Kinda cool too, is all the other articles that link leads you to.
-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
How were '03 and Garand barrels rifled?
- Thread starter Forgetful Coyote
- Start date
Absolutely, lot of cool stuff on sportsmanlegacy.
Do you know if the Browning Safari used a Mauser action or M70?
Also, how come its so frowned on to loosely single load rounds in Mausers, yet 1917's/1903's have magazine cutoffs and its all fine and dandy with those?? Are the extractors made of different steel to allow for such?
@pmclaine - whats your opinion Lyman Super Target Spot vs Unertls?
Do you know if the Browning Safari used a Mauser action or M70?
Also, how come its so frowned on to loosely single load rounds in Mausers, yet 1917's/1903's have magazine cutoffs and its all fine and dandy with those?? Are the extractors made of different steel to allow for such?
@pmclaine - whats your opinion Lyman Super Target Spot vs Unertls?
I am only familiar with Unertl and my choice is Unertl on purely aesthetic reasons. Just a cleaner design in my opinion but I expect Lyman performs just as well.
Regards Mauser style extractors.....
When single loading my 03 I still feed from the magazine. I push the round in to the mag and let the case head get behind the extractor.
Even with the cutoff engaged you can load rounds into the mag. The cutoff only prevents the bolt from getting pulled far enough back to pick up other rounds in the mag. The only one that will feed is the single one you push in ahead of the bolt on top of the others.
Same advice to not feed with the extractor is given regards real 1911s. I don't think you will destroy anything doing it I just wouldn't make it a common practice when its less stressful to do it right.
The barrels used in the USN 7,62 NATO Garands were all broach rifled with the same 1:12 twist used in M14 service barrels. All were air gauged for uniformity and those with groove diameters .3079" or smaller were set aside for match grade rebuilt Garands. Tightest ones gauged .3077" which evidenced the broach used in those barrels was at the end of its life. New broaches produced groove diameters in the. 3084" to .3085" range.
Finished match grade rifles were accuracy tested clamped in an machine rest with one of two very accurate lots of M118 match ammo. Three 8-shot groups at 300 yards had to average under 3 inches for the rifle to be graded Mod 1 for USN team member use. Under 5 inch but over 3 inch ones were graded Mod 2 for issue local level matches.
Rebulleting M118 ammo with Sierra 168 or 180 HPMK's tested 2 inches or better at 300 in the Mod 1 rifles. 44 grains of IMR4320 under Sierra 190 HPMK's or Lapua 185 FMJRB's in new primed M118 cases tested under 5 inches at 600 yards with machine rested rifles.
National Match lots of M118 tested 11 to 12 inches at 600 in USN team rifles. About the same as Lake City arsenal got using a barreled action in a Mann rest.
Finished match grade rifles were accuracy tested clamped in an machine rest with one of two very accurate lots of M118 match ammo. Three 8-shot groups at 300 yards had to average under 3 inches for the rifle to be graded Mod 1 for USN team member use. Under 5 inch but over 3 inch ones were graded Mod 2 for issue local level matches.
Rebulleting M118 ammo with Sierra 168 or 180 HPMK's tested 2 inches or better at 300 in the Mod 1 rifles. 44 grains of IMR4320 under Sierra 190 HPMK's or Lapua 185 FMJRB's in new primed M118 cases tested under 5 inches at 600 yards with machine rested rifles.
National Match lots of M118 tested 11 to 12 inches at 600 in USN team rifles. About the same as Lake City arsenal got using a barreled action in a Mann rest.
Last edited:
Saw some history channel show the other day expounding on early American "rifles" and why they were such an improvement over smoothebores...
They had a video of an ancient rifling machine and it focused on the "watch like" ratchet gear that "timed" the cutter location so as the tool lined up in the proper location to make a groove.
If there was an hour long video of it Id probably stare at it just doing its slow and precise work....mesmerized.
They had a video of an ancient rifling machine and it focused on the "watch like" ratchet gear that "timed" the cutter location so as the tool lined up in the proper location to make a groove.
If there was an hour long video of it Id probably stare at it just doing its slow and precise work....mesmerized.
Ive heard the later 60's Springfield Armory barrels were the best original Garand barrels by far.. what was it that was different about em? Just stricter quality control? @Frank Green @pmclaine
Also @cplnorton or anyone else who might know, why did most all military rifles use full length stocks? Did they feel they were needed for strength? Or necessary for bayonet use?
