front sight hood was also issued with the intention of staying on the rifle during shooting. The sights brought the battle sight zero to a more practical 200yd as opposed to 547yd for the standard 1905 sight. If you guys have a standard 03, you can buy reproductions and try the combo out. Great video!
@@ouruizThis thread is a great read: www.migunowners.org/forum/showthread.php?310474-1941-USMC-Sniper-Replica-build With good handloads and a properly fitted stock, 1 MOA does not seem unreasonable. One thing to bear in mind about the 03s in general and 03 snipers' rifles in particular is the amount of time and care taken during manufacture and assembly. Wartime 03A3s and 03A4s are functional but rather hastily fitted and assembled when compared to interwar rifles. The 03A4 (initially issued with a 2.5x M81 or M82) and the USMC 8x Unertl equipped rifles are not in the same league. Careful stock fitting and a superior optic on the USMC rifle make a difference in performance.
My Grandfather who used the 1903 against the Japanese said they would file the rear of the front site just enough to make a "bright" line at the top rear of the blade.
@@danielaramburo7648 that can get a bit messy... Even if he doesn't miss any shots he has to shoot 16 shots. And at that point he can get quite drunk and drunkenness with guns is never a good idea. A glass of martini should be fine though.
Dad said uncle Larry got one new in the wrapper for $5, that was about '46. I said, "Does he still want it, I'll give him $10 for it", that was about 2004.
My dad carried an '03-A4 into the Battle of the Bulge. He told me, "It weighed 10.4 lbs. and after 5 miles you could remove the decimal point." He came out of the Bulge with a folding stock M1 Carbine. When asked about the Springfield, "Gee, Sarge, I lost it."
@@sodapop9mm562 sadly it’s not all that likely. Only about 240k of the 16 million American vets are still alive. Cherish the ones that are, I had the pleasure of meeting a marine from WW2 a week ago at walmart
As a fellow M1903 fanatic, I can relate. My Dad while in the Army, (Fort Still, radar specialist) during the 1950's bought a surplus 1903-A3 for about $12 by joining the NRA. Actually alot of money for a newly married NCO at the time. My son is now the proud owner of that rifle, I personally bought 3 others throughout the years. Love to shot them, collect them, and reload for them. Best rifle in the world, even compared to the M1 Garand...
Two things to note that the Marines had tweaked with the M1903. They made their front sight cover to be used; this creates a globe style front sight to aid picking up the blade. Combined with the peep; it immensely helps
One of my 03A3s has a set of Redfield LaPalma rear apertures and a globe front sight. Ive shot it in competition at 1000 yrds and cleaned house. The rifle came to me as a National Match competition rifle and had been fired at Perry a goodly number of times. Nice accurate war club.
I’d love to see a second attempt of the 03A3 with the USMC #10 front sight blade on it. I immediately swapped to a #10 on mine and it’s a world of a difference.
what is hard to appreciate if you have not shot the 1903 is how light and hard kicking it is. This many rounds of 30-06 through a 1903 is a feat in and of itself. Personally, never shoot more than 20 rounds cause it stops being fun.
I once got a damn good deal for 600 rounds of 1953 FN made M2 ball for $3 a box of 20 WITH the stripper clips. I suspect it was all packed for an FN49 in 30-06. So I took 100 rounds to the range with a Brazilian 08/34 .30 Mauser (Made for Brazilian Expeditionary troops to share American ammo) and shot all 100 rounds through it. This was after a session of 40 rounds through my Mosin Nagant and about 50 high brass magnum small game shells through a 12 gauge. And the same from a 16 gauge (both had no rubber recoil pad). The worst one by far was the Brazilian 08/34 in 30-06. Needless to say, my shoulder looked like it had been beaten mercilessly with a baseball bat. Completely black, blue and purple. The weird feeling that came with it in the next few was concerning too. Sore would be an understatement. I think every minor blood vessel in there had been broken.
I thought my 1903 recoiled hard till I inherited a Model 70 featherweight chambered in .30-06, the thing weighs under 7 lbs and with the right handloads it could easily injure an inexperienced shooter
Amen. My Dad had an 03-A3 that was insanely accurate, but would absolutely beat you half to death. Nothing like a steel buttplate to get your attention. Holding it very tight against my shoulder helped somewhat, but after about 60 rounds I’d had enough Springfield for the day. Never shot a K-98 Mauser, but they fire a heavier bullet and look like they make the shooter earn every hit.
Just make the comparison real: The M1903A3 didn't come out until WWII. The versions of the rifle used up to that time were M1903s and M1903A1s. M1903A3 rear sights were not really designed for long-range shooting, per se, as they were graduated only to 800 yards, whereas the model 1905 sights were designed to cover ranges well in excess of that figure. And the '03A3 rear ramp is quickly-adjustable, but not all that precise. A M1903 vs. M1917 comparison would be cool, for sure.
I have a 1944 Springfield Garand. I bought it from a friend i used to work with at whole foods. He had been a sniper in Vietnam and he used a '03 A3 chambered in 308. That garand is a SHOOTER
I had the pleasure of working inside one of the old armory buildings that produced these rifles, the atmosphere was incredible - the floor made from rejected stocks, it oozed history.
I'm always glad to see these bolt-action reviews. I live in a country where getting permission to own a semi-automatic is practically impossible for most people, so bolt and lever action firearms like this represent actual options for us here to purchase.
It’s actually crazy how fast lever action guns can shoot. By the way I live in a state where firearms are heavily restricted so I feel your pain. Not to the extent of not being able to get semi autos more of just lots of banning of “big scary assault weapons” and shit like that which is bs.
Remember, the Marine Corps made a slightly larger circle front sight protector. I have not obtained one but I appreciate my two '03s with M1 ball. I find the cutoff easy to use for single shot range use.
My first rifle was a custom 1903 Springfield. Got it when I was 13 as my first deer rifle. It had the original 4x weaver on it and a beautiful left handed walnut stock. I did some work to the bedding and free floating, put good modern glass on it and enjoyed the hell out of it. I regret selling it terribly, but through about 15 years of shooting it I never had issues seeing sub minute accuracy with hand loads. It's taken me years to get used to single stage triggers because of that rifle. Many people would argue with me, but I live that two stage.
