The sad part is that the 1903 A3 sights are head and shoulders better than the regular 1903 sights. I have both and got the A3 mostly for the usable sight.
@@BlokeontheRange It's derived from the Buffington sight used on the 18whatsit Trapdoor Springfield, and what they were thinking was target scores in matches like Creedmoor or Bisley. Given that at the same time the sights on rifles from various parts of Yurp were generally of the execrable "point it in that general direction, we're only one generation up from Napoleonic smooth-bore muskets" variety, nobody much had an inkling of what a decent battle sight might be; the closest you got were multi-leaf express or buckhorn sights found on civilian rifles. You're about to mention the long range sights of similar range markings on the Yurpeen rifles, but the difference is those were for volley (beaten zone) fire whereas the silly 'murricans actually expected their soldiers to *hit* something by using the Buffington sight. [Somehow, this ties into the unreasonable expectations surrounding the Norden bomb sight in WW2, I'm certain of it...] :-D
I recently shot my friend's 1903 and I found it to be a very fun rifle to shoot. I shot it using M2 Ball instead of modern commercial loads and found it to be a far more pleasant rifle than some of the other 30-06 hunting rifles I've used. Very accurate at 100 yards and I never touched the sights. I can agree with the front sight protector though.
Love watching you run a bolt with that Enfield Finger Method! Thanks for posting these. I have a terrible time running stripper clips and it's nice watching other folks run them and seeing you guys make it look easy.
Finally! Was waiting for this one, just because it was glaringly missing from the lineup of tested rifles. Will look forward to seeing a followup when it's bedded in a little.
@@noneyabusiness3253 i have an 03A3 that has the common sight issue for them, it shoots WAY up and to the right, but if i keep the same poa i can shoot about 3 inch groups at 100 yards the group just wont be where i want it.
Honestly not a huge fan of the 03. The later sniper models are cool but as standard rifles go I think the M1917 is a much more functional weapon from the era.
I think the 03 action is better (particularly if you bend the bolt handle backwards like the 17 and can fit the 17 safety system), C-stock from the late 03, sights from the 17.
@@BlokeontheRange Would you consider getting such a Franken-rifle made? It would be quite interesting to see what patents people come up with if told to design "their ideal rifle"
The a3 is much newer. If i had to carry a rifle around i wasnt probably going to need to shoot much, the 03a3 is a much lighter rifle than the m1917. That said, I'd much rather carry an m1 carbine.
I have shot a very fresh WWII 03A3 and a nicely, gently broken in 03A1.... it was much smoother and as more rounds fired that 03A1 it was more plesant to shoot. Not the first time the broken in rifles bested the crisp out of the box version.....exception was Swedish Mauser...they all shot great....
I love my 03a3. In CMP high power ive found it to be my fastest cock on opening bolt action. But mine is a relatively well worn one and is smooth as glass.
Ironically the M1903 probably saw more combat in WW2 than WW1. Almost half of the Infantry/Marines were still armed with them well into 1943. Garands didnt dominate until Late 1943 so M1903s were common in the Solomons, New Guinea, and Mediterranean campaigns.
The Springfield 1903A3 bolt action rifle was made in huge numbers at least three million in the ramp up/during WW2. This rifle saw extensive combat with the US Army in North Africa, Sicily, Italy and even in France. The Marines/Army used it in the Solomons and the Army in New Guinea. This rifle also saw extensive combat service with Free French forces, the Brazilian Expeditionary forces. Ranger troops in the US Army often prefered this 1903A3 bolt action rifle over the M1 Garand for specialized combat operations. Remington had too many contracts and much of the production of the 1903A3 rifle was subcontracted to firms that never had made rifles before like Smith-Corona. Smith-Corona actually improved the mass producability of the 1903A3 rifle by using stamped parts wherever possible, fewer parts, reducing the number of machining operations and simplifying the design. Plus the rear aperature ghost site was a substantial improvement over earlier versions of the Springfield 1903 that had the rear site further up the barrel. Overall, firms like Smith-Corona did an excellent job of making a better mass produceable rifle that was reliable, accurate and easier for soldiers to train on and use in the field. We know for a fact that the 1903A3 rifle was well liked by soldiers of many Allied nations during WW2. It must be remember that the United States ensured numerous submachine guns and BAR's were available for each squad and heavy machine guns in each platoon for automatic fire support. So the slower rate of fire of this bolt action rifle wasn't so much of a handicap during WW2. Besides, bolt action rifles were often easier to employ with rifle grenades. So everything worked together in a system where the weaknesses of one weapons system in the platoon was covered by the versatility and strengths of another weapon. The Springfield 1903 rifle in .30-06 is a cock on open design. I don't think the designers at Springfield or the US Army ever were too concerned about the "mad minute" drill. Most American soldiers are conscripts with little interest in making the Army a career. All the US Army probably wanted was something that could shoot straight with a hard hitting cartridge. I think the "mad minute" thing is a strictly a British Army phenomenon after some of the beatings the British Army took against the Mauser armed Boers during the Boer war in