Last edited:
I'd go with that. Along with the fact they were still cut rifled barrels. Much better in comparison to the now hammer forged barrels Remington, Winchester, and everyone else was putting out at that time.
I'm going to say your partly onto something. The biggest thing I'm going to say is the match barrels where held to a better finish/better spec. NM M14 barrels according to Gov't spec has to have a bore finish of 32 micro finish if I remember correctly. Even that is rough in my book but compared to war time production it's night and day different.
So that's the other part of it. The later barrels where not being produced in a wartime situation. They where not pressed to get X amount done in X amount of time so more attention to detail was paid.
Still to this day....there is an accuracy spec/requirment for a standard grade service rifle and ball ammo. I want to say it's 6moa. Don't quote me on that. Anyways during WW2 and even back in WW1 for that fact I know like with the 303 Enfields they where single point cut rifling the barrels. Taking out .001" per pass. Where we are only taking out approx. .0001" per pass. So it takes us basically 200 passes to rifle a 5 groove barrel in 30cal. Grooves are .004" deep. On a 30cal barrel taking out .001" per pass your getting that 5 groove barrel done in 20 passes! It was about getting a rifle in a soldiers hands ASAP and in a battle field condition with ball ammo all it had to do for the most part was to be able to hit a bad guy out to about 300 yards. Which is the normal effective combat range with a iron sight rifle and a soldier under battle field conditions. I forget when they finally figured that out. Anyways the rifle didn't need to hold 1moa etc....
That all being said...when I had my Vickers water cooled machinegun (about 20 years ago) I found brand new in the wrap 303 barrels. Dated 12/45. I bouth three of them. For $30 a piece I should've bought a 100! I still have one. The blued finish would put most factory finishes to shame now a days. Anyways being a barrel guy...I had to look down the bores. The bore finish was actually pretty nice. So I decided to cast a lap and finish lap the barrel to see how it would turn out. After finish lapping the finish of the bore was nicer then most of the factory barrels that are finished now a days as well. I probably cleaned up 95% of the bore compared to one of our finished barrels. I was pretty impressed with how it looked. Post WW2 some of the contracts where reduced but it kept suppliers alive to help transition back to doing work for civilian stuff and or help the company transition they're plants to the new technology that came out of WW2 at the end. Jet aircraft, guns etc....
Just my .02.
Later, Frank
Last edited:
Sorry if the barrel is a little dirty/dusty in the pic's but this is the 303 Vickers barrel that is dated 12/45 that I spoke about in the previous reply. Wish they made stuff like this now a days.
For $30 I couldn't make a barrel like this with that one piece breech end/block and lugs on it.
For $30 I couldn't make a barrel like this with that one piece breech end/block and lugs on it.
Attachments
Its a damn shame the industry got away from cut rifling. At the same time I understand it, but still it'd be nice if stuff like that was still standard issue. Ultimately tho it just aint needed, and as you said getting rifles in soldiers' hands is most important, and CHF is so fast while also producing a service rifle barrel thats capable of minute of man to ~300yd and possibly providing some barrel life benefits. I believe you're right also in that 6 MOA is what we currently hold our service rifles to. And I cant imagine basically every M16/M4 doesn't pass that with flying colors, even non-free floated with FMJ.
Just curious Mr @Frank Green , on Krieger's facebook they did a post about a worked over custom 1917 action that Mr Krieger did and donated to the custom gunmaker's guild, it said one of the things he did was "draw down the hardness to make the action less brittle", how would one accomplish that exactly?
I know this is an older post from page 1 but I just read this today.
Ian McCollum of Forgotten Weapons has done some stuff on the Johnson lmg.
Israeli derivitative
His opinion on shooting one. First question.
Also from the first page talking about gun museums he is amazing. Has done videos from all over. He recently updated his playlists. 147 of them now.
Yea Ive seen all the Forgotten Weapons and InRange videos at least 2x maybe 3x now LOL..
I think what should be added is tempering is what was most likely done. It’s a heat treating process to draw the steel down per say. This will take any brittleness out of the material.
Years ago I had a 1915ish DWM 98 action. In some cases these where known to be soft. So I sent it to a specialty shop (think it was in MN) and they went and reheat treated the action. Caliber done on the rifle is 7x57AI. The rifle/action now has several hundred rounds on it with no issues.
