What is the difference between a Mauser Action and an '03 - A3 Action?

[Shootist43]

I've seen lots of threads on AH where someone is building a new rifle or rebarreling a "true" Mauser Action. Most of which are K-98s. I looked for a Mauser Action at a reasonable price and couldn't find any. I then decided to just use the action from an old Remington '03-A3 sporter that was languishing in my safe. I know the '03 and subsequent '03-A3 actions sort of follow Paul Mauser's design, but I was wondering what the meaningful differences are. I did not have a drastic caliber change made. I went from 30-06 to 35 Whelen. The bolt didn't have to be modified at all as the parent case for the 35 Whelen is the 30-06. I thought this was a great way to get a mid-bore caliber at a reasonable cost. I did however spring for a Boyd Laminate stock, Timney Trigger and Safety.

 

[ChrisG]

Not much. The 03 has an additional lug in the rear but they were so similar that Mauser actually sued Springfield over patent infringement. Both are more than strong and reliable enough for anything you would want to chamber them in. I personally think the mauser is more svelt, but the Springfield just looks more robust. I don't know though, thats just how I see them.

 

[mdwest]

I did however spring for a Boyd Laminate stock, Timney Trigger and Safety.

Sounds very similar to my "mauser" project..

I also went with a timney trigger and safety, and wrapped my .35 whelen/mauser in a Boyds stock..

 

[Rick Cox]

The biggest difference that bothers me is the '03 has a two piece firing pin. Having said that, I have probably put 2000 rounds through mine trouble free. I received my gun as a gift from an old relative a looong time ago, and went the custom route with it. Barrel shortened and turned, bolt handle bent, checkered, and slenderized, stock carved by Wilcox Gunworks. Timney trigger. It's a 'working' gun, but very accurate.

 

[Ray B]

The '03 has features added such as the knob that allows cocking without opening the bolt and a magazine cut-off that keeps the bolt from coming clear back so a fired cartridge may be ejected without catching the next cartridge in the magazine. Strength ways, PO Ackley made some tests several years ago and both the Mauser 98 and '03-A3 were sufficiently strong for any reasonable use- the weakest link in standard firearms is the brass case. The main downside of putting money into a Springfield is the bad press that the '03s made prior to 1918, on what has been determined to be sunny days at the factories. Heat treating was done visually to a cherry red. The problem was on bright days, the metal had to get hotter to achieve the same appearance as on a cloudy day- resulting in actions that had burnt steel. As a percentage, the actions that were sufficiently burnt to cause failure when firing was quite small, and considering any of those actions is now at least 100 years old, provided they have been fired in accordance with their age, an action could be considered safe; but there's still the fear factor, which affects the price and overshadows all '03s.

 

[CTDolan]

Not much. The 03 has an additional lug in the rear but they were so similar that Mauser actually sued Springfield over patent infringement. Both are more than strong and reliable enough for anything you would want to chamber them in. I personally think the mauser is more svelt, but the Springfield just looks more robust. I don't know though, thats just how I see them.

I seem to recall that Springfield (or the U.S. government) had to pay a per-unit royalty to Mauser due to the lawsuit (and during the war, no less).

By the way, the M98 has a rear safety lug, also.

 

[Rick Cox]

The '03 has features added such as the knob that allows cocking without opening the bolt and a magazine cut-off that keeps the bolt from coming clear back so a fired cartridge may be ejected without catching the next cartridge in the magazine. Strength ways, PO Ackley made some tests several years ago and both the Mauser 98 and '03-A3 were sufficiently strong for any reasonable use- the weakest link in standard firearms is the brass case. The main downside of putting money into a Springfield is the bad press that the '03s made prior to 1918, on what has been determined to be sunny days at the factories. Heat treating was done visually to a cherry red. The problem was on bright days, the metal had to get hotter to achieve the same appearance as on a cloudy day- resulting in actions that had burnt steel. As a percentage, the actions that were sufficiently burnt to cause failure when firing was quite small, and considering any of those actions is now at least 100 years old, provided they have been fired in accordance with their age, an action could be considered safe; but there's still the fear factor, which affects the price and overshadows all '03s.

Interesting...

