Help Identify this rifle

Claims Assassin · January 1, 2009, 09:26 PM

Just got this out of my dad's safe. He bought it like 10 yrs ago and it hasnt been touched since. I got curious and decided to take it apart. Well I took off the scope and mounts and it says U.S. Springfield Armory, Model 1903 then the serial #. Now this gun shoots .22-250 rounds. What the hell is this? Is it a rebarrel? It has a mag well that is way too big for and .22-250 round that I know of. Also the bolt is stamped with "Mark II" just above the firing pin.Here are some pics.
Thanks for the help.

Jim Watson · January 1, 2009, 09:34 PM

Magazine well and bolt are those of a 1903 Springfield.
Many, many, of those were sporterized to all manner of calibers that had the same case head diameter as .30-06, including .22-250. Folks back then were not concerned about the magazine length and often not concerned with its function. These were target and varmint rifles most often loaded single shot anyhow. My gunsmith goes back to those days and says he seldom bothered to make the magazine work on a Mauser or Springfield caliber conversion, nobody cared. He really preferred the FN Mauser Benchrest action, a single shot to begin with.

Brian Pfleuger · January 1, 2009, 09:34 PM

Here's some info. Are you sure it shoots .22-250?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Springfield_1903

Claims Assassin · January 1, 2009, 09:49 PM

100% its .22-250. Its stamped on the barrel.

taylorce1 · January 2, 2009, 08:59 AM

Yes you have a re-barreled 1903 Springfield sporter as you already know. I'd go shoot it as there isn't any value as a collector any more. Load the magazine up and see if it functions just fine. Does it still have the magazine selector on the left side of the receiver? If it is in the on position it will feed from the magazine, if it is in the off position you can feed the rifle single shot with the magazine loaded.

Claims Assassin · January 2, 2009, 11:32 AM

Yes the on/off selector is still there. Some had put a floor plate in it as well so there is no detachable mag.

taylorce1 · January 2, 2009, 01:16 PM

Quote:

Yes the on/off selector is still there. Some had put a floor plate in it as well so there is no detachable mag.

The 1903 rifle never came with a detachable magazine. It has what is called an internal box magazine. There should be a spring and a follower that attach to your floor plate, these parts along with the internal box make up the magazine. If you look at the rear of the receiver from the top you will see a cut out portion of the rear ring, that is where the clip went to reload your magazine.

What I meant by my comment was that if you load the magazine and switch the selector to off you can work the bolt all you want and never pick up a round from the magazine. You will have to load a round that you want to fire by placing it in front of the bolt and closing the action making it a single shot. When you put the selector back in the on position then it will feed from the magazine. This was a hold over from the days of when the Army concentrated more on quality of fire rather than quantity.

eddyb74 · January 2, 2009, 01:46 PM

I have a couple of 03-A3's, one of which is rechambered for .22-250. My experience with the selector switch is that it will feed from the magazine in either position but in the on position the bolt will not close on an empty magazine. In this position the bolt is allowed to travel rearward enough so that the magazine follower comes up and blocks the bolts from closing. This makes more sense to me, so that excited soldiers, sailors and Marines did not close the bolt on an empty chamber in the heat of battle.

To the OP, they are great guns. Go shoot it and have fun. Mine rechambered in .22-250 is a tack driver, three shots at 300 yds. can be covered with a dime.

Claims Assassin · January 4, 2009, 10:22 PM

Should I get a bull barrel for it? I know it can be tack driver under the right conditions? If so, what type of barrel and twist rate is reccomended?
Thanks.

taylorce1 · January 4, 2009, 10:30 PM

Leave it and shoot it the way it is. It will probably be a tack driver as it is. It will cost you more to rebarrel the rifle than to go buy a heavy barreled rifle in the same caliber.

82ndpara · January 25, 2009, 08:50 AM

Howdy everyone, new guy here,

I've been searching the internet for two weeks trying to find out more about these rifles....

The first one I found at a friends gun shop, and it had been extensively and poorly sporterized, so we figured it was a bubba'd up job. It has a 1903 receiver dated about 1938 and barrel dated 5/30.

Then I came across another one in perfect, seemingly factory issued condition; receiver dated about 1918 and barrel dated 5/37. It's in a M1922 trainer style stock.