@@jimtom4878 Not at all. The standard sight is so narrow it's nearly invisible. And it's also got a battle zero of 200 yards I believe. Switching to the #10 Marine Coprs blade means you can actually see the front sight plus you can get different heights which allow you to get a 100 yard zero which is much more useful.
@Jim Tom As the name implies these sights were designed by the USMC and they have a heavier emphasis on marksmanship than any other branch of the service. They also kept 1903 pattern rifles in front line service longer than any other branch. I'm thrilled with the front sight on mine.
The Krag front sight is equally thin and the rear sight notch, at least on the 1902 rear sight on my Krag is tiny. Oh and that front sight is an extra six inches away from your eyes.
It will be quite similar. Cartridges are similar , sights are similar , though 30-40 krag is a bit weaker and it's round nosed , so it might make a difference.
Finding a Norwegian Krag in the original caliber is insanely difficult to find nowadays, most that were imported to the US/ Canada were rechambered and the body was sporterized, my buddy has a 1914 manufacture date Norwegian Krag that was rechambered to .308 and sporterized in Austria for import by Canadian company Globe (that company no longer exists), he has to shoot subsonic/ low-power ammo out of it. American model variants (renamed to a Springfield model 1892-99) might be a tad more available, still rare without going to a big-buck auctioneer like RIA (if they have one). I would be surprised to see one at a gun show.
For those wondering why the mag cutoff stayed on the rifle all the way until WWII, the mag cutoff is also the bolt stop, and all the OFF position does is it keeps the bolt from cycling back far enough to allow another round to present from the magazine. There’s no way to eliminate the feature from the rifle without completely redesigning that area receiver. It doesn’t hurt the rifle by being there, so rather than going through all the effort of redesigning the gun to remove it, Springfield armory just left it and soldiers simply never used the cutoff function.
My dad had the 1903 and the 03A3. Was expert with them in the Army along with the Enfield & Garand. Both the 03 & the 03A3 was converted into hunting sport rifles & rebarreled with 2506.
Great video. I was one of several range officers for sighting in days for hunting season. Watching people going thru 20+ rounds to sight in. Young kid (guessing late teens early 20,s) shows up with his grandpa's 03A3. Sit's at the bench ..fire 3 rounds. Gets up.."Well, gramp's said it was right on!" and gets up and.leaves. None of this scoped stuff and 20+ rounds.
I'd like to see you run the m1917 to me it's the better rifle.. My Grandpa had both and now they're mine and I prefer the American Enfield over the Springfield
The front sight thing is interesting. Thinking about it, the 91/30s I've owned had a much finer front sight than my M39, but instantly judged the M39's sights better, and more precise. Which was backwards of how I'd always thought. Never realized that.
Until the 20th century, the rule of thumb seems to have been that smaller sights allow more precise aiming. But actual studies showed that a bold sight picture was both more visible and more accurate, especially under poor lighting conditions. Both rifle and pistol sights became larger and wider by the 1950s.
I have to agree with others here who have stated that the Model 1917 Remington was a more accurate rifle compared to the 1903A3 having owned both in the past. That said however there is still a soft spot in my heart for the 03A3
In the last C&Rsenal video, Othias mentioned how a similar thing happened in Scandinavian countries where biathlon was really popular -- with the sights on their military rifles becoming geared more towards competition than combat.
He said that they adopted rifles so they qualified for competition, I don't recall him saying anything about designing front sights on their rifles for competition
@@jamietus1012 I can't remember which rifle it was, but there were a few that the pre-war sights were super fine and intricate with all sorts of precise adjustments,. Once war-time production hit, they were normally simplified.
The M59 sniper rifles had diopter sights as standard ,some had scope mount also. Later M67 used diopter sight for match ,but where the M59 was millitary issue, the M67 was mostly civillian. The M59 and variants was in use with diopter sight was in use as National Guard DSM rifle until early 2000s. The diopter sight version was to be used further out than the AG3 rifle.
@@johnbeauvais3159 ...added a sporter stock, removed front sight and drilled for scope....priced at $399. Caught my eye right away in the "bargin" rack.
For the front sight I bought myself a taller blade and I took bright color orange nail polish and painted the rear of the front sight. Even with the sight protection off with adequate amounts of light or even with a semi cloudy day I was able to see the front sight no problem. Of course your target color will determine if you can even see it.
Love those more recent videos where we see you talking about windage, elevation, target aquisiton and that kind of stuff when you are shooting! Gives us a good reference point on your great marksmanship! Keep up the good work!
No, the 1903 was the standard battle rifle from 1903 until it was phased out in WWII. It was never a "target version of a combat rifle", though many fine target rifles were made from that action. As America ramped up production for WWII, they realized the original design could be modified, as you said, for lower cost and greater speed of production. Hence the 03A3.
The first rifle I ever bought was a Remington A3 with a 2-groove barrel. Shot that rifle a lot, over several years, and totally agree with your assessment. Did love the rifle but as I got older, my eyes couldn’t make the sights work.
I have the -03 Springfield my Grandfather was issued just before WWII. He carried it thru North Africa and Italy, despite the fact that, as an officer, he should have carried the M130 carbine. However he had tweaked his -03 as he shot at Camp Perry. Sighted at 100 yards, the drop at 500 yards is about -55 in. At 1000 yds, the drop is a mind boggling -335 in (27.9 feet). The 308 drop is -55in and at 1000 is -135 (11Ft). This is the main reason for the change to .308 in addition to semi- auto. The Marine Corps felt that this allowed rapid at the cost of higher ammunition consumption.
Snagged a beautiful virgin Remington 1903A3 from the CMP south store (Anniston) earlier this feb. something special about picking out a gun for yourself from racks and racks of them. Don’t have kids yet, but it’s like a kid to me. 02-42 barrel.
I have a M1903A3. Love it. And yes, I shoot it with the sight protector on. At 100 yards its way more accurate than I am. Love shooting it. Great video.
@@9HoleReviews You have been accurate on the pros and cons. I have good range time with an 03A3, that front site is thin. I learned my marksmanship on WWII rifles, after a 22LR rifle. Just a civilian. My two favorito, Swede M38 and. rattle FIN M39. Your observations on the M39 is correct. Cheap ammo made it a constant range companion.