I’ve had a question I been meaning to ask for a while.. as I understand it, Germany wanted to use the G43 as a DMR/SASS, but the rifle had too much trouble retaining zero just like the SVT40 did..? Was the FG42 any better accuracy-wise than the G43? I realize the FG was specifically a paratrooper rifle while the G43 was more widely issued.. but I can’t help but wonder if the FG may’ve been better suited in a DMR role and if the Germans ever tested it for such? @ScharfshutzeK98 @zfk55sr or anyone who might know.. I’ve seen plenty scoped FG42’s, how did they perform vs scoped G43’s?
Ive always wanted a FG42 in 7x57 or .308, the guys at InRange/Forgotten Weapons have ran their FG42 in 2-gun matches and did surprisingly well.
PS: they're much better action match shooters than precision, and are more in their element in these vids.
Ive always wanted a FG42 in 7x57 or .308, the guys at InRange/Forgotten Weapons have ran their FG42 in 2-gun matches and did surprisingly well.
PS: they're much better action match shooters than precision, and are more in their element in these vids.
Last edited:
Never handled a FG42. I did rebuild a G/K43 from parts and rebuilt it in 308win with a brand new barrel that I made at the shop. Got a repo mount and a ZF4 scope on it. Put an aftermarket adjustable gas system on it. Bedded the action into an original stock. The stock wasn’t mint but it was a nice stock. Mostly to prevent the stock from cracking and to help accuracy. The gun shot what I will call good. I wouldn’t say it was a 1moa but more around 2moa in my set up with match ammo. The problem that I’ll say with the both of these rifles and in similar guns is the gas piston/etc...are moving parts vs the conventional AR15 gas systems. This causes accuracy issues. From the moving parts of the piston/spring op rod assy which causes harmonic issues to carbon build up which can cause cycling issues/timing gas port timing like in the M14/M1A type guns. I feel it’s just hard to keep in tune.
The zf4 scope even a good one....it’s marginal at best in terms of using it for any accuracy type work. I’d say it would give the average infantry man a better sighting platform then open sights for the time period but not much better. I have the book the German sniper by Senich I believe it is. There is a chapter where I think he interviews 3 different German snipers. One or two of them did use and or shoot G43 type guns. They all said they’d rather use the K98 from precision point of view and the range and accuracy and optics where night and day better (WW2 time frame keep in mind) than the G43 had.
I ran medium powered loads thru it (my receiver was stamped K43). Didn’t run any box ammo. A lot of the steel metallurgy in the late war German guns and I know this really applies to the G43 series weapons is questionable. Seen to many broken bolt carriers and bolts etc...on these weapons. I wanted to shoot it and not beat it up and or have it come a part on me. I also picked up an newer made piston/op rod assy when I did the build. So the rod almost touched or touched the bolt carrier. From what I understand the closer the rod to the bolt carrier the less of a hammer effect on the bolt carrier which is another cause for broken bolt carriers.
Other things working against these guns is that there is really no way to free float the barrel. They would probably be better if you could fully bed the barrel or put some sort of preset barrel tension on the barrel like when you build a M14 when properly set up as a NM gun.
The zf4 scope even a good one....it’s marginal at best in terms of using it for any accuracy type work. I’d say it would give the average infantry man a better sighting platform then open sights for the time period but not much better. I have the book the German sniper by Senich I believe it is. There is a chapter where I think he interviews 3 different German snipers. One or two of them did use and or shoot G43 type guns. They all said they’d rather use the K98 from precision point of view and the range and accuracy and optics where night and day better (WW2 time frame keep in mind) than the G43 had.
I ran medium powered loads thru it (my receiver was stamped K43). Didn’t run any box ammo. A lot of the steel metallurgy in the late war German guns and I know this really applies to the G43 series weapons is questionable. Seen to many broken bolt carriers and bolts etc...on these weapons. I wanted to shoot it and not beat it up and or have it come a part on me. I also picked up an newer made piston/op rod assy when I did the build. So the rod almost touched or touched the bolt carrier. From what I understand the closer the rod to the bolt carrier the less of a hammer effect on the bolt carrier which is another cause for broken bolt carriers.
Other things working against these guns is that there is really no way to free float the barrel. They would probably be better if you could fully bed the barrel or put some sort of preset barrel tension on the barrel like when you build a M14 when properly set up as a NM gun.