South Africa in the early 1900's. The United States never had much of a professional Army or much of a tradition of keeping a large standing Army during peacetime. The US Army took a "Mauser beating" against the Spanish troops at El Caney and San Juan Hill in the 1898 war in Cuba. The Kragg-Jorgenson rifle proved inadequate against the Spanish Mauser rifle, I think in 7x57mm caliber. My point here is the U.S. military authorities made a large fundamental error in adopting the hard hitting heavy .30-06 cartridge in 7.62x63mm. The Spanish Mauser round of 7x57mm shot well out to 500 yards or beyond with a hard hitting cartridge. The Spanish Mauser cartridge was almost the perfect rifle cartridge similar in performance, muzzle velocity and effective range to the Swedish Mauser in 6.5mm caliber used at the turn of the last century. No one shot an enemy soldier at a thousands yards or a thousand meters with open sights. A man sized target at even three hundred meters is much smaller than the front sight post on these rifles. If such things as shooting an enemy soldier at a thousand yards ever happened they were flukes because I have read of no historical event happening with open sights. Most combat in the First World War was at 200 meters or less. So the Spanish Mauser cartridge would have been more than adequate for such combat ranges. The American .30-06 cartridge kicks like a mule making training soldiers with it more timely and difficult. The long 7.62x63mm cartridges wastes resources when one looks at the fact a less powerful cartridge would have been more than adequate for killing an enemy soldier at 300 meters or less. A history student has to think of such things because a nation mobilizing for war has to produce many BILLIONS of rifle cartridges. My question for you, Mr. Bloke on the Range, is not to ask if the Springfield 1903A3 rifle was designed for the British Army "mad minute" drill but to ask you why the US Army didn't adopt the proven Spanish Mauser cartridge or the excellent Swedish Mauser cartridge for our service rifle back in the early 1900's? As a retired career American soldier and good history student, I have my own thoughts on this subject. I also think the US Army should have never adopted the M-14 rifle but instead adopted the Belgian FN FAL rifle in the intermediate British 7x43mm caliber in the late 1940's/early 1950's. But this is a discussion for another day.
I only have a very brief amount of trigger time behind an M1903 (20 rounds) but the early 1905 dated rifle I shot was pretty slick as it apparently missed out on parkerization. It extracted and ejected casings robustly with satisfyingly little effort. The sights on the other hand were absolutely miserable. The front blade was invisible. I’m guessing the A3 sights are a gigantic improvement. All in all I think these guns are massively over priced for what they are, at least in the U.S collecting market.
@ 00:43 -- The standard front sight protector was just that: a guard to protect the front sight from damage during transport. @ 1:05 -- the USMC 1903 sight hood is a unicorn because the Marines all actually *used* them, and what weren't issued & subsequently lost on the battlefield were bought up by other folks who wanted to actually use them and through normal attrition they got lost long before any of this milsurp collecting nonsense really began. I keep meaning to see what I can do about rolling my own, but like all the rest of my blue sky projects, I have yet to find the spheroidal tuit in order with which to begin... ;-D
Many thanks for the video, I have a Springfield 1903 custom, action is a Springfield dated 1934 , if you look 👀 at my avatar it’s on the left , the only thing is that there no open sights so it’s going to the gun Smith to have open sights fitted probably Lyman and maybe a scout scope base made for it ,atvb steve
One rifle I'd love to see a mad minute on is The Fix by Q LLC. With it eating from SR-25 mags, and only having a 45° bolt throw, I feel like it'd have some impressive results. Might have to do it in the US, though, all things considered.
I've seen that different ammo really affects the extraction. I've shot stuff that takes minimal force to extract, and had stuff that I felt like I was trying to rip the bolt handle off. I've always shot mine outdoors in good light. I've looked down the sights indoors on both it and the Garand, and they are much more difficult to pick up in lower light.
When you polish up, you might also focus on NOT manually removing the stripper clip but focus on just cycling the bolt to remove the clip. I also thought you would be a bit faster. The US did not typically focus much time on the mad minute with the 03 (so I was told by my Marine father), but did shoot RAPID FIRE. I did fire mad minute drills in Marine Infantry training using the M1. Thanks for the videos.
@@BlokeontheRange, aargh! The U.S. market is rather lean on these of late. I greatly regret selling mine years ago in a gift of youthful stupidity. It too was a Smith Corona, but with the standard straight grip stock.
Glad to see I'm not the only one who has issues loading the Springfield with stripper clips. The straight design of the internal magazine results in me normally hooking the tip a round on the front on the receiver. It's a far from bomb proof loading design.Certainly the best of the Cock on Opens, but is it the best Mauser?.......... Rowan
I was reading in a manual for the 1917 from wwi that Us soldiers were “trained” to similar rate of fire standards as those used by the british in their 1914 manual. It’s easy to picture an SMLE making 15 rounds a minute in rapid fire and making good hits on target. I can’t however see that (atleast not having tried it yet) with a 1903 or 1917. Kinda makes me want to try practice 22 with my 1903 and see if it’s possible to get good accuracy.