Yes I shoot CMP DCM these work fine the course is 200 yd the ladder style works fine it has an open and a closed aperture @ 11:10, there is the hole, the triangle and the open. Don't forget they also had a scope that was used, not sure what years. But even a low power scope can perform at 500 yd. This rifle can compete with the Garand so don't be fooled because he just prefers the Garand which is a fine rifle. Also in my experience most wind at 500 yds with the 06 round is negligible unless its extreme. The 06 holds well against the wind, just in my experience. A good skilled marksman with either one of these is a danger at 500 yd.
My first centerfire rifle was a 03/A3 two groove barrel. Between 3 and 4 moa somewhere. I traded it on a 721 Remington with a 10x wever scope made in El paso Texas I believe. I learned how to Accra glass and float out the forend . It shot well. I killed quite a few groundhogs past a quarter mile. Lol, At 15 I was death on groundhogs. 110 grain hollopoints at 3100 fps. Barefooted I would slither down the creek bed , feet under the water moving the same speed ,not making a sound . Quietly up the bank stopping as soon as I could see the field my body not exposed. Say what you want a 15 year hunters are deadly, because it's a big adventure at that age, so you put everything you have into it. I even stalked a flock of crows successfully. What fun!
They're illogical before you account for draft quality service members who will continuously fire/mag dump at the first sight of an enemy. Once you take that into account with the tacticsat the time, they make perfect sense.
@@isaachousley325 Still illogical. Especially considering poorly trained soldiers tend to do the exact opposite of mag dump. It can be difficult to get them to shoot at all. And how does one mag dump a M1903 bolt gun?
I removed my 03A3 front sight and used it as a template on a wheat style penny to make a front sight that I can easily see. I shoot the service rifle matches out to 600 yards. Last match I hit the 600 yard plate 3 out 5 times.
The M1903 Bullet chambering is just as notorious for sniper sounds in movies/games. As in the HK slap. As in the Garand ping. As in the pump shotgun chambering.
awesome shooting man, I'm a huge fan of 30-06 and about 30min ride from Camp Perry and actually got to do some Army qualifications there. also you must have one solid shoulder, really cool getting to watch you shoot
excellent explanation why we left that style and gone with garand/M14/M16 sights. What what helps at the range is "smoking" the front post with carbide lamps and there are some aftermarket sprays
I guess I lucked out. I learned to drill with a real one in Boy Scouts under a former Marine DI. Of course we weren't allowed near any ammunition except on the range and after we quaified on .22's. Then we were monitored by former military instructors for gun safety while shooting. Guess our former Marine Gunnery Sergeant Scout Troop Leader had some serious pull with the Corps. Interesting Boy Scout troop. Half our leaders were retired military and the other half professional firemen for an aerospace company, also mostly former military (mostly former SeaBees). I learned how to march, shoot, put out oil fires and make an organized camp out of a complete wilderness in less than a day, among other useful life skills.
I believe the reason for target range training was to instill confidence in the soldier in his rifle's performance and his ability to hit a chosen target. Combat training took place afterward, to teach the soldier in a more realistic environment.
You should read the book 'Misfire: The History of How America's Small Arms Have Failed Our Military' by William Hallahan. He goes into an in-depth explanation of why the 03A3 had a magazine cut off.
Hello, I converted my front sight to the Marine Style large flat sight plus a modified large loop hood. The Marines got it right when they accomplished this. Thanks
My father in law has one of these that he bought when he was a kid. He sporterized it and tapped it for a scope. He still hunts deer with it to this day.
I have my dad's old 03-A3 that he changed to a bead front sight. Very nice shooting rifle with a sporter stock. Thinking about adding a Lyman rear and Parker-Hale insert-style front target sight. Only thing is that I'd need to drill the receiver to install the rear sight and it's my dad's old rifle...
@@Immafraid I'd go 03A3, personally. Yeah, you get an extra round, but the added length and weight just doesn't equal a better choice in my book. The latest 03A3 sights vs the M17 are a bit worse, but now if the 03 had the earlier ladder sight on the barrel (can't member the model), then it'd have proper sights.
@@GrySgtBubba The 1903A3 only went into production in WWII. In WWI it was just the 1903, with a straight wrist and the Buffington rear sight. I think the Enfield was a clearly superior rifle except it being longer and heavier. Whether that tradeoff is worth it probably depends on the person and situation.
@@88porpoise Uhh, guess you must not know that the "03" is actually the "05/06/07"-03 and went through a caviod of changes where they kept switching sights, going to a new one, goin back to a previous one, changed stocks once, then went back to the straight wrist and they only dubbed it the "1903 model" to just keep the difficulty of confusion to a minimum. Effectively, the 03/05/06/07 vs the A3 is rather negligible as only the rear sight and stock are the only real changes. As for the weight and size, again, that W goes to the 03 again as the only time the size and weight are ever helpful is while resting it on something as you're taking a longer distance or moving target shot. Other than that, you've gotta keep in mind that 80% of the time, what are troops doing...marching along while lugging around another 40-50lbs of gear for miles upon miles in the same boots they had for weeks or months and same socks they've had on for 1-3 days. That 10lbs rifle turns to 100lbs feel real real quick!
Interesting thing is that I have never heard of this RUclips channel before, and I was not looking at 1903 videos. But I did buy a 1903 over this weekend.
I will agree with you on that one, the sight is hard to get spot on at distance in low light or camouflage. It's not Henry, trust me; I watch as much as possible and he hits almost everything if the gun is capable of doing the range. Great video on one of my favorite rifles.
I had mentioned wanting to put a scope on my M1a one time, and some guy said it was pointless because the M1a was a 2 MOA gun. First, it's 2 MOA on a good day, lol. Second, this video shows why a scope is a good idea. Imagine someone in camo hiding, and while you could get them with a scope, you would be hard pressed to be able to obtain a hit with irons.
A USMC front sight protector helps a lot. This sight protector is much larger and is meant to be left on the rifle while shooting. When you can find one they are pricey but I would not be without mine on my 03 A3
I was a Marine scout/sniper in Vietnam. Mostly carried an M-14. Loved this rifle. I bought a Springfield Armory M1A. In boot camp when we shot at the 500 yard target the diameter of the bullseye was 20 inches. When I aimed my M1A at a 20 inch bullseye at 500 yards I noticed that the front sight was wider than the bullseye. Later I bought a 1917 Enfield. The front sight was much narrower than the M-14/M1A. I started wishing that my M1A front sight was as narrow as My M-1917. Then I read that in WW II, armorers were narrowing the front sight on the M-1D sniper rifle. So I found a machinist/gunsmith who made my M1A front sight about half as wide at it was. That gave me a much better sight picture than the original. Made me more accurate at extended ranges. My two cents worth.
the USMC actually found that the M1903A3 front sights to be too narrow and came out with their own thicker front sight for the USMC version of the M1903A3.
