The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The North Corral > Curios and Relics

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old October 19, 2010, 09:45 PM   #1
Wrothgar
Junior member
 
Join Date: January 28, 2009
Location: Colorado
Posts: 778
Anybody tried these remake 1903s?

These ones? Can they shoot modern .30-06? It would be cool to get an original 1903, but I hear they can't shoot modern loads, and the good ones are really expensive. Are these any good?
Wrothgar is offline  
Old October 20, 2010, 11:12 AM   #2
Chris_B
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 9, 2007
Posts: 3,101
Why can't a strong, improved mauser-type bolt action like a 1903 or 1903A3 shoot modern 30-06?
Chris_B is offline  
Old October 20, 2010, 11:16 AM   #3
Mike Irwin
Staff
 
Join Date: April 13, 2000
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 41,374
I think you're confusing the issue of low-number Springfields, manufactured around World War I, with these later firearms built on World War II-era 1903-A3 actions.

I have two 1903-A3s, and both fire "modern" .30-06 just fine.

The fact is that .30-06 ammunition of 1906-1945 operates at the same pressures and specifications as modern (post 1945) ammunition.
__________________
"The gift which I am sending you is called a dog, and is in fact the most precious and valuable possession of mankind" -Theodorus Gaza

Baby Jesus cries when the fat redneck doesn't have military-grade firepower.
Mike Irwin is offline  
Old October 20, 2010, 11:29 AM   #4
Chris_B
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 9, 2007
Posts: 3,101
Mike, I know what you mean about the low number rifles

But the same 30-06 today as then? The powder has changed, has it not?
Chris_B is offline  
Old October 20, 2010, 06:36 PM   #5
BILLDAVE
Junior member
 
Join Date: September 17, 2006
Location: In the Mid-West
Posts: 321
I saw this thread and got so excited I thought it was about Colt 1903 hammerless. Which in the new world of CC it would be a huge hit. But I was wrong. Sorry.
BILLDAVE is offline  
Old October 20, 2010, 06:45 PM   #6
BILLDAVE
Junior member
 
Join Date: September 17, 2006
Location: In the Mid-West
Posts: 321
Thanks for the inspiration. Just started a thread on Colt 1903 being remade.
BILLDAVE is offline  
Old October 20, 2010, 06:49 PM   #7
Slamfire
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 27, 2007
Posts: 5,261
These rifles are built around M1903A3's receivers. These receivers were made from 1942 onwards from 8620 steel, which is a good steel for this application.

The strength of the A3's is totally adequate for modern cartridges.

The single heat treat receivers and double heat treat receivers were all made of plain carbon steels.

I am not so positive on these receivers.

This is an interesting read.

http://www.fulton-armory.com/LNSpringfieldLowRes.pdf
__________________
If I'm not shooting, I'm reloading.
Slamfire is offline  
Old October 20, 2010, 08:41 PM   #8
James K
Member In Memoriam
 
Join Date: March 17, 1999
Posts: 24,383
Powder changed? Maybe, but the SAAMI specs haven't. Ammo makers still stay within the specified pressure limits and pressure curves regardless of the type of powder used. Besides, many of the powders used today were around in WWII; the standard powder for milspec .30-'06 ammo was and is IMR 4895.

Jim
James K is offline  
Old October 20, 2010, 09:06 PM   #9
Chris_B
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 9, 2007
Posts: 3,101
Wait a minute. I know on this very same website I have seen discussions on this subject, at length, with explanations showing a difference. It's not very easy to discard that information based on "nope, it's the same, trust me". Please understand my reply; I am only trying to clarify

I am certainly not casting stones and I know that your goal here is not to mislead. But it's quite difficult to accept that the ammunition is identical based on that previous information plus the fact that several companies make commercial ammunition designed to be fired from the M1 rifle. If the M2 ball is the same as the 30-06 commercial, then that loading is nothing but a gimmick, the adjustable gas plugs for M1 rifles are gimmicks too...this is very hard to believe. My understanding was that the pressure at the chamber of the M1 isn't the problem, it's the pressure at the gas port, even if the chamber pressure is below the specified maximum for M2 ball. I thought that the modern powder burned too slow compared to that made previously. The higher gas port pressures contributed to gas system damage or even cracked receiver heels in some cases- although honestly I've never seen a photo of a heel cracked due to this, all I've ever seen is talk. The point was that while the pressure in the chamber is the same, the pressure at the port isn't, according to that info

I realize that an M1 rifle is not an 03 but my point is that how can the powders be 'the same' if they do in fact burn slower today, and they are 'the same' powder?
Chris_B is offline  
Old October 20, 2010, 09:15 PM   #10
Jim Watson
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 25, 2001
Location: Alabama
Posts: 18,491
Pretty much the same powders as used in WW II are still available, 4895 and Ball C2, but there are powders made now that were not in production then and powders in production then that were not used in military ammunition.