Bloke on the Range just to name my reference it’s on pages 50-52 of the 1918 “Soldiers Handbook of the Rifle. US Model of 1917” I found my digital copy here. history.army.mil/html/bookshelves/resmat/wwi/historical_resources/default/hr-sec04.html
hi there Bloke! Something that you said in this video, made me think it would be good if you detailed (in a special vid) how primary extraction and cocked on close/open affect the ease and speed of bolt manipulation. How do you like the idea?
Some questions and suggestions. Put some white paint on the front sight. When was the SC made, or how many lands and groves? And try it with the guard.
I'm curious as to why your older Smith Corona has the larger stock screws in the action compared to mine, mine just has the brass pins that got screwed in and cut off. Never really could figure out when they switched too and off of them, or if they're any better. Ever since one of my Mausers started splitting the stock I'm paranoid of any of my Mauser styled actions cracking stocks now.
As small as the aperture is compared to the generously sized SMLE/No4 rifle's aperture, is it still and improvement over the pre-A3 style notch sights? For this sort of range and this sort of rate of fire.
Dangit youtube, I don't subscribe to a channel for it to not show up in my subscription feed! Anger at the platform aside though, even if the action can do better with a little work, that was still pretty solid shooting.
I love everything about the P14/M17 more than the A3 except for the action and stock. Every time I run the M17 it feels like I have to push the thing off my shoulder to get it to close. Not super surprised that the A3 is slower, though. It's a long pull, not the smoothest one ever with LL the parkerization, and like you said the sights are stereotypically American match rather than combat.
'fresh from a rebuild...72 years ago'... that's one to remember! Well, a late war commercial made bolt- these actually were intended to be '2nd echelon', as early M1 carbines were intended, but soon found their way to the front instead. As your commenters said, a 1917 was the one to have in 1918... actually a 5 round version of a SMLE, try to find your self one, you will like it! An earlier '03, would be smoother, much more engineering and time went into them, at the armory and the armourers afterwards, but, for us 4 eyed shooters... the earlier open sights and ladder, I must admit I can't see anything! front, rear or target. Oh? that wasn't the target? Sorry sergeant...
@@BlokeontheRange well.. you sir, would know! You are a far better shot, and 'cycling' than I could ever hope for- being a lefty, so shooting any of these... is embarrassing... When the US couldn't make '03's fast enough, and the Pattern 14 impressed 'most' of those in the gun industry, if not the Tommy? and at the time... there was nothing else to compare it to! So it got the P17 got the handle 'American Enfield'.... old fellows I knew who worked at the armory back then called the '03, 'Mausers' . . if the shoe fits??
Bloke, honestly I thought you did very well. One suggestion though: use your sling with the technique the Marine Corps uses to lock the rifle in your shoulder. You won't have the muzzle flipping all over the target and it will be rock solid, helping you with working the bolt and tightening your group. Just a thought.
See the series intro video where I explain why I didn't do it sling supported. Mostly because it's an effete range-monkey technique that nobody in their right mind is going to do it on the battlefield. Plus the Musketry Regulations 1909 forbids it absolutely. th-cam.com/video/3Io9We3_nV4/w-d-xo.html
I was hoping you do a mad minutes one day on the 1903. Are in America it's a popular collector peace and a lot of guys like to compete in the classic firearms with it. It's never known to be fast. I always hear guys talk about how accurate it is. HRfunk here on TH-cam place 3rd at camp Perry with his James River armory 1903. I've always thought that the perfect 1903 would have M1 garand sights... What's your opinion on that I would love to put M1 garand sights on a 1903. I love aperture sights but not really excited about the siding system on the 1903. The adjustments are very vague. Thanks
The 03A3 rearsight is kinda "meh". M17 sights would be better, the Garand ones are OK but bulky and can be accidentally pushed down unless they're the later ones with the locking screw.
@@BlokeontheRange As far as military sights the M1 garand sights are pretty good quick and easy but definitely not as precise as target sights. What is your favorite classic military sight and what is your favorite target sight? I've seen some really nice swedish sights on the CG 63 I'm thinking of buying a CG 63. The 6.5 x 55 is great for hunting to or even better if I could find a 7.62 conversation. Thanks
@@BlokeontheRange I have also seriously though of buying the M17 the biggest complaint I've heard is the battle site is to far range to be accurate at close range. If I change the front sight to 200 zero . The ladder sight would be way off but I could figure it out I think. Maybe just leave the front sight and use ladder sight all the time ? What do you think? Thanks
You're a .303 Lee Enfield guy, which remains arguably the quickest and finest of bolt action weapons. Beyond familiarity, it holds 2x stripper clips of 5 plus 1 up the spout.
@@BlokeontheRange OK! Thanks! By the way, I have a Swedish Mauser M38 for sale, I am sure you already have one, but if not let me know (it needs a WES, of course). Cheers!
