Springfield 1903 mark 1

jdmcconnell · October 31, 2015, 02:40 PM

I have a Springfield 1903 mark 1 that has been sporterized and I want to do some work on it. I have always wanted a 1903 and I also want a 300 win mag. My question is how feasible is it to rechamber an old 1903 and true the action? Thanks.

James K · October 31, 2015, 04:29 PM

I think .300 Win Mag might be on the edge for that rifle. That action is not stiff enough to compare to modern actions for accuracy. IMHO, you would be better off selling the old rifle to someone who wants a piece of history, even though sporterized, and buying a more modern rifle more suitable to accuracy tuning.

Before someone raises the issue, all Mk I Springfields were double heat treated and not "low number"; they were produced before the use of nickel steel.

Jim

Dixie Gunsmithing · October 31, 2015, 06:13 PM

As Jim states, that Mk 1 frame was designed around the .30-06 load of the time, plus is was designed to be as light as possible, and I would also say that a 300 Win Mag would be too hot for it. Back then, Springfield, like several other manufacturers, didn't use Browning's philosophy of designing a gun that would work, then double the specs. If I recall correctly, nickel steel had just came on the market, for use in firearms, when Winchester started the manufacture of the Model 12, in 1912. It wasn't until later, during or after WWI, that high strength alloy steel, such as 4140 and 4150, came onto the scene, from Germany. So both metals were after 1903.

Jim Watson · October 31, 2015, 06:32 PM

The .308 Norma Magnum, not much different from .30-338, was designed for rechambering Springfields. It is short enough for the action and not so long in the case body as to get out past the shoulder of the barrel. It is also chambered with some freebore to let the bullet get a Guffey start.

Ken Waters thought it was OK in 1972 but his rifle was a Remington 30 Express, a much heavier built action. And we are more cautious now.

I'd leave it alone.

James K · October 31, 2015, 09:03 PM

True, the .308 Norma Magnum was designed for converting M1903's and M1917's to a more powerful round. But the OP also indicated a desire not just for more power but for tuning the rifle for accuracy as well; I am reasonably OK with the M1903 as far as strength goes, but wonder about it giving the best accuracy compared with other actions. (The Remington Model 30 was a 1917 Enfield, a lot heavier action.)

Jim

hooligan1 · November 1, 2015, 09:40 AM

I looked at rebarreling my 1903, which is a 1 million serial number rifle that bubba got his hands on, and from what I understand, work id more labor intensive and expensive for custom work and rebarreling because of spot annealing and cone breech, ejector cut,,,,,,, yada yada.....
I chose to make mine a hooligan1 version 30-06( original barrel) scout rifle, by using a no drill and tap scope mount, and stock work, which has included a recoil pin, and Devcon Plastic Steel bedded recoil lug....waiting on scope mount at this point..

T. O'Heir · November 1, 2015, 01:54 PM

Issue is more about changing a rimless rifle to a belted magnum. And the bolt face would need opening up considerably. If you want something different think .30-06AI.
Or, depending on what has already been done to it, think about restoring.
"...the .30-06 load of the time..." Was .30 M1906. 150 grain flat based bullet at 2700 fps and 50,000 PSI. Pretty much the same as .30 M2 used in '03's, '03A3's, etc. Strength of the receiver would not be an issue.
.308 Norma Magnum runs about $50 per 20 for brass and ammo is not easy to come by either.

James K · November 1, 2015, 06:40 PM

"Back in the day" (to coin a phrase), we converted a lot of M1903's and M1917's to .308 Norma Magnum; it was sort of a "fad" thing and gave owners bragging rights over friends who had only the original caliber. The bolt face has to be opened a bit, and the feed rails and follower usually need some work, but it is an easy conversion and gunsmiths considered it a "gravy" job.

The .308 Norma is not at all a bad cartridge, though I don't know if there is any factory ammo any more. It has just a bit less oomph than the .300 Win Mag, but not so anyone would notice, and a deer certainly wouldn't.

Jim

jdmcconnell · November 1, 2015, 10:51 PM

Thanks for all the replies. Sorry it took so long to get back on here. Had a busy weekend. It's all good info and I'm still trying to decide what I'm going to do. I might even just leave it as a 30-06 just can't decide.

October 31, 2015, 02:40 PM	#1
jdmcconnell Member Join Date: April 20, 2009 Location: Ponca city, ok Posts: 15	Springfield 1903 mark 1 I have a Springfield 1903 mark 1 that has been sporterized and I want to do some work on it. I have always wanted a 1903 and I also want a 300 win mag. My question is how feasible is it to rechamber an old 1903 and true the action? Thanks.

