M1903-A4

[highpower3006]

I recently completed a restoration on a sporterized 'A4 that I picked up from a pawn shop a couple of months ago. Normally I wouldn't have attempted such a resto as I know from experience they can get very expensive and on a garden variety '0-A3 it certainly wouldn't have been economically feasible. But, an honest to God 'A4 in my mind is a different animal.

I had known about this particular rifle for a few months now, but the pawn shop owner hadn't wanted to sell it until a few days earlier. What finally drove me over the edge (appropriate wording eh?) was that my son had called me about a NOS WWII replacement C stock he had picked up for a song at a yard sale. I badgered him into selling it to me and shortly after he and I worked out a deal on it, I went to the pawn shop and made a deal to buy the 'A4.

What I started with:



And so it began. I had some of the bits in my collection of junk I have accumulated over the years, but I still needed things like a correct bolt, scope/rings, handguard, etc.. The original barrel had been cut back to remove the front sight index grooves and finding a correctly dated barrel was one of the harder items to locate, but I was finally able to source one.

Fortunately, the Redfield scope base that came on the rifle is the original one, but I did have to buy a set of correct WWII 3/4' Redfield scope rings. All of the rest of the metal parts like the buttplate, bands, bayonet lug, etc., are NOS as is the handguard. I sure as heck am not going to pay the ridiculous money that is being asked for a real M73B1 scope, so until I can find a decent condition Weaver 330C, I will make do with a regular old 330.

I sent the action and barrel off to Warpath Vintage to have the new barrel screwed on and have the receiver and a couple of other bits refinished.

As always on these sort of restorations, the devil is in the details and the question becomes just how far down the rabbit hole do you want to go as far as originality goes? I know that it will never be an original rifle again and I am okay with that. I am just happy to have it in the first place and am also happy to have been given the opportunity to bring this one back to it's original look. The sporter that it had been turned into was nicely done, but I cared less than nothing for it as a hunting rifle.

Currently, besides the scope, I will need to find a more correct NOS (or as close to that as I can get) small bow trigger guard instead of the large bow that is currently on it. I have a nice small bow guard, but it is Parkerized and since everything else on the rifle is the original factory Du-lite blue, I will need to get one that hasn't been refinished. the sling that is on it is a post war example, but I have a correct WWII web sling on the way.

[44 AMP]

The work looks well done.

While the gun has been restored to a military appearance, personally I wouldn't consider it a restoration, as much as a "re-creation".

And, there's nothing wrong with that, if that's what you want to do with your rifle.

I've had lots of guns that were not the original historical / GI items but looked as close as I could get them to the "real" thing, within my limits of budget and legality. I've had semi auto only variants of SMGs and several other select fire arms, for example.

I know that it will never be an original rifle again and I am okay with that. I am just happy to have it in the first place and am also happy to have been given the opportunity to bring this one back to it's original look. The sporter that it had been turned into was nicely done, but I cared less than nothing for it as a hunting rifle.

I understand your attitude completely, and applaud you honesty and your awareness, as I have a very similar attitude in the opposite direction.

Over the years I have turned a number of milsurp rifles into decent to fine sporting rifles, and owned many more that someone else sporterized.

Today there are way too many vocal people (and particularly on the net) who criticize sporterized milsurps as "destroying valuable pieces of history". Were I of the same small mind, I would criticize for "wrecking the fine work someone put into the sporter". I'm not, and I don't, because I think the important thing is to have the rifle, look and be as close to what YOU want, as you can get.

Nice work.

[HiBC]

Well said 44AMP. AIM Surplus (some time ago) was selling 1903A3 receivers taken from drill rifles.
I made a 1903A4 forgery using one. I like it! No,its not an original. I don't represent it as one.

A fair number of 1903's and 1903A3s were sold through the NRA/DCM program.
Many of those ended up minimally altered to sporters on the pattern of "The Springfield Sporter.
And,many more were fully sporterized via varyng degrees of skill and excellence.

In large part,we have a "Local Gunsmith Industry" with roots in converting old single shots and milsurps into sporters.
The same can be said of 1911 pistols.

Gun Digest used to publish beautiful pic of guns reworked from milsurps.

That was then. If you look at Hot Rodding, Model T's.Model A's, 34 Fords,Willys coupes, 55 chevies,mustangs and camaros... Were altered into Hot Rods.

Whether its barrels of Krags,Mausers,Springfields etc...for pocket money at the hardware store or "another Mustang or Camaro" they were plentiful,cheap, taken for granted and there was a ton of accessories and support for the shade tree gunsmith or racer.

And now? I get the pitter-patters over a patinaed 1963 Ford Falcon 6 cylinder automatic. Not to hot rod,just to drive.

We pay way too much for an old 30-30 "just because" and patina is the preferred finish.

IMO, what you did to that Springfield is an honorable thing and it looks like you did a fine job. Enjoy it!