The pressure curve and port pressure matter in an auto like the M1, they don't in a bolt action which will shoot safely as long as the chamber pressure is even close to spec.
Jim Watson is offline  
Old October 20, 2010, 09:24 PM   #11
Chris_B
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 9, 2007
Posts: 3,101
Thanks Jim

I understand completely about it not mattering in the 1903. But I used the M1 as an example to illustrate my bewilderment of it being the 'same powder' even though in another rifle the burn rate is different enough to matter

I respect your input but to my mind I can't categorize it as identical when there's any caveat attached. I agree that as far as chamber pressure goes yes...but if those 'same' military spec powders burned faster in yesteryear I'm not sure how I'll ever be on the same page with you

For the 03 (of the right s/n range) and the 03A3 for example, I appreciate the strong Mauser action and lack of a gas system, but couldn't you agree that if the two rounds were truly the same, then the commercial ammo would be just as viable for the M1 rifle as for the 03A3? I'm not trying to 'win' an argument; I am a US military arms enthusiast; I own an M1 rifle originally made in '44. I would like to be able to know where my supply of ammo is coming from in the near future when the surplus M2 ball dries up; all information helps.
Chris_B is offline  
Old October 20, 2010, 10:51 PM   #12
Wrothgar
Junior member
 
Join Date: January 28, 2009
Location: Colorado
Posts: 778
Yeah, I must have gotten the "low number" stuff mixed up. Good to hear.
Wrothgar is offline  
Old October 21, 2010, 12:23 AM   #13
Mike Irwin
Staff
 
Join Date: April 13, 2000
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 41,374
As Jim notes, it's the peak operating pressure that is the truly important factor for a cartridge.

Working pressure limits on the .30-06 haven't been ratcheted up 30,000 PSI since the end of World War II.

While of course there are many new powders on the market, these powders are loaded so that they will not exceed the working pressure limit.

The issue of the port pressure on the M1 Garand is a rifle-specific limitation, it's not an overall limitation on the cartridge. While a particular powder may not be suitable for use in the M1 Garand because of that rifle's design parameters, as long a working pressure limit is not exceeded that particular cartridge will be fine to fire in any bolt action .30-06.

Those limitations were apparently known early in the M1's life. I read a brief mention years ago that cartridges loaded with IMR 13 (used only during World War I to expedite production) or IMR 15 1/2 (a post World War I Du Pont military powder) gave problems in the M1 Garand because of port pressure issues, but these same cartridges did just fine when used in 1903 or 1917 model rifles.
__________________
"The gift which I am sending you is called a dog, and is in fact the most precious and valuable possession of mankind" -Theodorus Gaza

Baby Jesus cries when the fat redneck doesn't have military-grade firepower.
Mike Irwin is offline  
Old October 21, 2010, 12:33 AM   #14
Powderman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 7, 2001
Location: Washington State
Posts: 2,166
You might want to revisit the AIM Surplus website, and look at the ad. The rifles are rebuilt from original 1903 Remington receivers. They have a newly manufactured 4 groove barrel (the originals were 2 groove), a NICE walnut C-type stock, and a scope mounted.

I would not worry about the receiver strength. Springfield, 1917 Enfield and Mauser rifle actions were sporterized whole sale, and chambered in calibers from rimfires to the big boomers, like .416, .458 and .460. These receivers are plenty strong enough to handle .30-06 loads, from plinkers to heavy hunting loads. Shoot with confidence and have fun!!!
__________________
Hiding in plain sight...
Powderman is offline  
Old October 21, 2010, 11:46 AM   #15
Chris_B
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 9, 2007
Posts: 3,101
Slightly frustrated, Mike

You folks are referring to the fact that in the rifle in question, both are fine. Both have the same pressures in the chamber. The specs back that up.

That’s fine and I agree. I also agree 100% that we are talking about a bolt action’s ammo

But you’re making the point with the sweeping statement "The fact is that .30-06 ammunition of 1906-1945 operates at the same pressures and specifications as modern (post 1945) ammunition" which implies the civvie ammo of today is identical to the M2 ball of yesteryear

Yes, for the rifle in question, civvie 30-06 is a fine and appropriate substitute for M2 ball. But that in and of itself does not mean that therefore civvie 30-06 is identical to M2 ball.

I apologize if I offend but when two things have different measurable qualities, they are not identical even though they may perform identically in some applications. If in even one application there is a difference, the two cannot be identical. Unfortunately I cannot back down from that standpoint.