We don't care about headspace on this side of the atlantic unless you're popping primers on the one end, or can't close the bolt on the other. The primary extraction is tight because the bolt and receiver have been parkerised to death so there's too much friction.
@@BlokeontheRange ok no worries, thought it might be something going on other than just corrosion protection, I'm from Australia FYI lol I'll be on my way then.
To be fair, there were some lots of HXP that didn't play nice in 1903s, which led to the CMP not issuing ammo in the vintage matches. Though I think it was leade and not headspace, but malfunctionally similar.
No one in the Australian service rifle community holds "headspace" as the number one cure to all to firearm mechanical ailments either.We have the much larger Pacific Ocean separating us from the source of that belief.
I have a P17 and it is must quicker in my opinion. I think it's the better rifle between the two. Guess we Americans like taking other countries bolt actions!
Yes. I fill the stock apertures on my Springfields, 1917's, Garands, etc. with J-B Weld and drill them to National Match sight dimensions. This sharpens the view of the front sight and certainly helps my old eyes in competitions.
You might try the "Whelen" test with that sometime. I believe it's 6 rounds at 200 yards in 10 seconds. Might be interesting. Of course, that was with open sights. artoftherifle.com/the-townsend-whelen-challenge/2011/11/the-townsend-whelen-challenge.html
Why would anyone willingly subject themselves to that kind of abuse without an officer standing over you screaming that "you'll never make it in MY corps you fucking pansy" or some such bullshit? Just wonderin.
When i bought my first hunting rifle, i specificly avoided 30.06 when 308 works just as well for me with less recoil. I want to be able to shoot 50 rounds from a bench whitout pain.
Anton Grahn i agree with you but a 30-06 and slightly different twist allows you to use heavier pills which is handy if chasing large deer. I also have a few 303s and it’s softer than 308. It’s more poppy than punchy
@@SinginShooter But there is no point. 308 is 100% capable of downing any game sweden has in an ethical way. Its also cheaper. Why switch to a more powerful cartidge that only offers more recoil for no real gain?
The sad part is that the 1903 A3 sights are head and shoulders better than the regular 1903 sights. I have both and got the A3 mostly for the usable sight.
Yup. The original 03 sight is a real "what were you thinking?" job...
@@BlokeontheRange It's derived from the Buffington sight used on the 18whatsit Trapdoor Springfield, and what they were thinking was target scores in matches like Creedmoor or Bisley. Given that at the same time the sights on rifles from various parts of Yurp were generally of the execrable "point it in that general direction, we're only one generation up from Napoleonic smooth-bore muskets" variety, nobody much had an inkling of what a decent battle sight might be; the closest you got were multi-leaf express or buckhorn sights found on civilian rifles. You're about to mention the long range sights of similar range markings on the Yurpeen rifles, but the difference is those were for volley (beaten zone) fire whereas the silly 'murricans actually expected their soldiers to *hit* something by using the Buffington sight. [Somehow, this ties into the unreasonable expectations surrounding the Norden bomb sight in WW2, I'm certain of it...] :-D
I recently shot my friend's 1903 and I found it to be a very fun rifle to shoot. I shot it using M2 Ball instead of modern commercial loads and found it to be a far more pleasant rifle than some of the other 30-06 hunting rifles I've used. Very accurate at 100 yards and I never touched the sights. I can agree with the front sight protector though.
Love watching you run a bolt with that Enfield Finger Method! Thanks for posting these. I have a terrible time running stripper clips and it's nice watching other folks run them and seeing you guys make it look easy.
Target shooters have been known to spend some time working the bolt with lapping compound as the parkerizing tends to slow them down a bit.
Oh, I fully intend to fill it with 1200 grit and work the bolt a few thousand times :)
Finally! Was waiting for this one, just because it was glaringly missing from the lineup of tested rifles. Will look forward to seeing a followup when it's bedded in a little.
I have a sportered 03 and can't believe the groups it shoots. I'll have an unmolested one in my stable one of these days.
Hayseed Homestead what sort of groups are you getting?
@@noneyabusiness3253 i have an 03A3 that has the common sight issue for them, it shoots WAY up and to the right, but if i keep the same poa i can shoot about 3 inch groups at 100 yards the group just wont be where i want it.
Honestly not a huge fan of the 03. The later sniper models are cool but as standard rifles go I think the M1917 is a much more functional weapon from the era.
It's funny. What I like about the 03A3 and dislike about the M1917 are the same parts, and vice-versa. A hybrid of the 2 would be much better!
@@BlokeontheRange What parts would you swap?
I think the 03 action is better (particularly if you bend the bolt handle backwards like the 17 and can fit the 17 safety system), C-stock from the late 03, sights from the 17.
@@BlokeontheRange Would you consider getting such a Franken-rifle made? It would be quite interesting to see what patents people come up with if told to design "their ideal rifle"
The a3 is much newer. If i had to carry a rifle around i wasnt probably going to need to shoot much, the 03a3 is a much lighter rifle than the m1917. That said, I'd much rather carry an m1 carbine.