Ya, So that front hood is great if you are shooting at black circles with white backgrounds and good lighting. From what I have seen in real life (OK the movies) I am amazed that anyone can tell who is on the other side of the line. With enough mud and bad weather those uniforms really don't stand out at all. Thanks again for bringing another well loved rifle to the range.
There are four main factors that go into practical accuracy. In no particular order. 1. Atmospheric/environmental conditions. 2. Shooter. 3. The mechanical accuracy of the weapon (how accurate it would be in a lab condition with it strapped to a bench). 4. Ammunition (quality/consistency).
Well the Marine Corps had so many problems with the 03 rear leaf that they replaced it. The front sight is very fine and not hooded. It actually caused a lot of cuts and gouges when being used for drill
I have 2 WW2-era 03A3s; one Remington, and a Smith Corona. Also have my grandpa’s M1 Carbine from the signal corps. Wouldn’t part with them for anything ✌🏻🇺🇸
My uncle has an O3A3 with the scope it was issued with and a sadly sprterized stock, however the person that sporterized it made it beautifully and left the year on the barrel, 1945. Still prefer my arisaka though lol.
![M16A2 to 500yds: Practical Accuracy ...was Eugene Stoner wrong? [ USMC experiences in Iraq ]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/sqOiTXmi1QU/mqdefault.jpg)
As a M1903 fanatic, I was very excited to see this pop up in my feed. I've noticed that the lighting drastically affects my group sizes. I've had everything from 9 rounds touching at 100 yards to barely holding black on the SR-1, all with the same rifle, same ammunition, and similar temperatures. I found that using the sight hood helped a little with focusing on the front sight. Henry is probably well aware, but I'll throw this out for everyone else. The USMC actually had similar observations around 1918 and developed their own sight system consisting of a larger rear aperture (the #10 sight) and a thicker, taller front sight with an undercut. A larger front sight hood was also issued with the intention of staying on the rifle during shooting. The sights brought the battle sight zero to a more practical 200yd as opposed to 547yd for the standard 1905 sight. If you guys have a standard 03, you can buy reproductions and try the combo out. Great video!
This is most interesting! As an Army boy, I rag on the USMC a lot, but they really do a lot of work to improve individual rifle systems.
Also pinned!
@@9HoleReviews If you guys want to do a follow up, I'd be thrilled to supply the rifle and the sights
@@mkcsu27 I would love to see how it performs with an optic of its period.
@@ouruizThis thread is a great read: www.migunowners.org/forum/showthread.php?310474-1941-USMC-Sniper-Replica-build
With good handloads and a properly fitted stock, 1 MOA does not seem unreasonable. One thing to bear in mind about the 03s in general and 03 snipers' rifles in particular is the amount of time and care taken during manufacture and assembly. Wartime 03A3s and 03A4s are functional but rather hastily fitted and assembled when compared to interwar rifles. The 03A4 (initially issued with a 2.5x M81 or M82) and the USMC 8x Unertl equipped rifles are not in the same league. Careful stock fitting and a superior optic on the USMC rifle make a difference in performance.
Soldiers : We can't shoot anything because of those damn fine sights.
Ordnance Department : *what*
"You're right soldier! Those are fine sight... Mighty fine sights indeed! Now, back to the fight!"
--The Ordnance Department
Zippo soot goes a long way
Ordnance department (or army ordnance board) has a tendency to ruin everything they touch.
My Grandfather who used the 1903 against the Japanese said they would file the rear of the front site just enough to make a "bright" line at the top rear of the blade.
Martini Henry???? You can’t hide that from me😂 I can’t wait
I want to see Henry shooting a Martini Henry and a Henry while drinking martini
@@afinoxi or shoot a mosin nagant. For every shot he takes a shot of Stalin vodka.
@@danielaramburo7648 that can get a bit messy...
Even if he doesn't miss any shots he has to shoot 16 shots. And at that point he can get quite drunk and drunkenness with guns is never a good idea. A glass of martini should be fine though.
So Henry has is own rifle now? Fancy.
@@magoid more like Henry has their own human now , fancy.
Dad said uncle Larry got one new in the wrapper for $5, that was about '46. I said, "Does he still want it, I'll give him $10 for it", that was about 2004.
I'll bid 15!
My dad carried an '03-A4 into the Battle of the Bulge. He told me, "It weighed 10.4 lbs. and after 5 miles you could remove the decimal point." He came out of the Bulge with a folding stock M1 Carbine. When asked about the Springfield, "Gee, Sarge, I lost it."
Is your father still living?
@@sodapop9mm562 sadly it’s not all that likely. Only about 240k of the 16 million American vets are still alive. Cherish the ones that are, I had the pleasure of meeting a marine from WW2 a week ago at walmart
And if not, may he Rest In Peace.
My dad had carried an M1 Garand for his guard duty in Saigon (South Vietnam Airforce). After the first day he switched for an M1 Carbine also
@@TamLe-ig2ey Yeah 30-06 is like a bigger 308 and 308 is already pretty fucken heavy.
As a fellow M1903 fanatic, I can relate. My Dad while in the Army, (Fort Still, radar specialist) during the 1950's bought a surplus 1903-A3 for about $12 by joining the NRA. Actually alot of money for a newly married NCO at the time. My son is now the proud owner of that rifle, I personally bought 3 others throughout the years. Love to shot them, collect them, and reload for them. Best rifle in the world, even compared to the M1 Garand...
Mine's never failed to bring home a deer.
Solid eternal boomer vibe, Ernest.
Eternal boomer vibe. Nailed it
@@lukeperry1891 Good luck finding that vibe in 20 years gen X
We in Germany are very pleased you are satisfied with your Mauser.
Two things to note that the Marines had tweaked with the M1903. They made their front sight cover to be used; this creates a globe style front sight to aid picking up the blade. Combined with the peep; it immensely helps
I've read that they had a bit larger peep hole to sight through. Think I will try that on the peep sight on my latter sight.