 

[Shootist43]

I thought the heat treating issue was in early production models only. All actions produced after serial number 8XXXXX were determined to be free of any heat treating issues and can be used for just about every reasonable caliber. Since the serial numbers of mine are all over a million I've never given it a thought.

 

[ChrisG]

I seem to recall that Springfield (or the U.S. government) had to pay a per-unit royalty to Mauser due to the lawsuit (and during the war, no less).

By the way, the M98 has a rear safety lug, also.

You're right. The springfield's is external though. The Mauser locks into the rear bolt shroud where as the Springfield binds in front of it. But yes, there was a day when mass production and steel quality was not as empirical as it is today so additional lugs were used to ensure that if the main lugs weren't sufficient to hold the breech shut. You see the same thing on semi auto pistols of the day. Tremendously overbuilt to the point of having a long stroke, locked breech, full size.... .32ACP like this:

Typical turn of the century over engineering. Fascinating what these men came up with to make something work! Looking at old obsolete technology that never caught on is really fun!

 

[fourfive8]

Ray B is exactly right about the Springfield Model 1903's receiver heat treatment which caused some to be brittle and subject to failure. The issue was resolved past about serial # 800,000 of the Springfield Armory guns and after serial # 285,507 of the Rock Island Arsenal guns. Of course the later Springfield Model 03-A3s, etc. are of modern steel and treatment and pose no such potential problem. For the complete story refer to Hatcher's Notebook. Here's the Springfield Model 03 receiver and mismatched bolt warning as posted by CMP.
http://thecmp.org/cmp_sales/rifle_sales/m1903-m1903a3/

 

[7x57Joe]

It is my opinion that a .35 Whelen in a 1903 Springfield is as classic as can be made since the very first Whelen was built on a 1903. It was the poor man's .375 H&H because of the price involved for the .375 and it made a reputation in Alaska on the big bears. I have read hunting exploits of Elmer Keith and Col. Whelen and others hunting with it.
I have a 1903 Mark I that someone turned into a nice little sporter with a Redfield receiver sight and a hooded Dahl barrel ring front sight that has some light pits in the bore. I have been thinking seriously about having it rebored to .35 W. and you may have just pushed me over the edge.
In addition of the 2 piece firing pin, the 1903 has a coned breech that Winchester copied in the Model 70 which IMHO feeds smoother than the '98.
Enjoy your .35 W.

 

[CTDolan]

I had a chance to get a Griffin & Howe 1903 Springfield in 35 Whelen back in the day. I was married and young and poor. She was a beaut and selling for only $350. Haven’t forgotten that rifle since.

 

[Bob Nelson 35Whelen]

Not much. The 03 has an additional lug in the rear but they were so similar that Mauser actually sued Springfield over patent infringement. Both are more than strong and reliable enough for anything you would want to chamber them in. I personally think the mauser is more svelt, but the Springfield just looks more robust. I don't know though, thats just how I see them.

@ChrisG
Mauser actually sued over the magazine and the U.S. stopped paying at the out break ove the war.
The 03 and the 03A4 and all variants of the 03 Springfield are exactly the same action as the original it is the stocks and sights that were changed not the action
Bob

 

[Bob Nelson 35Whelen]

The '03 has features added such as the knob that allows cocking without opening the bolt and a magazine cut-off that keeps the bolt from coming clear back so a fired cartridge may be ejected without catching the next cartridge in the magazine. Strength ways, PO Ackley made some tests several years ago and both the Mauser 98 and '03-A3 were sufficiently strong for any reasonable use- the weakest link in standard firearms is the brass case. The main downside of putting money into a Springfield is the bad press that the '03s made prior to 1918, on what has been determined to be sunny days at the factories. Heat treating was done visually to a cherry red. The problem was on bright days, the metal had to get hotter to achieve the same appearance as on a cloudy day- resulting in actions that had burnt steel. As a percentage, the actions that were sufficiently burnt to cause failure when firing was quite small, and considering any of those actions is now at least 100 years old, provided they have been fired in accordance with their age, an action could be considered safe; but there's still the fear factor, which affects the price and overshadows all '03s.