The thing that was freaking out everyone that examined the rifles was the fact that they had Springfield Armory, dated, .22 cal barrels, but had large chambers with full size extractor relief cuts.

I consulted with Springfield Armory authorities but it wasn't a readily recognized factory model. We originally thought Hoffer-Thompson variation, but that contradicts barrel markings and dates of both receiver and barrel.

Then one of my friends said, out of no where, "maybe it's rechambered in .22-250". It kind of made sense, so I order some Cerrosafe to do a chamber cast to see what I can find.

Here's my new question: if there are at least three of these (assumedly more) then who did them? DCM? NRA sales section? I can't imagine individual gunsmiths turning out all these seemingly identical rechambered .22 trainers.

What do you all think? Below are some photos of the two I have come across in Western Mass.

Cheers,

DB

kraigwy · January 25, 2009, 11:41 AM

After WWII, '03s, 98s' etc came home by the thousands. Lots of GIs spent a lot of time with guns so everyone and their dog became basement gun smiths (Kind of like todays AR builders). Everyone was converting everything possible into sporting rifles. Some good, some not so good. I highly recommend that anyone that runs across one of these take them to a gunsmith and have them checked out before firing.

I'm not adversed to tinkering with guns, (heaven knows I do). I just think a like of history was destroyed.

I'd like to see these guns that come out of Grandpa's attic, get passed down to the grandkids and great grandkids instead of in a junk gun rack at a sporting goods store. Better yet, it Grandpa is still alive write a bit of history about him and his gun, to also be passed down.

Its no differant now. Todays Junk is tomorrows history.

Jim Watson · January 25, 2009, 04:02 PM

DB:

Your first picture shows the Long Rifle stamp typical of a Springfield 1922 .22 training and target rifle. Used to have one myself and know where it is now in case I want to visit it.
Your second picture shows a bottleneck chamber, which I take to be in the above LR barrel.
Your third picture shows a low number 1903 receiver, which I take to be fitted with the rechambered LR barrel.
Right?

In my opinion, it (they) is not a "rechambered .22 trainer", it is a rechambered .22 trainer barrel on a standard .30-06 action. The 1922 action is distinctive in construction and markings.

In my further opinion, the work was not done by the US Army, NRA, or DCM. If you "can't imagine individual gunsmiths turning out all these seemingly identical..." can you imagine one gunsmith turning out more than one example of a modification that was popular in Western Mass? Do you still have woodchucks in Western Mass? It is shown as being in their normal range. I bet there used to be woodchuck hunters in Western Mass, too, even if it is not policitally correct any more. And .22 centerfires got their start as woodchuck rifles.

Be interesting to see what a chamber cast shows. Might well be a .22-250 (Varminter) to take advantage of the casehead-boltface diameter matchup. Or it might be a .219 Zipper (Improved or not.) A little work on the bolt would take care of the rim but it would likely have been used single shot. The width to height ratio of the extractor cut looks like it might be a smaller head diameter than a .22-250. Who knows? Make that cast and call back.

Bear in mind that you have a .22 centerfire normally shooting .224" bullets chambered in a long rifle barrel meant for .221-.222" bullets. That would not necessarily run the pressure up much if the chamber neck has proper clearance but it IS on a low number action after all.
I don't know if Springfield used the same steel for the 1922 .22 as for .30-06 or if they used the softer steel common in commercial .22s. If the latter, barrel life in a .22 centerfire would be short, as intrepid experimenters found out when using other rimfire barrels for centerfire cartridges.

A fascinating phenomenon, any way you look at it. A relic of the days before the internet would let somebody across the country tell you that you shouldn't do something interesting.

82ndpara · January 26, 2009, 09:39 PM

Jim Watson,

You are correct in your analysis of those three photos. I agree that this weird rifle is probably a rechambered trainer barrel, since the only rifles I could find with 1903 marked receivers were the Hoffer-Thompson rifles, which wouldn't have used that barrel, and were discontinued before the serial number on either of the two receivers, as well.
I have an appointment with the curator of the Springfield Armory and his co-worker who specializes in 1903 variants to see what they think. I'd like to have the chamber castings done on the both of them before that.
...and yes, the converse of my point about the probability of several identical copies being made by different gunsmiths did occur to me. Certainly one gunsmith could have made several copies of a popular configuration, but so could have one engineer in R&D up on "The Hill" at the Armory. My guess is a peculiar set of coincidences involving surplus parts and popular varmint rifle cartridges.
Yes, we still have woodchucks and woodchuck hunters... and yes, everything is politically incorrect now.