One of my 03A3s has a set of Redfield LaPalma rear apertures and a globe front sight. Ive shot it in competition at 1000 yrds and cleaned house. The rifle came to me as a National Match competition rifle and had been fired at Perry a goodly number of times. Nice accurate war club.
Like Othais said about the US and the Mauser system, "They got away with it until they really tried to get away with it".
except they sued over the spitzer bullet, not the action. royalty payments were already set up
@@0Asterite0 Correct and loading clips and they initially were never sued btw.
I’d love to see a second attempt of the 03A3 with the USMC #10 front sight blade on it. I immediately swapped to a #10 on mine and it’s a world of a difference.
what is hard to appreciate if you have not shot the 1903 is how light and hard kicking it is. This many rounds of 30-06 through a 1903 is a feat in and of itself. Personally, never shoot more than 20 rounds cause it stops being fun.
Me, a recoil junkie that’s been blasting my arms with 12ga since I was nine: This is fine
I once got a damn good deal for 600 rounds of 1953 FN made M2 ball for $3 a box of 20 WITH the stripper clips. I suspect it was all packed for an FN49 in 30-06. So I took 100 rounds to the range with a Brazilian 08/34 .30 Mauser (Made for Brazilian Expeditionary troops to share American ammo) and shot all 100 rounds through it. This was after a session of 40 rounds through my Mosin Nagant and about 50 high brass magnum small game shells through a 12 gauge. And the same from a 16 gauge (both had no rubber recoil pad). The worst one by far was the Brazilian 08/34 in 30-06. Needless to say, my shoulder looked like it had been beaten mercilessly with a baseball bat. Completely black, blue and purple. The weird feeling that came with it in the next few was concerning too. Sore would be an understatement. I think every minor blood vessel in there had been broken.
I thought my 1903 recoiled hard till I inherited a Model 70 featherweight chambered in .30-06, the thing weighs under 7 lbs and with the right handloads it could easily injure an inexperienced shooter
Amen. My Dad had an 03-A3 that was insanely accurate, but would absolutely beat you half to death. Nothing like a steel buttplate to get your attention. Holding it very tight against my shoulder helped somewhat, but after about 60 rounds I’d had enough Springfield for the day. Never shot a K-98 Mauser, but they fire a heavier bullet and look like they make the shooter earn every hit.
Spot-weld x long day at range with 03 = swollen cheek
Comparing it with the M1917 Enfield would be interesting.
@Götz von Berlichingen Mate, the M1917 Enfield is superior if you’re comparing it to the first models of the 03.
As an enfield fan, I shoot my p14 in 303 alot. Laser beam with great sights compared to the smle.
@@tays8306 p14 gang represent 🤘
I had 3 1917s and all 3 were tack drivers. Far superior to the 03A3. I should've kept all 3. Hard to find a good one these days.
Just make the comparison real: The M1903A3 didn't come out until WWII. The versions of the rifle used up to that time were M1903s and M1903A1s. M1903A3 rear sights were not really designed for long-range shooting, per se, as they were graduated only to 800 yards, whereas the model 1905 sights were designed to cover ranges well in excess of that figure. And the '03A3 rear ramp is quickly-adjustable, but not all that precise. A M1903 vs. M1917 comparison would be cool, for sure.
I have a 1944 Springfield Garand. I bought it from a friend i used to work with at whole foods. He had been a sniper in Vietnam and he used a '03 A3 chambered in 308. That garand is a SHOOTER
I had the pleasure of working inside one of the old armory buildings that produced these rifles, the atmosphere was incredible - the floor made from rejected stocks, it oozed history.
I'm always glad to see these bolt-action reviews. I live in a country where getting permission to own a semi-automatic is practically impossible for most people, so bolt and lever action firearms like this represent actual options for us here to purchase.
It’s actually crazy how fast lever action guns can shoot. By the way I live in a state where firearms are heavily restricted so I feel your pain. Not to the extent of not being able to get semi autos more of just lots of banning of “big scary assault weapons” and shit like that which is bs.
honestly its amazing you can even see fine iron sights at 300-500 yards thats a beautiful skill and yet you were still killin it bro
Hey good for you sir for correctly pronouncing the M1 Garand rifle! Not many Americans do..
Remember, the Marine Corps made a slightly larger circle front sight protector. I have not obtained one but I appreciate my two '03s with M1 ball. I find the cutoff easy to use for single shot range use.
My first rifle was a custom 1903 Springfield. Got it when I was 13 as my first deer rifle. It had the original 4x weaver on it and a beautiful left handed walnut stock. I did some work to the bedding and free floating, put good modern glass on it and enjoyed the hell out of it. I regret selling it terribly, but through about 15 years of shooting it I never had issues seeing sub minute accuracy with hand loads. It's taken me years to get used to single stage triggers because of that rifle. Many people would argue with me, but I live that two stage.
There's a Marine Corp front sight that's thicker and a larger sight hood to go with it. Makes a massive difference in sight picture.
Wouldn't that make accuracy worse?
@@jimtom4878 Not at all. The standard sight is so narrow it's nearly invisible. And it's also got a battle zero of 200 yards I believe. Switching to the #10 Marine Coprs blade means you can actually see the front sight plus you can get different heights which allow you to get a 100 yard zero which is much more useful.
@@stevepowell8866 id think it'd be harder to hit far targets with a fat front sight
@Jim Tom As the name implies these sights were designed by the USMC and they have a heavier emphasis on marksmanship than any other branch of the service. They also kept 1903 pattern rifles in front line service longer than any other branch. I'm thrilled with the front sight on mine.
@@stevepowell8866 I'd disagree and day kar98k has better irons
The Remington 03A3 is probably one of the most accurate military rifles out there!!!
The Smith Corona says ..."Wanna bet your ammo stash?"
Finally. Been waiting for this. Now how bout a 30-40 Krag
The Krag front sight is equally thin and the rear sight notch, at least on the 1902 rear sight on my Krag is tiny. Oh and that front sight is an extra six inches away from your eyes.
It will be quite similar. Cartridges are similar , sights are similar , though 30-40 krag is a bit weaker and it's round nosed , so it might make a difference.