SC 03A3 are hard to find in the US and you have one with a C stock. Go figure.
I have shot a very fresh WWII 03A3 and a nicely, gently broken in 03A1.... it was much smoother and as more rounds fired that 03A1 it was more plesant to shoot. Not the first time the broken in rifles bested the crisp out of the box version.....exception was Swedish Mauser...they all shot great....
It would be great to see this rifle back in production. Modern metals, forged parts, modern finishes, heavy barrel, and a threaded barrel.
Tony Mirarchi buy a Mauser?
Literally just described the modern production mauser hunting rifles
I love my 03a3. In CMP high power ive found it to be my fastest cock on opening bolt action. But mine is a relatively well worn one and is smooth as glass.
Bit of candle soot on your front sight blade. 👍
Don't do yourself down Bloke; it was an interesting shoot and something that many others would struggle to emulate.
*Crayon Eating Intensifies*
This
You need to do a Carcano and a Mosin episodes; because ... reasons, and for science!
Ironically the M1903 probably saw more combat in WW2 than WW1. Almost half of the Infantry/Marines were still armed with them well into 1943. Garands didnt dominate until Late 1943 so M1903s were common in the Solomons, New Guinea, and Mediterranean campaigns.
Well done Bloke, another enjoyable video. Give Chap a try and let us see what he can do.
See MAS 36 mad minute video ;)
The Springfield 1903A3 bolt action rifle was made in huge numbers at least three million in the ramp up/during WW2. This rifle saw extensive combat with the US Army in North Africa, Sicily, Italy and even in France. The Marines/Army used it in the Solomons and the Army in New Guinea. This rifle also saw extensive combat service with Free French forces, the Brazilian Expeditionary forces. Ranger troops in the US Army often prefered this 1903A3 bolt action rifle over the M1 Garand for specialized combat operations. Remington had too many contracts and much of the production of the 1903A3 rifle was subcontracted to firms that never had made rifles before like Smith-Corona. Smith-Corona actually improved the mass producability of the 1903A3 rifle by using stamped parts wherever possible, fewer parts, reducing the number of machining operations and simplifying the design. Plus the rear aperature ghost site was a substantial improvement over earlier versions of the Springfield 1903 that had the rear site further up the barrel. Overall, firms like Smith-Corona did an excellent job of making a better mass produceable rifle that was reliable, accurate and easier for soldiers to train on and use in the field. We know for a fact that the 1903A3 rifle was well liked by soldiers of many Allied nations during WW2. It must be remember that the United States ensured numerous submachine guns and BAR's were available for each squad and heavy machine guns in each platoon for automatic fire support. So the slower rate of fire of this bolt action rifle wasn't so much of a handicap during WW2. Besides, bolt action rifles were often easier to employ with rifle grenades. So everything worked together in a system where the weaknesses of one weapons system in the platoon was covered by the versatility and strengths of another weapon.
The Springfield 1903 rifle in .30-06 is a cock on open design. I don't think the designers at Springfield or the US Army ever were too concerned about the "mad minute" drill. Most American soldiers are conscripts with little interest in making the Army a career. All the US Army probably wanted was something that could shoot straight with a hard hitting cartridge. I think the "mad minute" thing is a strictly a British Army phenomenon after some of the beatings the British Army took against the Mauser armed Boers during the Boer war in South Africa in the early 1900's. The United States never had much of a professional Army or much of a tradition of keeping a large standing Army during peacetime. The US Army took a "Mauser beating" against the Spanish troops at El Caney and San Juan Hill in the 1898 war in Cuba. The Kragg-Jorgenson rifle proved inadequate against the Spanish Mauser rifle, I think in 7x57mm caliber.
My point here is the U.S. military authorities made a large fundamental error in adopting the hard hitting heavy .30-06 cartridge in 7.62x63mm. The Spanish Mauser round of 7x57mm shot well out to 500 yards or beyond with a hard hitting cartridge. The Spanish Mauser cartridge was almost the perfect rifle cartridge similar in performance, muzzle velocity and effective range to the Swedish Mauser in 6.5mm caliber used at the turn of the last century. No one shot an enemy soldier at a thousands yards or a thousand meters with open sights. A man sized target at even three hundred meters is much smaller than the front sight post on these rifles. If such things as shooting an enemy soldier at a thousand yards ever happened they were flukes because I have read of no historical event happening with open sights. Most combat in the First World War was at 200 meters or less. So the Spanish Mauser cartridge would have been more than adequate for such combat ranges. The American .30-06 cartridge kicks like a mule making training soldiers with it more timely and difficult. The long 7.62x63mm cartridges wastes resources when one looks at the fact a less powerful cartridge would have been more than adequate for killing an enemy soldier at 300 meters or less. A history student has to think of such things because a nation mobilizing for war has to produce many BILLIONS of rifle cartridges.