I'll see what else I can dig up....

Cheers,

DB

Jim Watson · January 26, 2009, 11:36 PM

Good luck on tracking it back.
I guess anything is possible, considering that Col Whelen and his cronies at Springfield took Grover Wotkyns ideas and worked up the .22 Hornet on government equipment.

January 1, 2009, 09:34 PM	#3
Brian Pfleuger Moderator Emeritus Join Date: June 25, 2008 Location: Austin, CO Posts: 19,578	Here's some info. Are you sure it shoots .22-250? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Springfield_1903 __________________ Nobody plans to screw up their lives... ...they just don't plan not to. -Andy Stanley

January 1, 2009, 09:49 PM	#4
Claims Assassin Junior Member Join Date: December 14, 2008 Posts: 7	100% its .22-250. Its stamped on the barrel. __________________ Sic semper tyrannis But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.

January 2, 2009, 11:32 AM	#6
Claims Assassin Junior Member Join Date: December 14, 2008 Posts: 7	Yes the on/off selector is still there. Some had put a floor plate in it as well so there is no detachable mag. __________________ Sic semper tyrannis But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.

January 4, 2009, 10:22 PM	#9
Claims Assassin Junior Member Join Date: December 14, 2008 Posts: 7	Should I get a bull barrel for it? I know it can be tack driver under the right conditions? If so, what type of barrel and twist rate is reccomended? Thanks. __________________ Sic semper tyrannis But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.

January 25, 2009, 11:41 AM	#12
kraigwy Senior Member Join Date: June 16, 2008 Location: Wyoming Posts: 11,061	After WWII, '03s, 98s' etc came home by the thousands. Lots of GIs spent a lot of time with guns so everyone and their dog became basement gun smiths (Kind of like todays AR builders). Everyone was converting everything possible into sporting rifles. Some good, some not so good. I highly recommend that anyone that runs across one of these take them to a gunsmith and have them checked out before firing. I'm not adversed to tinkering with guns, (heaven knows I do). I just think a like of history was destroyed. I'd like to see these guns that come out of Grandpa's attic, get passed down to the grandkids and great grandkids instead of in a junk gun rack at a sporting goods store. Better yet, it Grandpa is still alive write a bit of history about him and his gun, to also be passed down. Its no differant now. Todays Junk is tomorrows history. __________________ Kraig Stuart CPT USAR Ret USAMU Sniper School Distinguished Rifle Badge 1071

January 1, 2009, 09:34 PM	#2
Jim Watson Senior Member Join Date: October 25, 2001 Location: Alabama Posts: 18,539	Magazine well and bolt are those of a 1903 Springfield. Many, many, of those were sporterized to all manner of calibers that had the same case head diameter as .30-06, including .22-250. Folks back then were not concerned about the magazine length and often not concerned with its function. These were target and varmint rifles most often loaded single shot anyhow. My gunsmith goes back to those days and says he seldom bothered to make the magazine work on a Mauser or Springfield caliber conversion, nobody cared. He really preferred the FN Mauser Benchrest action, a single shot to begin with.

January 2, 2009, 08:59 AM	#5
taylorce1 Senior Member Join Date: November 18, 2005 Location: On the Santa Fe Trail Posts: 8,242	Yes you have a re-barreled 1903 Springfield sporter as you already know. I'd go shoot it as there isn't any value as a collector any more. Load the magazine up and see if it functions just fine. Does it still have the magazine selector on the left side of the receiver? If it is in the on position it will feed from the magazine, if it is in the off position you can feed the rifle single shot with the magazine loaded.