Finding a Norwegian Krag in the original caliber is insanely difficult to find nowadays, most that were imported to the US/ Canada were rechambered and the body was sporterized, my buddy has a 1914 manufacture date Norwegian Krag that was rechambered to .308 and sporterized in Austria for import by Canadian company Globe (that company no longer exists), he has to shoot subsonic/ low-power ammo out of it. American model variants (renamed to a Springfield model 1892-99) might be a tad more available, still rare without going to a big-buck auctioneer like RIA (if they have one). I would be surprised to see one at a gun show.
Swedish Mauser would be nice as well
screw th 30-40 get the 6.5x55
For those wondering why the mag cutoff stayed on the rifle all the way until WWII, the mag cutoff is also the bolt stop, and all the OFF position does is it keeps the bolt from cycling back far enough to allow another round to present from the magazine.
There’s no way to eliminate the feature from the rifle without completely redesigning that area receiver. It doesn’t hurt the rifle by being there, so rather than going through all the effort of redesigning the gun to remove it, Springfield armory just left it and soldiers simply never used the cutoff function.
I already know this is gonna be awesome
I agree!
Damn that 30.06 is a beast of a round though
I see a martin henry and an Egyptian hakim 8mm in the background!
Almost def not an Hakim. Might be a MAS variant.
Is it a Hakim, or a Jungmann(?) I'm rooting for the Jungmann
@@timbaskett6299 Neither. Prolly a MAS 49.
AG42 ljungman :D loved the one i had....
You didn't wet your front sight. Always wet your sights when your fixin' to do some shootin'. Worked for SGT. Alvin York.
My dad had the 1903 and the 03A3. Was expert with them in the Army along with the Enfield & Garand. Both the 03 & the 03A3 was converted into hunting sport rifles & rebarreled with 2506.
I was in a gun shop a few weeks ago and picked up a 1903 and could barely even see through the sights. Definitely made me want one a lot less
Great video. I was one of several range officers for sighting in days for hunting season. Watching people going thru 20+ rounds to sight in. Young kid (guessing late teens early 20,s) shows up with his grandpa's 03A3. Sit's at the bench ..fire 3 rounds. Gets up.."Well, gramp's said it was right on!" and gets up and.leaves. None of this scoped stuff and 20+ rounds.
I'd like to see you run the m1917 to me it's the better rifle.. My Grandpa had both and now they're mine and I prefer the American Enfield over the Springfield
I would like one myself :)
@@9HoleReviews I have one.......if you want you replicate Sgt York.
@@9HoleReviews I can let you borrow mine.
I’m up in Dallas if y’all want to borrow one with the original left hand rifling
@TiglathPileser3 heck yeah helmet and all
The front sight thing is interesting. Thinking about it, the 91/30s I've owned had a much finer front sight than my M39, but instantly judged the M39's sights better, and more precise. Which was backwards of how I'd always thought.
Never realized that.
Until the 20th century, the rule of thumb seems to have been that smaller sights allow more precise aiming. But actual studies showed that a bold sight picture was both more visible and more accurate, especially under poor lighting conditions. Both rifle and pistol sights became larger and wider by the 1950s.
I have to agree with others here who have stated that the Model 1917 Remington was a more accurate rifle compared to the 1903A3 having owned both in the past. That said however there is still a soft spot in my heart for the 03A3
The model 1903. The firearm that got me loving firearms and I've never even shot one.
Henry likes 'em thick. LOL.
Thiccccc with a C, get it right.
In the last C&Rsenal video, Othias mentioned how a similar thing happened in Scandinavian countries where biathlon was really popular -- with the sights on their military rifles becoming geared more towards competition than combat.
He said that they adopted rifles so they qualified for competition, I don't recall him saying anything about designing front sights on their rifles for competition
@@jamietus1012 I can't remember which rifle it was, but there were a few that the pre-war sights were super fine and intricate with all sorts of precise adjustments,. Once war-time production hit, they were normally simplified.
The M59 sniper rifles had diopter sights as standard ,some had scope mount also. Later M67 used diopter sight for match ,but where the M59 was millitary issue, the M67 was mostly civillian.
The M59 and variants was in use with diopter sight was in use as National Guard DSM rifle until early 2000s. The diopter sight version was to be used further out than the AG3 rifle.
Before the War ,it was Krag rifles ,civillian snd millitary versions. M94 eith diopter , and later updated models.
I have my grandfather's Smith-Corona 03-A3. It's a great shooter.
I have one too, with S&B M2 spec ammo I’m amazed at how good it makes me look as a shooter.
There's one for sale at the local pawnshop, but it's been "sporterized."
Keith Lucas Did they remove metal or just booger the stock?
@@johnbeauvais3159 ...added a sporter stock, removed front sight and drilled for scope....priced at $399.
Caught my eye right away in the "bargin" rack.
For the front sight I bought myself a taller blade and I took bright color orange nail polish and painted the rear of the front sight. Even with the sight protection off with adequate amounts of light or even with a semi cloudy day I was able to see the front sight no problem.
Of course your target color will determine if you can even see it.
Was shooting my A303 yesterday. Loved it!
I own a Remington 1943 1903A3 and love it!!
Hahaha I've a '41 Rem 03A3!
Love those more recent videos where we see you talking about windage, elevation, target aquisiton and that kind of stuff when you are shooting! Gives us a good reference point on your great marksmanship! Keep up the good work!
The 1903 was the target version of a combat rifle. The 1903A3 was the economy version. It has stamped parts and that split forearm cap/bayonet lug.
No, the 1903 was the standard battle rifle from 1903 until it was phased out in WWII. It was never a "target version of a combat rifle", though many fine target rifles were made from that action. As America ramped up production for WWII, they realized the original design could be modified, as you said, for lower cost and greater speed of production. Hence the 03A3.
The first rifle I ever bought was a Remington A3 with a 2-groove barrel. Shot that rifle a lot, over several years, and totally agree with your assessment. Did love the rifle but as I got older, my eyes couldn’t make the sights work.