I am concerned that because of the respected sources this fact is coming from, that this may breed misconception; clarification is my only goal here. I hope you can appreciate my motive. Despite the fact that the intent of this thread is to use the ammo in a bolt action, the perception produced is that 30-06 is M2 ball by another name

If we can agree that a measurable value (port pressure on an M1 rifle and/or powder burn rate overall) is in fact different between the two cartridges, then despite the fact that " .30-06 ammunition of 1906-1945 operates at the same pressures and specifications as modern (post 1945) ammunition", I respectfully submit to you that a difference absolutely exists. It cannot be identical and yet also have a distinct difference; the fact that this ammo is for a bolt action doesn't nullify the diffrence, it simply makes the difference irrelevent for this rifle

If Wrothgar were to buy an M1 rifle tomorrow and follow the "The fact is that .30-06 ammunition of 1906-1945 operates at the same pressures and specifications as modern (post 1945) ammunition" rule, then where does that leave him? In my opinion it leaves him under the impression that 30-06 is 'the same' as M2 Ball because respected and knowledgeable members told him so. The information I beleive to be an addendum to your truthful statements shows that the burn rate is slower, resulting in a higher pressure away from teh chamber, which could have implications despite the ammo having the same chamber pressure and specs

My goal is not win an argument. My goal is to show that yes, a difference does indeed exist, so folks who come to this forum for info on curios and relics can be aware

Last edited by Chris_B; October 21, 2010 at 11:53 AM.
Chris_B is offline  
Old October 21, 2010, 04:52 PM   #16
Hardcase
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 14, 2009
Location: Sunny Southern Idaho
Posts: 1,909
Somebody slap me down if I'm spreading FUD, but I wonder if the OP's question was regarding the rumor that I'd heard that the rifles in question were built on de-milled receivers that had been reactivated. Unless I'm mistaken, that seems like a fair amount of welding on relatively soft metal.

Seriously, though, if I'm wrong, I do want to know about it.
__________________
Well we don't rent pigs and I figure it's better to say it right out front because a man that does like to rent pigs is... he's hard to stop - Gus McCrae
Hardcase is offline  
Old October 21, 2010, 06:00 PM   #17
DAVID NANCARROW
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 5, 2000
Location: Wyoming
Posts: 1,761
Chris B, read the posts a bit more closely. The gentleman states that loads for the Garand were caliber specific. My heartburn is that I went to that site with those purty A4's and they are sold out
DAVID NANCARROW is offline  
Old October 21, 2010, 06:22 PM   #18
Chris_B
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 9, 2007
Posts: 3,101
That's not the point David, although I read the posts before I replied and now I've skimmed them again and found no reference to what you're saying

If you meant that the loads are rifle specific then it merely reinforces my standpoint that civvie 30-06 is not to be confused with 'the same thing as' M2 ball, as the M2 ball is not rifle specific in that regard

Although the statement was not specifically made that this was the case, only that ".30-06 ammunition of 1906-1945 operates at the same pressures and specifications as modern (post 1945) ammunition", as well as the powders being the same, it suggests that 30-06 is M2 ball and vice-versa

regardless of the specific caliber or rifle, if one things needs a caveat to be identical to another, I cannot agree they are the same
Chris_B is offline  
Old October 21, 2010, 07:14 PM   #19
Powderman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 7, 2001
Location: Washington State
Posts: 2,166
Chris, you're comparing apples and oranges.

The answer to your question is quite simply this:

If the rifles in question are redone from original Remington receivers, they are safe to fire with ANY available .30-06 load, as well as any safe recipe from a current reloading manual.

Garands are more specific and more picky about their ammunition specs because they are gas operated.

If you want one of the remade 1903's, then BUY one, and shoot it silly!

Don't overthink it. Go to the range and have fun.
__________________
Hiding in plain sight...
Powderman is offline  
Old October 21, 2010, 08:28 PM   #20
Chris_B
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 9, 2007
Posts: 3,101
I am not even sure how to begin explaining how much you've misunderstood me, Powderman

Respectfully, please read all my comments in this thread, and bear in mind that the question I posed in my first post in this thread is rhetorical- I know that an improved Mauser action can handle it and I have posted that in this thread

My biggest concern now is that since I'm being "proved wrong" by three people, the casual reader will feel that civvie 30-06 and M2 ball are the same thing

Last edited by Chris_B; October 21, 2010 at 08:40 PM.
Chris_B is offline  
Old October 21, 2010, 10:28 PM   #21
DAVID NANCARROW
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 5, 2000
Location: Wyoming
Posts: 1,761
Chris, in your interest of safety and function, you might want to start a thread on proper loads for the Garand. Id be interested in seeing what is posted there, rather than hijacking this thread, which is, after all, about the 03 Springfield
DAVID NANCARROW is offline  
Old October 22, 2010, 08:51 AM   #22
Mike Irwin
Staff
 
Join Date: April 13, 2000
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 41,374
Chris,

You're overanalyzing to the point where you're losing sight of what is truly important in this discussion, and that's the fact that, in a properly manufactured Model 1903-A3 in .30-06, ammunition made and sold today IS AS SAFE TO USE as ammunition manufactured in 1910, 1920, 1930, etc.