Last edited:
@Frank Green I dont remember ever seeing your take on this topic before, I know Krieger says no difference, at least in barrel life, As far as chrome moly vs stainless. Not sure how much it really matters on a barrel but I know chrome moly has quite a bit more tensile strength. Also, theres gotta be a reason the military specifies chrome moly for full auto and carbines no? Besides them being chrome lined.. I would think the chrome moly would handle high temps better than SS as well as low temps..?
Also do you know what type steel the Swiss used on the K31? Ive read its insanely hard relatively speaking, how did they rifle something like that without breaking tooling all the time? I could be wrong but Im pretty sure CHF didnt exist in Switzerland while the K31 was being made..
Meant to ask this earlier too, do you think theres any advantage or disadvantage one way or the other with actions where the front action screw, screws into the recoil lug? And with actions like that, do they consequently need some bedding in front of the recoil lug?
Also do you know what type steel the Swiss used on the K31? Ive read its insanely hard relatively speaking, how did they rifle something like that without breaking tooling all the time? I could be wrong but Im pretty sure CHF didnt exist in Switzerland while the K31 was being made..
Meant to ask this earlier too, do you think theres any advantage or disadvantage one way or the other with actions where the front action screw, screws into the recoil lug? And with actions like that, do they consequently need some bedding in front of the recoil lug?
Last edited:
My pet theory - and its just a theory - is that that the vast majority of 1940's M1 barrels, and probably a lot of the early 1950's era barrels were shot with corrosive primered M2 ball ammo and some level of micro-pitting/corrosion occured in the bores. The US military began switching over to non-corrosive 30-06 ammo around 1953, I think. The massive supply of corrosive M2 ball ammo probably took a while to be used up during the 1950s.
So, by the early to mid-1960s most of the ammo used by the US military on re-built Garands was non-corrosive at that point, so part of my theory is that a 1960's M1 barrels might have nicer looking bores relative to a typical 194X or 195X era M1 barrel - by virtue of it not being subjected a bunch of corrosive 30-06 M2 ammo while in service. Hence, the possibly better condition of the bore of a 1960's era barrel might be related to their reputation for slightly better accuracy relative to the earlier M1 barrels from the 1940s-50s. Same theory could apply to M2 ball ammo as well, it might gotten a little better over time.
I have not read of any changes in the specifications of 30-06 M1 barrrels between the 1950s-1960s, with the exception being the 1963 National Match M1 barrels.
Last edited:
Regarding the third video, I think it's interesting he doesn't like the Johnson LMG for the recoil. And, several collectors he asked don't like it for that same reason.
Yet, the Para Marines/Marine raiders who used it before they were disbanded and the 1SSF (also disbanded later) who got it on trade from them, loved it also. Proving once again, that while we very much enjoy the historical work that Ian McCollum does, combat isn't for sissys.
LOL he loves French stuff too, there might be some correlation there.. they do some good vids but as Ive said before I disagree with a few things they tout as gospel. Eg: Bolt actions are obsolete.. Faxon = a premium barrel.. etc
What do you think about actions with the front action screw going into the recoil lug @sandwarrior ? Any disadvantage there - or requiring different bedding?
You mean like Mausers and Winchesters? There is a huge advantage there. That is why some of the top accuracy actions have gone to an integral lug instead of the R700 style where it slides over the barrel. Although, the front screw doesn't go into that lug. Many are now coming to the conclusion the R700 style leaves too much to vary. It looks solid, feels solid, but is three parts instead of two. In a place where most of the stress is initiated.
One thing I always do with any recoil lug is bed FRONT and BACK and SIDES of the recoil lug. Leaving the front open gives the action a direction to move. You don't want that. Torsion while firing is why I also came to this conclusion about bedding the sides.
Added: I also full bed the tang, and pillar bed the action screws. ALWAYS making sure there is no stress on the action. That's huge with any action.
Added: I put Winchesters in there as an afterthought, thinking I might have forgotten them. I went back and looked at my post-64 and not, the front action screw does not go into the lug.
Last edited:
Yes for the most part no difference in barrel life between cm and ss. They do wear differently. No there isn’t a big difference between the tensile strength per say.
Chrome lining of the bores can easily work against in you in terms of accuracy and also if there are adhesion problems it works against you in terms of barrel life as well. If it was so goooood....why isn’t it a requirement on ammunition test barrels? Off hand I don’t recall ever seeing it on any of the gov’t test barrel drawings. I’ll look again but pretty sure it’s not there.