@Ray B
In P O Ackley blow up tests the Mauser and Springfield blew up first, the P14/M17 next and the strongest believe it or not was the early model Arisaka.
All were amply strong for cartridge of the time.
Bob

 

[GuttormG]

I seem to recall that Springfield (or the U.S. government) had to pay a per-unit royalty to Mauser due to the lawsuit (and during the war, no less).

By the way, the M98 has a rear safety lug, also.

This case was settled in 1904.
And the US 03-action was using design from the Mauser m93 (which did not have the rear safety lug) and the US Krag, not m98.

DWM went to court in 1914, claiming Springfield had used their patented Spritzer bulletdesign. Different story.

 

[sestoppelman]

@ChrisG
Mauser actually sued over the magazine and the U.S. stopped paying at the out break ove the war.
The 03 and the 03A4 and all variants of the 03 Springfield are exactly the same action as the original it is the stocks and sights that were changed not the action
Bob

Yes, except for the improved heat treat process of all Remington made rifles including its version of the 1903, all 03A3's (A4) by Rem and Smith Corona, and as noted above SA above 800.000 and RIA above 285.507.
The bolt handle on later heat treat rifles will normaly have a swept back bolt handle as well, whereas the pre improved rifles handle is straight down. There are a very few exeptions that requires an in depth look at heat treat lot numbers etc.

 

[Professor Mawla]

I've seen lots of threads on AH where someone is building a new rifle or rebarreling a "true" Mauser Action. Most of which are K-98s. I looked for a Mauser Action at a reasonable price and couldn't find any. I then decided to just use the action from an old Remington '03-A3 sporter that was languishing in my safe. I know the '03 and subsequent '03-A3 actions sort of follow Paul Mauser's design, but I was wondering what the meaningful differences are. I did not have a drastic caliber change made. I went from 30-06 to 35 Whelen. The bolt didn't have to be modified at all as the parent case for the 35 Whelen is the 30-06. I thought this was a great way to get a mid-bore caliber at a reasonable cost. I did however spring for a Boyd Laminate stock, Timney Trigger and Safety.

@Shootist43
I have personally made use of the Enfield Model 1917 action , the Pattern 14 Enfield action , the Mauser Model 98 action and the Springfield Model 1903A3 action as well . The difference between the Springfield Model 1903A3 action and the aforementioned actions , is that the Springfield Model 1903A3 action employs a two piece firing pin while the other actions employ a solid one piece firing pin .

There are more than a few schools of thought which prefer the solid one piece firing pin , over the two piece firing pin . The general consensus is that the one piece firing pin is relatively more robust . The “ Outdoor Life “ author , Jack O Connor has recorded two incidents of the two piece striker on the Springfield Model 1903A3 breaking . The entire reason why the American army opted for a two piece striker when originally designing the Springfield Model 1903 action , was so that they could avoid infringing Paul Mauser’s patent ( they failed in this regard and ended up paying royalties to Mauser anyway , although the first world war interrupted this ) .

Personally speaking , I occasionally use a Springfield Model 1903A3 action rifle ( a .30-06 Springfield ) when hunting Himalayan ibex . The rifle belongs to my outfitter . I have even used the rifle this year , with great success ( employing 220 grain Sako Hammerhead soft nosed factory loads , although I formerly used 220 grain Remington Core Lokt soft nosed factory loads on previous hunts ) . I have yet to personally see the firing pin of a Springfield Model 1903A3 action rifle ever break . I would unhesitatingly entrust my life on one of these rifles .

 

[sestoppelman]

I agree, have owned and shot many 03 rifles and have never had one break a pin or heard of one breaking from anyone I know.

 

[Bob Nelson 35Whelen]

I agree, have owned and shot many 03 rifles and have never had one break a pin or heard of one breaking from anyone I know.

@sestoppelman
The only thing I have heard or read about being broken by the 03 is the occasional nose by inappropriate gripping of the pistol grip.
Apparently new recruits had to be taught to place their thumb along the stock instead of around the pistol grip. They only got belted in the nose once and quickly learned the lesson.
Bob

 

[Professor Mawla]

I agree, have owned and shot many 03 rifles and have never had one break a pin or heard of one breaking from anyone I know.

@sestoppelman
And moreover , we also have the option of replacing the original strikers with double heat treated titanium strikers these days .