My question for you, Mr. Bloke on the Range, is not to ask if the Springfield 1903A3 rifle was designed for the British Army "mad minute" drill but to ask you why the US Army didn't adopt the proven Spanish Mauser cartridge or the excellent Swedish Mauser cartridge for our service rifle back in the early 1900's? As a retired career American soldier and good history student, I have my own thoughts on this subject. I also think the US Army should have never adopted the M-14 rifle but instead adopted the Belgian FN FAL rifle in the intermediate British 7x43mm caliber in the late 1940's/early 1950's. But this is a discussion for another day.
I only have a very brief amount of trigger time behind an M1903 (20 rounds) but the early 1905 dated rifle I shot was pretty slick as it apparently missed out on parkerization. It extracted and ejected casings robustly with satisfyingly little effort. The sights on the other hand were absolutely miserable. The front blade was invisible. I’m guessing the A3 sights are a gigantic improvement.
All in all I think these guns are massively over priced for what they are, at least in the U.S collecting market.
@ 00:43 -- The standard front sight protector was just that: a guard to protect the front sight from damage during transport. @ 1:05 -- the USMC 1903 sight hood is a unicorn because the Marines all actually *used* them, and what weren't issued & subsequently lost on the battlefield were bought up by other folks who wanted to actually use them and through normal attrition they got lost long before any of this milsurp collecting nonsense really began. I keep meaning to see what I can do about rolling my own, but like all the rest of my blue sky projects, I have yet to find the spheroidal tuit in order with which to begin... ;-D
That muzzle flash though.
Many thanks for the video, I have a Springfield 1903 custom, action is a Springfield dated 1934 , if you look 👀 at my avatar it’s on the left , the only thing is that there no open sights so it’s going to the gun Smith to have open sights fitted probably Lyman and maybe a scout scope base made for it ,atvb steve
One rifle I'd love to see a mad minute on is The Fix by Q LLC. With it eating from SR-25 mags, and only having a 45° bolt throw, I feel like it'd have some impressive results. Might have to do it in the US, though, all things considered.
I've seen that different ammo really affects the extraction. I've shot stuff that takes minimal force to extract, and had stuff that I felt like I was trying to rip the bolt handle off. I've always shot mine outdoors in good light. I've looked down the sights indoors on both it and the Garand, and they are much more difficult to pick up in lower light.
When you polish up, you might also focus on NOT manually removing the stripper clip but focus on just cycling the bolt to remove the clip. I also thought you would be a bit faster. The US did not typically focus much time on the mad minute with the 03 (so I was told by my Marine father), but did shoot RAPID FIRE. I did fire mad minute drills in Marine Infantry training using the M1. Thanks for the videos.
Blackening the sight was In the manual of arms for that arm
It seems like yours is a little stiff on primary extraction. My Remington A3 is easy and smooth to open. Perhaps yours just needs to be worn in?
I’d give anything to know how that rifle found its way to Switzerland
There's zillions of them here, all post-war refurbs, unfired since. Probably via Interarms or something.
Bloke on the Range is it possible they never left Europe after WW2? I’m sure plenty of them were given as aid.
@@BlokeontheRange, aargh! The U.S. market is rather lean on these of late. I greatly regret selling mine years ago in a gift of youthful stupidity. It too was a Smith Corona, but with the standard straight grip stock.
Love the A3 can be very uncomfortable in the prone position for me anyway ouch! lol,how about a Carcano mad minute perhaps the M38?
You can really see how much effort the Bloke was putting into working that bolt. Quite a lot of travel on it too?
.30-06 is definitely a long boi.
Glad to see I'm not the only one who has issues loading the Springfield with stripper clips. The straight design of the internal magazine results in me normally hooking the tip a round on the front on the receiver. It's a far from bomb proof loading design.Certainly the best of the Cock on Opens, but is it the best Mauser?.......... Rowan
Extraction issues aside that's some pretty fast shooting.
I was reading in a manual for the 1917 from wwi that Us soldiers were “trained” to similar rate of fire standards as those used by the british in their 1914 manual. It’s easy to picture an SMLE making 15 rounds a minute in rapid fire and making good hits on target. I can’t however see that (atleast not having tried it yet) with a 1903 or 1917. Kinda makes me want to try practice 22 with my 1903 and see if it’s possible to get good accuracy.
It should be doable, but it'll be rather more of a rush! Once I've polished that one up perhaps I'll give it a go.
Bloke on the Range just to name my reference it’s on pages 50-52 of the 1918 “Soldiers Handbook of the Rifle. US Model of 1917” I found my digital copy here.
history.army.mil/html/bookshelves/resmat/wwi/historical_resources/default/hr-sec04.html
hi there Bloke! Something that you said in this video, made me think it would be good if you detailed (in a special vid) how primary extraction and cocked on close/open affect the ease and speed of bolt manipulation. How do you like the idea?
Some questions and suggestions. Put some white paint on the front sight. When was the SC made, or how many lands and groves? And try it with the guard.