I love them old service battle rifles they where tough and simple as well as being reliable having said that they all have weak and strong points
I have the -03 Springfield my Grandfather was issued just before WWII. He carried it thru North Africa and Italy, despite the fact that, as an officer, he should have carried the M130 carbine. However he had tweaked his -03 as he shot at Camp Perry. Sighted at 100 yards, the drop at 500 yards is about -55 in. At 1000 yds, the drop is a mind boggling -335 in (27.9 feet). The 308 drop is -55in and at 1000 is -135 (11Ft). This is the main reason for the change to .308 in addition to semi- auto. The Marine Corps felt that this allowed rapid at the cost of higher ammunition consumption.
Snagged a beautiful virgin Remington 1903A3 from the CMP south store (Anniston) earlier this feb. something special about picking out a gun for yourself from racks and racks of them. Don’t have kids yet, but it’s like a kid to me. 02-42 barrel.
Classy gun, classy run.
Thanks for the run and thanks to the collector for a lone gun.
I have a M1903A3. Love it. And yes, I shoot it with the sight protector on. At 100 yards its way more accurate than I am. Love shooting it. Great video.
9 Hole Reviews, again besmerching one of my favorite rifles. Accurately so. (Your description of how a front is preceived is spot on).
cheers, i hope peopel don't think we dislike the 03a3, it's still a nice rifle but the front sights are difficult for field use.
@@9HoleReviews You have been accurate on the pros and cons. I have good range time with an 03A3, that front site is thin. I learned my marksmanship on WWII rifles, after a 22LR rifle. Just a civilian. My two favorito, Swede M38 and. rattle FIN M39. Your observations on the M39 is correct. Cheap ammo made it a constant range companion.
I'm glad he explained what Henry was talking about with the blade sight...
Cause I didn't understand
I see a MAS in the background.
There is a thick blade sight that can be installed which will allow you to have something to focus on, it is called the Marine Front sight for the 03.
People used to commonly shoot matches with them, sometimes with match sights and stocks
Yes I shoot CMP DCM these work fine the course is 200 yd the ladder style works fine it has an open and a closed aperture @ 11:10, there is the hole, the triangle and the open. Don't forget they also had a scope that was used, not sure what years. But even a low power scope can perform at 500 yd. This rifle can compete with the Garand so don't be fooled because he just prefers the Garand which is a fine rifle. Also in my experience most wind at 500 yds with the 06 round is negligible unless its extreme. The 06 holds well against the wind, just in my experience. A good skilled marksman with either one of these is a danger at 500 yd.
My first centerfire rifle was a 03/A3 two groove barrel. Between 3 and 4 moa somewhere. I traded it on a 721 Remington with a 10x wever scope made in El paso Texas I believe. I learned how to Accra glass
and float out the forend . It shot well.
I killed quite a few groundhogs past a quarter mile. Lol, At 15 I was death on groundhogs. 110 grain hollopoints at 3100 fps. Barefooted I would slither down the creek bed , feet under the water moving the same speed ,not making a sound . Quietly
up the bank stopping as soon as I could see the field my body not exposed. Say what you want a 15 year hunters are deadly, because it's a big adventure at that age, so you put everything you have into it.
I even stalked a flock of crows successfully.
What fun!
Have an early Smith Corona with the same stock... pleasure to shoot. Thanks for the vid.
You have GOTTA do a vid with one or more of the Browning lever guns like the 1886, 1894 or 1895. THAT would be cool!
There is a Russian contract Winchester that I find fascinating chambered in 7.62x54R.
@@howard7689 That would be a great vid.
@@howard7689 m1895, and yes it takes Moisin stripper clips.
On my "win the lottery" list
And the 3-round burst feature is the (il)logical follow-on to the magazine cutoff.
They're illogical before you account for draft quality service members who will continuously fire/mag dump at the first sight of an enemy. Once you take that into account with the tacticsat the time, they make perfect sense.
@@isaachousley325 Still illogical. Especially considering poorly trained soldiers tend to do the exact opposite of mag dump. It can be difficult to get them to shoot at all. And how does one mag dump a M1903 bolt gun?
I removed my 03A3 front sight and used it as a template on a wheat style penny to make a front sight that I can easily see. I shoot the service rifle matches out to 600 yards. Last match I hit the 600 yard plate 3 out 5 times.
The M1903 Bullet chambering is just as notorious for sniper sounds in movies/games.
As in the HK slap.
As in the Garand ping.
As in the pump shotgun chambering.
awesome shooting man, I'm a huge fan of 30-06 and about 30min ride from Camp Perry and actually got to do some Army qualifications there. also you must have one solid shoulder, really cool getting to watch you shoot
Do you think that “Blackening” the sight would have helped at all by giving a bit darker line to follow?
Mine was a 4 moa rifle. My first high power rifle. I was 15. The 03/A3 had a 2 groove barrel.
Type 99 Arisaka
Target type sights designed for shooting practices over a hundred years ago. Still I like the M1903-A3 sights for hunting...
Me too. Using for Missouri Deer Season this weekend.
excellent explanation why we left that style and gone with garand/M14/M16 sights. What what helps at the range is "smoking" the front post with carbide lamps and there are some aftermarket sprays
Ahhhhh yes....my JROTC drill rifle. The barrels were filled with cement and firing pins removed. Everything else worked.
Ours were filled with lead. Heavy shits
I guess I lucked out. I learned to drill with a real one in Boy Scouts under a former Marine DI. Of course we weren't allowed near any ammunition except on the range and after we quaified on .22's. Then we were monitored by former military instructors for gun safety while shooting. Guess our former Marine Gunnery Sergeant Scout Troop Leader had some serious pull with the Corps. Interesting Boy Scout troop. Half our leaders were retired military and the other half professional firemen for an aerospace company, also mostly former military (mostly former SeaBees). I learned how to march, shoot, put out oil fires and make an organized camp out of a complete wilderness in less than a day, among other useful life skills.
Same. Plugged barrels, cut firing pins, tack weld on the cutoff. I swear mine was new and unfired before they mutilated it.
I think my Dad has one. It was his "deer hunting" rifle. He has the original wooden stock, but put on sporter stock and a scope.
I believe the reason for target range training was to instill confidence in the soldier in his rifle's performance and his ability to hit a chosen target. Combat training took place afterward, to teach the soldier in a more realistic environment.
I like my front sights like I like my gravy....
*T H I C C*
Or my ladies
I agree with you 💯. I have shot a 1903, a 1903A3 and an M1 Garand and I much prefer the M1.
