I have a sporterized 1903 springfield that looks like the hump on the rear reciever ring is milled off (it is open like a krag is). Was this made this way or did somebody do it at a later date? And would it be safe to shoot?
Springfield closed the rear receiver ring, the slot you are talking about was required to accommodate the third safety locking lug.
You need a serial number, no if it is one of the first receiver rod bayonet rifles and the serial number is under 4,000 the receiver is a very LOW NUMBER RECEIVE, that was 800,000 receivers before they admitted they COULD have a problem.
A collector in the Dallas area has prototype receivers, those are the omly open bridge receivers I have seen,
Again we (I) do not know the serial number, your receiver could be a late model receiver that has the rear bridge removed, if that is the case all this information is meaningless.
I could say I have people, resource people, that would be an exaggeration, I do have a 'one person resource department' on the 03, 03A3 and Garand, I sent him information on the open receiver bridge, he called me and indicated the open receiver bridge was a type ONE, the type TWO receiver has a closed receiver bridge without the notch for the third lug, both receivers were built in 1901, neither was designed for use with a bolt with a third safety lug,
So Springfield tried to develop the (what was to become the 03) rifle without a safety lug no one knows where Springfield got the ideal the rifle needed a safety lug, I do not know, Springfield never saw a Mauser with a third lug and for the most part they never had an original ideal.
Someone needs to know if your rifle has a third safety lug and the serial number.
The one military receiver that has room for creativity is the M1917 and the P14, both Enfields.
That is the good news, as to why someone would remove the bridge? the rational is know only to the person doing the grinding, the rear sight was on the barrel.
A guess, the receiver could have been damaged by being dropped, run over etc., or the person removing the bridge read a different article about a rifle he did not have like the M1917, he could have gotten confused by the suggestion that refered to grinding the rear sight bridge and or removing the 'ears'.
Thanks for the pictures, my mind would not allow my eyes to tell it what they were looking at last night, I backed off from the screen today and now it looks obvious.
Not to quote a reliable source, just things I have heard from people that sounded like authorities on the subject, statements that have no value but make a point, "the rear of the receiver could be made of lead" the strength of the receiver is in the front, Receivers have been cut and lengthened to make long(er) actions and shortened to make short actions.
Back to the part where the news was good, 1928 was a good year, Springfield found (I could say discovered but that would be a compliment) nickel 32 years after Browning and Winchester, There is no shortage of receivers with rear open receivers bridges, like the 30/40 Krag, the open rear receiver was the least of the Krags problem, and there are those that believe the Krag had one locking lug because Springfield decided it did not need two.
I have a few rifles with sights that are very accurate, I would want the rear receiver ring for mounting a base, ring and scope, I have one rifle with a long eye relief because of the way it operates, there are sights that can be mounted on the side, so yes, I would built it and let the rear open bridge bother someone else. I am proud of everything I take to the range.
A forum community dedicated to Sport shooters, owners and enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about optics, hand casting bullets, hunting, gunsmithing, styles, reviews, accessories, classifieds, and more!