Why would I want to make my sight less visible on a white background by painting it the same colour?
@@BlokeontheRange it works with the shraud.
I'm curious as to why your older Smith Corona has the larger stock screws in the action compared to mine, mine just has the brass pins that got screwed in and cut off. Never really could figure out when they switched too and off of them, or if they're any better. Ever since one of my Mausers started splitting the stock I'm paranoid of any of my Mauser styled actions cracking stocks now.
It's a postwar complete refurb.
Lovely! Thanks.
Krag rifles is going to be interesting to watch
As small as the aperture is compared to the generously sized SMLE/No4 rifle's aperture, is it still and improvement over the pre-A3 style notch sights? For this sort of range and this sort of rate of fire.
Dangit youtube, I don't subscribe to a channel for it to not show up in my subscription feed!
Anger at the platform aside though, even if the action can do better with a little work, that was still pretty solid shooting.
very cool
that rifle is a whole different animal compared to the swiss straight pulls even the audio in that range is vastly different.
Well done. Considering an smle has a smoother action than the 1903 ( Mauser ) action, you did really well imho.
I love everything about the P14/M17 more than the A3 except for the action and stock. Every time I run the M17 it feels like I have to push the thing off my shoulder to get it to close. Not super surprised that the A3 is slower, though. It's a long pull, not the smoothest one ever with LL the parkerization, and like you said the sights are stereotypically American match rather than combat.
'fresh from a rebuild...72 years ago'... that's one to remember! Well, a late war commercial made bolt- these actually were intended to be '2nd echelon', as early M1 carbines were intended, but soon found their way to the front instead. As your commenters said, a 1917 was the one to have in 1918... actually a 5 round version of a SMLE, try to find your self one, you will like it! An earlier '03, would be smoother, much more engineering and time went into them, at the armory and the armourers afterwards, but, for us 4 eyed shooters... the earlier open sights and ladder, I must admit I can't see anything! front, rear or target. Oh? that wasn't the target? Sorry sergeant...
An M1917 is not in any way a 5 round version of an SMLE. And I have one ;)
@@BlokeontheRange well.. you sir, would know! You are a far better shot, and 'cycling' than I could ever hope for- being a lefty, so shooting any of these... is embarrassing... When the US couldn't make '03's fast enough, and the Pattern 14 impressed 'most' of those in the gun industry, if not the Tommy? and at the time... there was nothing else to compare it to! So it got the P17 got the handle 'American Enfield'.... old fellows I knew who worked at the armory back then called the '03, 'Mausers' . . if the shoe fits??
Up and a little to the right
Bloke, honestly I thought you did very well. One suggestion though: use your sling with the technique the Marine Corps uses to lock the rifle in your shoulder. You won't have the muzzle flipping all over the target and it will be rock solid, helping you with working the bolt and tightening your group. Just a thought.
Not realistic, and he'd have to redo all the other guns.
See the series intro video where I explain why I didn't do it sling supported. Mostly because it's an effete range-monkey technique that nobody in their right mind is going to do it on the battlefield. Plus the Musketry Regulations 1909 forbids it absolutely.
th-cam.com/video/3Io9We3_nV4/w-d-xo.html
Question were there ever left hand versions of the smle rifle ever made?
Would a notch or v rear sight have helped or was the recoil going to render that a moot point?
Notch sights suck compared to apertures. Particularly in low light.
@@BlokeontheRange preach it!
How did your shoulder feel after that?
Do the Arisaka Type 38
I'd be interested in seeing a "Mad Minute" using the Lee-Enfield in 7.62 NATO :)
I was hoping you do a mad minutes one day on the 1903. Are in America it's a popular collector peace and a lot of guys like to compete in the classic firearms with it. It's never known to be fast. I always hear guys talk about how accurate it is. HRfunk here on TH-cam place 3rd at camp Perry with his James River armory 1903. I've always thought that the perfect 1903 would have M1 garand sights... What's your opinion on that I would love to put M1 garand sights on a 1903. I love aperture sights but not really excited about the siding system on the 1903. The adjustments are very vague. Thanks
The 03A3 rearsight is kinda "meh". M17 sights would be better, the Garand ones are OK but bulky and can be accidentally pushed down unless they're the later ones with the locking screw.
@@BlokeontheRange As far as military sights the M1 garand sights are pretty good quick and easy but definitely not as precise as target sights. What is your favorite classic military sight and what is your favorite target sight? I've seen some really nice swedish sights on the CG 63 I'm thinking of buying a CG 63. The 6.5 x 55 is great for hunting to or even better if I could find a 7.62 conversation. Thanks
@@BlokeontheRange I have also seriously though of buying the M17 the biggest complaint I've heard is the battle site is to far range to be accurate at close range. If I change the front sight to 200 zero . The ladder sight would be way off but I could figure it out I think. Maybe just leave the front sight and use ladder sight all the time ? What do you think? Thanks
The clips weren't flying free on bolt close for you except 3rd.
