Go Back   CMP Forums > CMP Sales > Smallbore
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old 08-02-2022, 10:56 AM
Troglodyte Troglodyte is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 59
Default Thanks!

Wow--thanks for all the replies.

That's exactly the info I was looking for.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 08-02-2022, 12:30 PM
slufstuff slufstuff is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Lexington, SC
Posts: 318
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jabbo View Post
“Lightly demilled”? Can you be more specific? Just curious….
It has been a long time ago, but I think the barrels were welded shut by some means and they did not have the selectors in place. The bolts were still functional as far as I remember, but it is possible the bolt faces were welded up or something. But overall, they were pretty nice-looking rifles. I remember our ROTC instructors saying that since they were originally full auto capable, that was the reason they were recalled. The army was concerned about the ROTC armory being broken into. I know we thought the M1903A3's seemed pretty lame in comparison.

Also, I want to correct my earlier post, we had Remington 513T's for the regular marksmanship rifles, not 541's. I was on the rifle team and rarely shot the 513T. Also our color guard carried either the M-14 or M1903A3 for sports events up until 1977/78, when they were made to switch to M16A1 rubber ducks, again at the insistence of the army.

Last edited by slufstuff; 08-02-2022 at 12:50 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 08-02-2022, 12:37 PM
Calfed Calfed is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: California
Posts: 2,000
Default

I was a student at UC Davis in 1975. Took a class in rifle shooting taught by a US Army sergeant. I used a Mossberg 44 and one of my friends had a Stevens
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 08-02-2022, 02:20 PM
jabbo jabbo is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Podunk, Texas
Posts: 476
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by slufstuff View Post
It has been a long time ago, but I think the barrels were welded shut by some means and they did not have the selectors in place. The bolts were still functional as far as I remember, but it is possible the bolt faces were welded up or something. But overall, they were pretty nice-looking rifles. I remember our ROTC instructors saying that since they were originally full auto capable, that was the reason they were recalled. The army was concerned about the ROTC armory being broken into. I know we thought the M1903A3's seemed pretty lame in comparison.

Also, I want to correct my earlier post, we had Remington 513T's for the regular marksmanship rifles, not 541's. I was on the rifle team and rarely shot the 513T. Also our color guard carried either the M-14 or M1903A3 for sports events up until 1977/78, when they were made to switch to M16A1 rubber ducks, again at the insistence of the army.
I gotcha - the rifle could not fire, but it could be rebuilt (by replacing the bolt, barrel, etc.) back to it’s original configuration (meaning select fire). Hence they were recalled. Thanks for the reply!
__________________
"It is hard to search for a black cat in a dark room, particularly if it is not there. Especially if this cat is smart, brave, and polite." Sergei Shoigu, Russian Minister of Defense
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 08-03-2022, 06:55 AM
williwm williwm is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 29
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by schutzen-jager View Post
the ROTC programs utilized them not as trainers , but as teaching tools [ sight alignment , trigger control , + other shooting basics ] - large difference between basic teaching skills + practical training utilization -
What is the large difference pray tell.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 08-03-2022, 07:28 AM
schutzen-jager schutzen-jager is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: peoples republic of n.j.
Posts: 834
Default

training is to obtain proficiency in usage - teaching is to learn basic skills to allow being trained to advanced levels in specific areas - no rational to being trained in usage of a bolt action when you will be using a semi or full auto in real situations - when first issued M1's many veterans would fire one shot + then try to manipulate bolt like they did with the Springfields -
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 08-03-2022, 08:43 AM
navyrifleman navyrifleman is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 1,510
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by schutzen-jager View Post
training is to obtain proficiency in usage - teaching is to learn basic skills to allow being trained to advanced levels in specific areas - no rational to being trained in usage of a bolt action when you will be using a semi or full auto in real situations - when first issued M1's many veterans would fire one shot + then try to manipulate bolt like they did with the Springfields -
There is always a learning curve to overcome. When the US entered World War One, most new recruits and draftees were NOT familier with the bolt action rifle.

While the regular Army did have the Krag and the 1903, most civilian hunting rifles were of the lever action design.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 08-03-2022, 11:18 AM
schutzen-jager schutzen-jager is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: peoples republic of n.j.
Posts: 834
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by navyrifleman View Post
There is always a learning curve to overcome. When the US entered World War One, most new recruits and draftees were NOT familier with the bolt action rifle.

While the regular Army did have the Krag and the 1903, most civilian hunting rifles were of the lever action design.
totally agree - bolt actions did not become popular w/U.S. hunters + shooters till post WWI - back then most recruits + volunteers were from rural + suburban areas + familiar w/firearms usage - but not bolt guns - during first years of WWII the 03 +03A3 were still front line weapons which makes it rational to issue bolt gun trainers - iirc the DOD stopped classifying them as trainers before the Korean conflict - after WWII they became useless for training purposes - aside from post recreational use the ROTC used them to teach basic trigger , sight , picture + etc. , the training was done after induction with issue weapons of the period -
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 08-03-2022, 12:06 PM
smithpa68 smithpa68 is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 74
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Calfed View Post
I was a student at UC Davis in 1975. Took a class in rifle shooting taught by a US Army sergeant. I used a Mossberg 44 and one of my friends had a Stevens

I have one of those Steven’s trainers. Model 416. It shoots really really well for the cheap .22 trainer. Thick target barrel. Great wood and aperture sights. Way cheaper practicing offhand shooting with the 416 vs my Garands. One of my favorite rifles.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 08-03-2022, 12:32 PM
Ted Brown Ted Brown is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Jacksonville, OR
Posts: 730
Default

I was stationed at Biggs Air Force Base from 62 to 65. While there I joined the base rifle and pistol club. I shot Winchester 52C target rifles in their indoor range. The rifles were obtained from Lackland along with several AFPG Garands of which one was issued to me to use on the Base high power rifle team. Lots of good memories there.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:54 AM.