The Swiss where always known to have/make good steel. I never heard of it being super special hard at all. I’d have to check my K31 maybe. It might not necessarily be a hardness thing but the properties that are in it.
I’d prefer not to have the screw go into the recoil lug. That being said I’ve bedded 03 type action with no issues. Bedding being in front of the recoil lug is a preference thing in my opinion but I do the whole action area for the most part no matter what.
Would you say CM holds accuracy as long as SS? Is CM any harder to cut than SS?
And Agreed, I have to imagine Winchester got away from screwing into the recoil lug for a reason.. How about bedding the barrel shank? Ive always figured fully free floated was best but screwing into the recoil lug like Mausers/03's might change things?
Winchester never got away from screwing into the recoil lug that I know of. Unless they did it with their XPR model. Which was a way to reduce costs, not make better bedding. The classics, last time I looked, still have the action screw going into the lug. The integral lug, IMO, is the real benefit. One drawback could be that the screw going into the lug might be a casue of stress, but in a properly bedded rifle, it should not be. That's a reason I also make sure the bedding is under the recoil lug.
@Frank Green,
I gotta wonder where you are coming from with the chrome lining? Yes, we all know it inhibits accuracy, but it was done in WWII to 1903's and M1 Garands to keep them from corroding and "rusting" the bullet to the chamber. The original M16 did not have chrome-lined chambers/bores and it suffered reliability for that reason. How far up the bores it went I do not know. But, yes, that was a government thing and it was a HUGE factor in making the M16 more reliable. It certainly didn't seem to hurt the accuracy of that rifle. ALL military rifles have it now. Or, some other kind of corrosion protection. The lining may or may not affect accuracy, but it is needed for reliability. Keep in mind, they are combat rifles, not benchrest rifles taken to combat.
@Frank Green,
I gotta wonder where you are coming from with the chrome lining? Yes, we all know it inhibits accuracy, but it was done in WWII to 1903's and M1 Garands to keep them from corroding and "rusting" the bullet to the chamber. The original M16 did not have chrome-lined chambers/bores and it suffered reliability for that reason. How far up the bores it went I do not know. But, yes, that was a government thing and it was a HUGE factor in making the M16 more reliable. It certainly didn't seem to hurt the accuracy of that rifle. ALL military rifles have it now. Or, some other kind of corrosion protection. The lining may or may not affect accuracy, but it is needed for reliability. Keep in mind, they are combat rifles, not benchrest rifles taken to combat.
Last edited:
What Winchester confuses me with is the lugged barrel, tensioning screw.
Both my 75 and 70 have that tension screw in the forearm to impart some "tuning" to the barrel.
I know '03s are thought to shoot better with slight up force at the nose of the stock but I thought that was due the full handguard/forearm design.
Surprises me the sporting/target rifles would not be floated.
Looks like they got away from it to me?
Also never heard of a chrome lined 03 or Garand barrel? M14's had it tho, and I believe the Arisaka?
Also never heard of a chrome lined 03 or Garand barrel? M14's had it tho, and I believe the Arisaka?
I know Mausers, 03's etc screwed into the lug.. as said before tho I have to think theres a reason they(Winchester) got away from it, and consequently the M70 was a hugely successful match rifle, completely displacing the custom 03's, Mausers, 1917's, etc sporters that were previously used..
Like you said I just feel like the screw going into the lug introduces some stress or ability for things to act wonkier than otherwise..
Last edited:
Did the M70 National Match and Bull guns have it too? Thats interesting. I have to think fully floated would behave better, especially on a long string of fire..
@sandwarrior maybe you got em confused with the M54?
IIRC, Winchester wondered why their M54 wasn't as popular for match shooting as their M52 rimfire was, and one of the goals in designing the M70 was to be as dominant a centerfire target rifle as the M52 was in rimfire target shooting..
IIRC, Winchester wondered why their M54 wasn't as popular for match shooting as their M52 rimfire was, and one of the goals in designing the M70 was to be as dominant a centerfire target rifle as the M52 was in rimfire target shooting..
No, I didn't confuse it, I just got confused. I went down and took apart my post 64 and sure enough the screw goes into the square bottom of the action and not the lug.
That said, I did say that the integral recoil lug is the real benefit. Whether or not the screw goes into it.
The point is to get the action as solid as possible without stressing it.