November 1, 2015, 09:40 AM	#6
hooligan1 Senior Member Join Date: July 18, 2010 Location: Independence Missouri Posts: 4,586	I looked at rebarreling my 1903, which is a 1 million serial number rifle that bubba got his hands on, and from what I understand, work id more labor intensive and expensive for custom work and rebarreling because of spot annealing and cone breech, ejector cut,,,,,,, yada yada..... I chose to make mine a hooligan1 version 30-06( original barrel) scout rifle, by using a no drill and tap scope mount, and stock work, which has included a recoil pin, and Devcon Plastic Steel bedded recoil lug....waiting on scope mount at this point.. __________________ Keep your Axe sharp and your powder dry.

November 1, 2015, 01:54 PM	#7
T. O'Heir Senior Member Join Date: February 13, 2002 Location: Canada Posts: 12,453	Issue is more about changing a rimless rifle to a belted magnum. And the bolt face would need opening up considerably. If you want something different think .30-06AI. Or, depending on what has already been done to it, think about restoring. "...the .30-06 load of the time..." Was .30 M1906. 150 grain flat based bullet at 2700 fps and 50,000 PSI. Pretty much the same as .30 M2 used in '03's, '03A3's, etc. Strength of the receiver would not be an issue. .308 Norma Magnum runs about $50 per 20 for brass and ammo is not easy to come by either. __________________ Spelling and grammar count!

October 31, 2015, 04:29 PM	#2
James K Member In Memoriam Join Date: March 17, 1999 Posts: 24,383	I think .300 Win Mag might be on the edge for that rifle. That action is not stiff enough to compare to modern actions for accuracy. IMHO, you would be better off selling the old rifle to someone who wants a piece of history, even though sporterized, and buying a more modern rifle more suitable to accuracy tuning. Before someone raises the issue, all Mk I Springfields were double heat treated and not "low number"; they were produced before the use of nickel steel. Jim

October 31, 2015, 06:13 PM	#3
Dixie Gunsmithing Moderator Emeritus Join Date: April 27, 2013 Location: Ohio Posts: 1,923	As Jim states, that Mk 1 frame was designed around the .30-06 load of the time, plus is was designed to be as light as possible, and I would also say that a 300 Win Mag would be too hot for it. Back then, Springfield, like several other manufacturers, didn't use Browning's philosophy of designing a gun that would work, then double the specs. If I recall correctly, nickel steel had just came on the market, for use in firearms, when Winchester started the manufacture of the Model 12, in 1912. It wasn't until later, during or after WWI, that high strength alloy steel, such as 4140 and 4150, came onto the scene, from Germany. So both metals were after 1903.

October 31, 2015, 06:32 PM	#4
Jim Watson Senior Member Join Date: October 25, 2001 Location: Alabama Posts: 18,542	The .308 Norma Magnum, not much different from .30-338, was designed for rechambering Springfields. It is short enough for the action and not so long in the case body as to get out past the shoulder of the barrel. It is also chambered with some freebore to let the bullet get a Guffey start. Ken Waters thought it was OK in 1972 but his rifle was a Remington 30 Express, a much heavier built action. And we are more cautious now. I'd leave it alone.

October 31, 2015, 09:03 PM	#5
James K Member In Memoriam Join Date: March 17, 1999 Posts: 24,383	True, the .308 Norma Magnum was designed for converting M1903's and M1917's to a more powerful round. But the OP also indicated a desire not just for more power but for tuning the rifle for accuracy as well; I am reasonably OK with the M1903 as far as strength goes, but wonder about it giving the best accuracy compared with other actions. (The Remington Model 30 was a 1917 Enfield, a lot heavier action.) Jim

November 1, 2015, 06:40 PM	#8
James K Member In Memoriam Join Date: March 17, 1999 Posts: 24,383	"Back in the day" (to coin a phrase), we converted a lot of M1903's and M1917's to .308 Norma Magnum; it was sort of a "fad" thing and gave owners bragging rights over friends who had only the original caliber. The bolt face has to be opened a bit, and the feed rails and follower usually need some work, but it is an easy conversion and gunsmiths considered it a "gravy" job. The .308 Norma is not at all a bad cartridge, though I don't know if there is any factory ammo any more. It has just a bit less oomph than the .300 Win Mag, but not so anyone would notice, and a deer certainly wouldn't. Jim

November 1, 2015, 10:51 PM	#9
jdmcconnell Member Join Date: April 20, 2009 Location: Ponca city, ok Posts: 15	Thanks for all the replies. Sorry it took so long to get back on here. Had a busy weekend. It's all good info and I'm still trying to decide what I'm going to do. I might even just leave it as a 30-06 just can't decide.