You're a .303 Lee Enfield guy, which remains arguably the quickest and finest of bolt action weapons. Beyond familiarity, it holds 2x stripper clips of 5 plus 1 up the spout.
ok
Looks like you are graciously understating how hard that bolt was to work.
"Fresh off a rebuild 70 years ago" was backhanded benefit of doubt.
Is it worth buying an original? I saw that La Gardere has a couple (for about 1600.-). Thanks!
That one came from Lagardère. They're all postwar rebuilds, or were when I got that one.
@@BlokeontheRange OK! Thanks! By the way, I have a Swedish Mauser M38 for sale, I am sure you already have one, but if not let me know (it needs a WES, of course). Cheers!
Mosin M44 please)
Do you have a spreadsheet with all the data from all the videos available somwehere?
I do, but it's not public, cos it contains as yet unpublished data :)
@@BlokeontheRange Can't you just cut that out and share the rest? :)
crazy, but cool :)
It’s really too bad they never did a 1917 with a windage adjustable rear sight like the 03A3.
Buy a scope in near shop
Hows the headspace on it? Primary extraction looked very tight.
We don't care about headspace on this side of the atlantic unless you're popping primers on the one end, or can't close the bolt on the other. The primary extraction is tight because the bolt and receiver have been parkerised to death so there's too much friction.
@@BlokeontheRange ok no worries, thought it might be something going on other than just corrosion protection, I'm from Australia FYI lol I'll be on my way then.
To be fair, there were some lots of HXP that didn't play nice in 1903s, which led to the CMP not issuing ammo in the vintage matches. Though I think it was leade and not headspace, but malfunctionally similar.
No one in the Australian service rifle community holds "headspace" as the number one cure to all to firearm mechanical ailments either.We have the much larger Pacific Ocean separating us from the source of that belief.
Might just add it was a question...meaning have you checked it?
what are you aiming aaaaat???!!!!!!
I have a P17 and it is must quicker in my opinion. I think it's the better rifle between the two. Guess we Americans like taking other countries bolt actions!
Do a mad minute (or get someone in the USA like Karl from InRange) with an AR15 and AK for comparison
The rear site is too small????
I find it to large for competition.....
Yes ditch the site protector.....
In competition, you're probably slung up and bladed, bringing the eye closer.
@@SinginShooter
Not really, I've gotten used to a national match site and the stock ones just seen so damn big.....
Yes. I fill the stock apertures on my Springfields, 1917's, Garands, etc. with J-B Weld and drill them to National Match sight dimensions. This sharpens the view of the front sight and certainly helps my old eyes in competitions.
You might try the "Whelen" test with that sometime. I believe it's 6 rounds at 200 yards in 10 seconds. Might be interesting. Of course, that was with open sights.
artoftherifle.com/the-townsend-whelen-challenge/2011/11/the-townsend-whelen-challenge.html
Ain't nothing wrong with that rifle, I just shot 200 yard rapid fire in a match last Saturday. 95/1x out of 100 points.
My rifle =/= your rifle... Mine is parkerised to death so sticky and needs attention...
Why would anyone willingly subject themselves to that kind of abuse without an officer standing over you screaming that "you'll never make it in MY corps you fucking pansy" or some such bullshit? Just wonderin.
please update your audio equipment... first timer on your channel and the buzz is killing me... :\
What buzz? Do you mean the sound of the range's ventilation system, which is unavoidable?
@@BlokeontheRange sorry that i dont know as much as you do about being on a gun range bud and recording bud. ggs
Did u shoot that hole into the devider? Dont lie, u did on the first take I bet😜🤣
😉🔫💥💨🎯
I assume you used swedish stripper clips or is it a load of garbage that the original clips are bad?
I used original brass ones. The later parkerised ones are just horrible.
@@BlokeontheRange on a similar note, are you planning to do anything mad minutes with flat sided mauser clips?
Not really... though one of these days I'll get a sticky-out-bolt-handle Mauser 98 rifle and do one with that :)
I'd loan you my Argentine m1909, but I live in the US and I'm not sure how to accomplish that
It would cost far more than simply buying a Turkish one here :)
Love your show but God I hate that blue rubber sex suit lol
When i bought my first hunting rifle, i specificly avoided 30.06 when 308 works just as well for me with less recoil. I want to be able to shoot 50 rounds from a bench whitout pain.
Anton Grahn i agree with you but a 30-06 and slightly different twist allows you to use heavier pills which is handy if chasing large deer.
I also have a few 303s and it’s softer than 308. It’s more poppy than punchy
As FPSRussia would say - don't be beetch. It's just another 100fps.
@@SinginShooter But there is no point. 308 is 100% capable of downing any game sweden has in an ethical way. Its also cheaper. Why switch to a more powerful cartidge that only offers more recoil for no real gain?
In America, everything is 'tiny' ;)
No sabe tirar
God I wish these were reasonably priced in the US. Shits are like 1300 bucks, at that price I’d rather just get an M1