You should read the book 'Misfire: The History of How America's Small Arms Have Failed Our Military' by William Hallahan. He goes into an in-depth explanation of why the 03A3 had a magazine cut off.
Sounds like a religious book... shite
And you can thank the Ordinance Corps for that. They failed the US military from the civil war all the way to their demise in the Vietnam war.
There is a later iteration called the M1903a4 that replaced the iron sights with a scope
Hello, I converted my front sight to the Marine Style large flat sight plus a modified large loop hood. The Marines got it right when they accomplished this. Thanks
YT's recommendations have gotten really good here lately.
0:47 when that music starts and my Friday gets made. Keep up the good work bois!
My father in law has one of these that he bought when he was a kid. He sporterized it and tapped it for a scope. He still hunts deer with it to this day.
Nice.
I have my dad's old 03-A3 that he changed to a bead front sight. Very nice shooting rifle with a sporter stock. Thinking about adding a Lyman rear and Parker-Hale insert-style front target sight. Only thing is that I'd need to drill the receiver to install the rear sight and it's my dad's old rifle...
give this man a Lebel. an amazingly wide front post
Still waiting on you guys to review the better WW1 rifle.
The M1917 Enfield.
While my M1917 makes almost every range trip, My 03A3 stays in the safe.
It would be interesting to hear a comparison on these two, especially the sighting systems
If I had to fight in WW1, and could choose my rifle, the 1917 or Winchester 1895 would be my choice.
@@Immafraid I'd go 03A3, personally. Yeah, you get an extra round, but the added length and weight just doesn't equal a better choice in my book. The latest 03A3 sights vs the M17 are a bit worse, but now if the 03 had the earlier ladder sight on the barrel (can't member the model), then it'd have proper sights.
@@GrySgtBubba The 1903A3 only went into production in WWII. In WWI it was just the 1903, with a straight wrist and the Buffington rear sight.
I think the Enfield was a clearly superior rifle except it being longer and heavier. Whether that tradeoff is worth it probably depends on the person and situation.
@@88porpoise Uhh, guess you must not know that the "03" is actually the "05/06/07"-03 and went through a caviod of changes where they kept switching sights, going to a new one, goin back to a previous one, changed stocks once, then went back to the straight wrist and they only dubbed it the "1903 model" to just keep the difficulty of confusion to a minimum. Effectively, the 03/05/06/07 vs the A3 is rather negligible as only the rear sight and stock are the only real changes.
As for the weight and size, again, that W goes to the 03 again as the only time the size and weight are ever helpful is while resting it on something as you're taking a longer distance or moving target shot. Other than that, you've gotta keep in mind that 80% of the time, what are troops doing...marching along while lugging around another 40-50lbs of gear for miles upon miles in the same boots they had for weeks or months and same socks they've had on for 1-3 days. That 10lbs rifle turns to 100lbs feel real real quick!
Look at the front sight then bring the rear sight up. It always worked for me.
Interesting thing is that I have never heard of this RUclips channel before, and I was not looking at 1903 videos. But I did buy a 1903 over this weekend.
Welcome!
Watched this while cleaning my father’s 03-A3!
I will agree with you on that one, the sight is hard to get spot on at distance in low light or camouflage. It's not Henry, trust me; I watch as much as possible and he hits almost everything if the gun is capable of doing the range. Great video on one of my favorite rifles.
That action looks so slick.
I had mentioned wanting to put a scope on my M1a one time, and some guy said it was pointless because the M1a was a 2 MOA gun. First, it's 2 MOA on a good day, lol. Second, this video shows why a scope is a good idea. Imagine someone in camo hiding, and while you could get them with a scope, you would be hard pressed to be able to obtain a hit with irons.
Look into the Marine sights. They had a thicker front blade and a larger sight hood and also the 03 models had a larger aperture hole too.
A USMC front sight protector helps a lot. This sight protector is much larger and is meant to be left on the rifle while shooting. When you can find one they are pricey but I would not be without mine on my 03 A3
I was a Marine scout/sniper in Vietnam. Mostly carried an M-14. Loved this rifle. I bought a Springfield Armory M1A. In boot camp when we shot at the 500 yard target the diameter of the bullseye was 20 inches. When I aimed my M1A at a 20 inch bullseye at 500 yards I noticed that the front sight was wider than the bullseye. Later I bought a 1917 Enfield. The front sight was much narrower than the M-14/M1A. I started wishing that my M1A front sight was as narrow as My M-1917. Then I read that in WW II, armorers were narrowing the front sight on the M-1D sniper rifle. So I found a machinist/gunsmith who made my M1A front sight about half as wide at it was. That gave me a much better sight picture than the original. Made me more accurate at extended ranges. My two cents worth.
the USMC actually found that the M1903A3 front sights to be too narrow and came out with their own thicker front sight for the USMC version of the M1903A3.
The 1903 A3 is what I learn to shoot center fire with and I got use to the thin sights thicker sights seemed to fat .
Ya, So that front hood is great if you are shooting at black circles with white backgrounds and good lighting. From what I have seen in real life (OK the movies) I am amazed that anyone can tell who is on the other side of the line. With enough mud and bad weather those uniforms really don't stand out at all.
Thanks again for bringing another well loved rifle to the range.
There are four main factors that go into practical accuracy. In no particular order. 1. Atmospheric/environmental conditions. 2. Shooter. 3. The mechanical accuracy of the weapon (how accurate it would be in a lab condition with it strapped to a bench). 4. Ammunition (quality/consistency).
Sweet rifle. Interesting knowledge about the front sight size. Thanks for sharing.
I love how the bolt sounds exactly like mine!
Well the Marine Corps had so many problems with the 03 rear leaf that they replaced it. The front sight is very fine and not hooded. It actually caused a lot of cuts and gouges when being used for drill
I’m new to 1903A3. Thanks for posting
I have 2 WW2-era 03A3s; one Remington, and a Smith Corona. Also have my grandpa’s M1 Carbine from the signal corps. Wouldn’t part with them for anything ✌🏻🇺🇸
My uncle has an O3A3 with the scope it was issued with and a sadly sprterized stock, however the person that sporterized it made it beautifully and left the year on the barrel, 1945. Still prefer my arisaka though lol.
Not draging a bright white Background behind you, proved to be a astonishingly effective Camouflage.
Awesome deduction on the magazine switch history. Enjoy your upcoming weekend.