[Screwball]

Very nice! Most people would look at it and not notice it was an original A4 receiver…

I got a Greek M1903 a few years back, and had it redone by DGR. Dean, who I will show some respect as he passed, charged me A LOT… then had the audacity to send it back saying the rear sight windage adjustment was broken upon receipt. The elevation slider was originally broken, so I replaced all the parts and confirmed function on everything prior to sending it. I know people speak highly of his Garand work… but while the gun came out looking good, there was no excuse to handle it like that. Even if it were broken, reach out and I would have sent him whatever parts were needed for it to be done 100%.

So, I was still a little pissed over the situation… then found out about the USMC sniper setup using the Unertl 8x scope. Got the Hi-Lux reproduction scope and had it installed… very happy with the final product.



Also have a PU sniper and a Carcano that I picked up in trade from a guy who made it identical to Oswald’s (scope is a different generation, which the eyepiece is slightly different). I want to get an A4… not a real one but reproduction. I want to shoot it more than I’d like to do with an original A4, so reproduction is best for me. Used to be everywhere, but harder to find.

[Doug Lee]

What is the difference between an A3 receiver and an A4 receiver?
Doug
*

[Jim Watson]

The A4 has the manufacturer and serial number offset so they show beside the scope base. It still says "Model 03-A3" though. I googled a picture of one overstamped with a 4 which was thought to be an armorer's work.

Also, the bolt handle is contoured to clear the scope and the stock is notched to clear it.

[Doug Lee]

Ok, thanks for that response!
Doug
*

[highpower3006]

While the gun has been restored to a military appearance, personally I wouldn't consider it a restoration, as much as a "re-creation".

I respectfully disagree.

To me, a re-creation would have been if I started with a standard '03-A3 and created a faux A4 out of it. Or, to use a car analogy, the difference would be like restoring a '32 ford back to original after it had been hot-rodded in the 50's vs building one with a Brookfield '32 body, a repop 32 frame and using an 8BA engine.

In the case of the rifle I started with, the original rifle was a real A4 (note the offset nomenclature on the receiver), that I restored it back to it's original specifications using nearly all actual WWII GI parts with the notable exception of the scope. I freely admit that it is not "correct" for an actual A4 sniper rifle, but it is a real Weaver scope, not a repro, that I believe to be a pre war item. If it's not pre war, it really doesn't matter all that much to me as it is a placeholder until I find a more correct 330C model scope.


c

[44 AMP]

Since you started with an A4 then, perhaps "rebuilt" is a more appropriate term.

You replaced the barrel, the stock, the bolt, and the small metal, right?? Period correct replacement parts are still replacement parts.

Its a small matter, just a personal definition, you look at it your way, I look at it mine, in this case, no harm, no foul.

[Jim Watson]

There is a link to a 1937 American Rifleman on THR.
The classifieds would make a collector cry. Not the Depression prices, but things like the Sharps Borchardt "suitable for .219 Zipper." The Winchester Scheutzen now in .22-3000.
A feature article on having a Winchester Model 54 bolt action.30-30 converted to .30-40 Krag.

[44 AMP]

I don't have a lot of empathy for collector tears about many things. Particularly those collectors who come along a few years or a few generations after an item is out of production, and whine about what people did with, and to them when they were still in production, particularly items that were common and nearly as cheap as dirt.

And especially when what was done was not a stupid thing, but a degree of improvement in the eyes of the owner. I also don't hold much for those who have a modified "collectible" arm today and expect collector value from it.

Like someone who has a wartime p.38 that got nickeled back in the 50s expecting it to be worth as much on today's collector driven market as one in good original finish....

This is in no way what the OP has done. He's built a nicely done variant of the 1903 Springfield to as close to original as possible/practical at this time. he's not trying to pass it off as anything but that. We can disagree on just what is the best word to describe it, but there is no disagreement that it is quality work and looks right.

[Jim Watson]

No, what I was thinking of was the possibility of converting one of those old single shot varmint rifles back into a period caliber; BPCR is popular enough to support it.

And consider the quality of the work; we could appreciate a .25 Neidner Roberts on a Spanish Mauser but feel like the sweatshop chop jobs I used to see stacked like cordwood were a loss to the field.

[hooligan1]

Highpower3006, is that Bishop stock just laying around collecting dust? If so Im interested.. Just send me a pm and we can make a deal maybe..

[jonnyc]

As we say for Mosin-Nagant PUs that were returned to grunt-rifle standard at some point...it has been "Re-Snipered".

[4V50 Gary]

nice work

[highpower3006]

hooligan1: I have no idea who made that sporter stock, but it is a nice one. I tried to PM you, but I got a message that you weren't accepting any DM's. If you are interested in it contact me via PM and lets make a deal.

[hooligan1]

Highpower, my email is: [email protected].
Feel free to message me there, Im interested in that stock.

[highpower3006]

hooligan, your email address doesn't work and your profile still won't let me send you a PM

[hooligan1]

Its those periods..
[email protected]

[radom]

Very nice job there!! and that is a A-4. good hint is it had a 01 stock on it to start with.