Last edited:
Speaking of, @cplnorton have you seen anything about why the 03 was always a more popular match rifle than the 1917, even for custom match rifles where any sights can be used, I believe they called em "Free" rifles or 1903 T or something like that.. it seems the 03 was always favored over the 1917?
What Frank will probably agree with me in saying is within the erosion pattern difference of CM and SS, CM tends to start slowing down at a pace. SS stops cold. For accuracy sake, seem to chase the tail on CM when you know you are done with SS. Chrome lining is great, other than when we do the match barrel work, what they do is dip it in electropolish acid and eat our work up then replace it with chrome, which is basically applied via a lead string held to center at both ends but not really paying attention to anything in-between. Hopin I guess. That and when chrome goes, so does the accuracy so the adhesion like Frank says is dubious at best.
Frank can you imagine the look on the barrelmakers when the leads came in and said, look boys we need to up production. Going from 4 grooves to 2. Hand index. Been there rifling raceways on remmy recievers. Wasn't quicker the first try anyway HA!!
Later..
Yes I'll say it was more for to help against corrosion resistance. I'll agree that it can help with function as well.
Also I agree with your comment on a mil spec. rifle and mil spec. accuracy.
Again if you are looking at hard core accuracy you don't want chrome plating. So you have to ask yourself....what is your accuracy requirement? If you say .7moa or less then you don't want it. If it's a 2moa gun and your o.k. with that than I agree and I'm o.k. with that.
...and again back to my comment it's not on any of the test barrel drawings for the Gov't. If it truly added accuracy and or helped barrel life you think it would be on there?
Later, Frank
Frank, the easiest way to answer the question is we hold chambers and bores to x tolerance to maintain repeatability. Match barrel grade. Chrome might slick a surface up for feed, but guys like you and me are more interested in the tenths when it comes to repeatability of process.. So take what we use as a vanguard as a standard, then apply the chrome process and their tolerances to it. Guys like you and me walk away laffin. Ok, if that's what you want. So can you guarantee 1/2MOA? haha, yeah not anymore!! Out of my hands m8.
Later
Been there - anyone can see the "second floor" private collection - you have to call about 6 weeks in advance and make reservations - well worth the effort and cost.
_JR_ and Frank,
I want to clear up the chrome lining issue. I never said it would benefit accuracy. I did say it didn’t hurt what the M16 already had. Which is good, but NOWHERE near what you guys do for accuracy.
It seems like this thread keeps bouncing back and forth between old battle rifles and the kind of extreme accuracy that Frank and _JR_ are putting out today.
In fact the accuracy levels of the ‘03 and 1917 are pretty pathetic in comparison to any of the M16 models of today. Even the ones we first started out with. But, even those don’t hold a candle to modern accuracy barrels. So, what they did in the 1920’s was impressive, but they won’t cut in any real match today. Same with 16’s. That’s why they have their own courses of fire.
I want to clear up the chrome lining issue. I never said it would benefit accuracy. I did say it didn’t hurt what the M16 already had. Which is good, but NOWHERE near what you guys do for accuracy.
It seems like this thread keeps bouncing back and forth between old battle rifles and the kind of extreme accuracy that Frank and _JR_ are putting out today.
In fact the accuracy levels of the ‘03 and 1917 are pretty pathetic in comparison to any of the M16 models of today. Even the ones we first started out with. But, even those don’t hold a candle to modern accuracy barrels. So, what they did in the 1920’s was impressive, but they won’t cut in any real match today. Same with 16’s. That’s why they have their own courses of fire.
@Frank Green - whenever yall made those Aubert Duval GKH test barrels, I know you said yall had some trouble with tooling breaking.. but once the blanks were drilled and reamed, did you have any issues actually cutting the rifling on them?
It seems that button rifling makers require the steel to be softer for a consistent finished barrel, would you agree with that? Eg I read a lot about folks saying that Shilens for example are on the softer side.. while Kriegers, or yall's barrels, are comparatively harder...?
It seems that button rifling makers require the steel to be softer for a consistent finished barrel, would you agree with that? Eg I read a lot about folks saying that Shilens for example are on the softer side.. while Kriegers, or yall's barrels, are comparatively harder...?