January 2, 2009, 01:46 PM	#8
eddyb74 Senior Member Join Date: November 17, 2008 Location: Pittsburgh Posts: 222	I have a couple of 03-A3's, one of which is rechambered for .22-250. My experience with the selector switch is that it will feed from the magazine in either position but in the on position the bolt will not close on an empty magazine. In this position the bolt is allowed to travel rearward enough so that the magazine follower comes up and blocks the bolts from closing. This makes more sense to me, so that excited soldiers, sailors and Marines did not close the bolt on an empty chamber in the heat of battle. To the OP, they are great guns. Go shoot it and have fun. Mine rechambered in .22-250 is a tack driver, three shots at 300 yds. can be covered with a dime.

January 4, 2009, 10:30 PM	#10
taylorce1 Senior Member Join Date: November 18, 2005 Location: On the Santa Fe Trail Posts: 8,242	Leave it and shoot it the way it is. It will probably be a tack driver as it is. It will cost you more to rebarrel the rifle than to go buy a heavy barreled rifle in the same caliber.

January 25, 2009, 04:02 PM	#13
Jim Watson Senior Member Join Date: October 25, 2001 Location: Alabama Posts: 18,539	DB: Your first picture shows the Long Rifle stamp typical of a Springfield 1922 .22 training and target rifle. Used to have one myself and know where it is now in case I want to visit it. Your second picture shows a bottleneck chamber, which I take to be in the above LR barrel. Your third picture shows a low number 1903 receiver, which I take to be fitted with the rechambered LR barrel. Right? In my opinion, it (they) is not a "rechambered .22 trainer", it is a rechambered .22 trainer barrel on a standard .30-06 action. The 1922 action is distinctive in construction and markings. In my further opinion, the work was not done by the US Army, NRA, or DCM. If you "can't imagine individual gunsmiths turning out all these seemingly identical..." can you imagine one gunsmith turning out more than one example of a modification that was popular in Western Mass? Do you still have woodchucks in Western Mass? It is shown as being in their normal range. I bet there used to be woodchuck hunters in Western Mass, too, even if it is not policitally correct any more. And .22 centerfires got their start as woodchuck rifles. Be interesting to see what a chamber cast shows. Might well be a .22-250 (Varminter) to take advantage of the casehead-boltface diameter matchup. Or it might be a .219 Zipper (Improved or not.) A little work on the bolt would take care of the rim but it would likely have been used single shot. The width to height ratio of the extractor cut looks like it might be a smaller head diameter than a .22-250. Who knows? Make that cast and call back. Bear in mind that you have a .22 centerfire normally shooting .224" bullets chambered in a long rifle barrel meant for .221-.222" bullets. That would not necessarily run the pressure up much if the chamber neck has proper clearance but it IS on a low number action after all. I don't know if Springfield used the same steel for the 1922 .22 as for .30-06 or if they used the softer steel common in commercial .22s. If the latter, barrel life in a .22 centerfire would be short, as intrepid experimenters found out when using other rimfire barrels for centerfire cartridges. A fascinating phenomenon, any way you look at it. A relic of the days before the internet would let somebody across the country tell you that you shouldn't do something interesting.

January 26, 2009, 09:39 PM	#14
82ndpara Junior Member Join Date: January 25, 2009 Posts: 3	Jim Watson, You are correct in your analysis of those three photos. I agree that this weird rifle is probably a rechambered trainer barrel, since the only rifles I could find with 1903 marked receivers were the Hoffer-Thompson rifles, which wouldn't have used that barrel, and were discontinued before the serial number on either of the two receivers, as well. I have an appointment with the curator of the Springfield Armory and his co-worker who specializes in 1903 variants to see what they think. I'd like to have the chamber castings done on the both of them before that. ...and yes, the converse of my point about the probability of several identical copies being made by different gunsmiths did occur to me. Certainly one gunsmith could have made several copies of a popular configuration, but so could have one engineer in R&D up on "The Hill" at the Armory. My guess is a peculiar set of coincidences involving surplus parts and popular varmint rifle cartridges. Yes, we still have woodchucks and woodchuck hunters... and yes, everything is politically incorrect now. I'll see what else I can dig up.... Cheers, DB

January 26, 2009, 11:36 PM	#15
Jim Watson Senior Member Join Date: October 25, 2001 Location: Alabama Posts: 18,539	Good luck on tracking it back. I guess anything is possible, considering that Col Whelen and his cronies at Springfield took Grover Wotkyns ideas and worked up the .22 Hornet on government equipment.