Whether it's ADVISABLE to use it is another matter entirely; that can only be answered by the individual with the individual gun.

It's not so much that you're being "proven wrong," it's that you're throwing in items that really are of no practical consideration to the original poster's question of safety.

By doing so, you're confusing the issue in ways that it really doesn't need to be confused. The OP isn't talking about an M1 Garand, he's not talking about an Unobtanium Stealth Mark Naught Niner Squirrel Nut Zipper, he's talking about rifles built on the 1903A3 action.

For all intents and purposes, it really doesn't matter, then, that today's .30-06 ammo uses a different powder that wasn't obtainable during World War II. At no time did any of us either say OR infer that today's ammo is somehow identical to what was available in 1945 or in 1917. You read a clear statement that addressed the original posters question as written and read something into it that came from... well, I don't know where.

If you wish to bring this discussion up regarding the M1 Garand as a hypothetical exercise, I'd suggest doing so in a new thread, but not in this one, because again, it only serves to confuse what in this case is not a confusing issue.
__________________
"The gift which I am sending you is called a dog, and is in fact the most precious and valuable possession of mankind" -Theodorus Gaza

Baby Jesus cries when the fat redneck doesn't have military-grade firepower.
Mike Irwin is offline  
Old October 22, 2010, 11:16 AM   #23
Chris_B
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 9, 2007
Posts: 3,101
Mike, I have politely, calmly, and rationally put forth my standpoint for the purposes of clarification multiple times in this thread

It is not appropriate for you to somehow make fun of me, and I'm surprised at you. Unobtanium Squirrel nut zipper?

Point taken to heart Mike. Have a good one
Chris_B is offline  
Old October 22, 2010, 11:21 AM   #24
Chris_B
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 9, 2007
Posts: 3,101
Quote:
Chris, in your interest of safety and function, you might want to start a thread on proper loads for the Garand. Id be interested in seeing what is posted there, rather than hijacking this thread, which is, after all, about the 03 Springfield
I won't do it. I have just ceased carring if somebody blows the receiver heel off an M1 due to the info in this thread and I won't waste my time on the subject again.

I'm not mad at you (or anyone else) but this has gone from me trying to clarify a true point that seems to suggest something that is not what the person who made the statement probably wants to make, to me being the Bad Guy. If anyone here asks me if 30-06 is the same as M2 ball, I'm going to say "ask the experts, they know more than me"

Again, not mad at you or anyone; just very disappointed that no good deed goes unpunished
Chris_B is offline  
Old October 22, 2010, 11:32 AM   #25
Mike Irwin
Staff
 
Join Date: April 13, 2000
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 41,374
"I have just ceased carring if somebody blows the receiver heel off an M1 due to the info in this thread and I won't waste my time on the subject again."

Drama much?


"If anyone here asks me if 30-06 is the same as M2 ball, I'm going to say "ask the experts, they know more than me"

You know damned well that NO ONE in this thread either said or claimed that.

This is exactly what I said:

"The fact is that .30-06 ammunition of 1906-1945 operates at the same pressures and specifications as modern (post 1945) ammunition."

Unlike what you THINK that says, it does not say that modern ammunition is the same as WW II era M2 ball.

If that is your level of reading comprehension, then I suspect that you should leave it to the experts.


"if somebody blows the receiver heel off an M1 due to the info in this thread..."

You know, I have been into guns for over 35 years now, and this is the FIRST time that I've ever heard the claim that someone could blow the heel off an M1 using a powder suitable for the .30-06 cartridge.

I have, however, heard that some of the slower powders, which CAN be used in the .30-06, but aren't exactly suitable for it, can cause higher port pressures in an M1 and lead to bending of the op rod.

I suppose, however, if one were to reload a .30-06 cartridge with one of the very fast pistol powders that one could blow the heel off an M1, but that would be by using a powder that is totally UNSUITABLE for the .30-06, and which is NOT, in any way, shape, or form, available as commercially loaded ammunition.

That's all well and fine, but once again this is not a thread about the M1 Garand, it's about bolt action rifles built on 1903-A3 actions.

Tell you what. How about we approach it this way.

Find us some modern .30-06 ammunition from one of the major manufacturer's that is not suitable for use in the M1 Garand.

But once again, let's do this in a separate thread that is about the M1 Garand, not about the 1903-A3 bolt action.
__________________
"The gift which I am sending you is called a dog, and is in fact the most precious and valuable possession of mankind" -Theodorus Gaza

Baby Jesus cries when the fat redneck doesn't have military-grade firepower.
Mike Irwin is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:08 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2021 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Page generated in 0.09432 seconds with 8 queries