@sandwarrior - Idk about the M16 being more accurate than the 1903. As far as standard rack grade service rifles.. certainly the M16 is easier to shoot. But from what Ive read the M16 only gets rejected if its worse than 6 MOA or something like that(which any new M16 should easily pass). The 03 was rejected if it was worse than 3 MOA. Not saying the 03 is more accurate, but I could see it shooting as well as most any non free floated gov't contour barrel M16:
http://www.smallarmsreview.com/display.article.cfm?idarticles=1434
The 03 is a beast of a rifle as far as accuracy, compared to most other rack grade battle rifles. This was a time when American battle rifles were still largely chosen or rejected based on how well they would do at Camp Perry. Among its contemporaries, I think the Canadian Ross is the only rifle Ive read would equal or best the 03 in Palma/High Power..
http://www.smallarmsreview.com/display.article.cfm?idarticles=1434
The 03 is a beast of a rifle as far as accuracy, compared to most other rack grade battle rifles. This was a time when American battle rifles were still largely chosen or rejected based on how well they would do at Camp Perry. Among its contemporaries, I think the Canadian Ross is the only rifle Ive read would equal or best the 03 in Palma/High Power..
Last edited:
1903's are a beast to shoot, yes. But, they beat the hell out of you to get through a range day without shoulder pads. But, not a beast for accuracy. I don't know where they get their rejection numbers, but an M16 is 4moa and a SA/RIA 1903 is 6moa. This is called twisting the facts to suit your desires.
Regarding what I highlighted, check the record book. The M16 pretty much owns 'em all in the service rifle realm. Saying the 1903 is more accurate, say's your lost in nostalgia. I'd own a 1903, an M1 Garand, and a 1917 of any variation rebuild...if it didn't get in the way financially of me shooting F-Class. They were good in the day, they are not now, nor will they ever again be, competitive. Unless of course, you put them in their own category.
Frank, this is in open court so I'll be brief. you ever need anything for GKH on boring and reaming, I've been at 15 yes 15ipm drilling 6mm holes straight on GKH, bang on for muzzle runout on drill and better than 16 surface finish. It's a method learned for sure, and you go thru about 3 changes of underwear in 5 minutes or less. The first time.
Well, I will say that the CMP Vintage Sniper Rifle category was indeed made for the 1903 with 8x scope. Its the only rifle that I have won Gold (x3), Silver, and Bronze metals with. It shoots 1 MOA if I and the ammo used are working well. I'm bummed that the 2020 CMP Eastern Games were canceled this year due to COVID-19, as its my favorite match here on the east coast. My 1903 USMC replica sniper has always served me well at this 300 and 600 yard event. Last two pics are from the 2019 CMP Eastern Games event. Just say'n don't write off the vintage stuff - even if you are an F-class shooter...its good times.
Attachments
I didnt say the 1903 was more accurate. However Id be surprised if you went through a rack of standard M16A1's or M16A2's and they each shot consistently better than 3 MOA with FMJ. NRA High Power Service Rifle is a totally different thing, allowing free floated stainless HBAR barrels, match triggers, match ammo, etc.
Where'd you find 6 MOA for 03's? Everything Ive seen says 3 MOA, and thats with ball ammo.. Id have to think thats about par for the course with a M16 as well. Atleast with M193, maybe a bit worse with M855..
"Each passed the Ordnance accuracy standards calling for 5 shots to strike within a three (3) inch circle "
https://www.remingtonsociety.org/remingtons-wwii-experience-with-2-groove-rifling/
Not sure what facts Ive twisted. Dont really have any desire one way or the other. Im just here to learn. I love the AR15. FWIW tho the 1903 Mann accuracy device was what was used for forever in testing accuracy capabilities, even with the .223. I could be wrong about all of this, hence why I’m asking, you’ve been doing this stuff longer than I been alive lol, but I don’t recall a machine rested M16 ever being used for accuracy testing.. They both have their place.
I ain’t got any special affinity for the 03 if that’s what you mean, as I said before I think the M70 is a better CRF action, but the 03 was a very accurate rifle compared to its contemporaries. And yet it’s almost literally a Mauser? Would y’all say more consistent ammo is the cause or what? Maybe better stock fit? Because while the G98 is an excellent rifle, it never seemed like a hot choice for a target rifle..? I suppose the Swedes are a better example for Mausers in competition than the Germans tho.. @Random Guy how do the K98’s do in Vintage Sniper?
@cplnorton have you seen any material on M1903 accuracy standards? I believe they also had a 1000" test, from what I read the Garand had to hold 3"x3" at 1000 inches?
Last edited:
