[Stewart]

I have a Model 94 that was my grandfathers. It's in good shape, and I'd rather not have it drilled to mount a scope. Also gathering dust for many decades is a 1903 Springfield. The Springfield is missing a few bits, but the action and barrel seem to be in good shape. A month or so ago, I was leaning towards getting a Ruger American in .270, but then I remembered the Springfield. Assuming I can get a clean bill of health from a gunsmith on the Springfield, are they expensive to convert to a hunting rifle? Can the conversion be done with bolt-on parts? My woodworking skills are shitty. Part of me likes the nostalgia of hunting with the Springfield, but not if it's going to cost more than a Ruger and a scope. My plan is to use the rifle for deer. What would you do?

 

[jake-e-boy]

Get that .270

 

[zen leecher aka bill w]

post a picture of the 1903. If it's issue condition I'd let it be. I have a couple 1903's and hate to see them sporterized. A Ruger might be a cheaper way to go as with the 1903 at a minimum you'd need to get it drilled, find scope mounts and then get your bolt bent or the bolt handle replaced. Bolt work is needed to clear the back edge of the scope.

 

[Tug]

I agree with others. And I'm a big fan of having all kinds of firearms. If it's just for deer there are lots of other calibers to consider aside from 270.....
Good luck!

 

[Ricardo O.]

Both of those guns, it seems, would have some sentimental value. Why alter them? 94's have taken a lot of deer without scopes, but mostly in dense east coast woods. Open range, not so much.

I'd go for the Ruger myself, JMHO

 

[Guest]

My old pre 64 , model 94 was factory drilled for a Lyman peep sight. So that's what I put on it to make up for my feeble eyes, big improvement to shooting the rifle. It's the same sight as was made over 50 years ago so it fits the time period of when the gun was made .otherwise just buy a modern made bolt action rifle unless you want to put a ass ton of money making the 03 a custom rifle.

 

[Guest]

My old pre 64 , model 94 was factory drilled for a Lyman peep sight. So that's what I put on it to make up for my feeble eyes, big improvement to shooting the rifle. It's the same sight as was made over 50 years ago so it fits the time period of when the gun was made .otherwise just buy a modern made bolt action rifle unless you want to put a ass ton of money making the 03 a custom rifle.

 

[Jim F.]

I'm with the "keep them as-is/sentimental keepsake" crowd. There are many reasonably-priced, fine hunting rifles out there; I'd opt for one of those & keep your Grandfather's guns as they were when he had them.

 

[Stewart]

Thanks for all the replies. I had heard about "sporterized" Springfields and thought it might be fun, but it seems like it's not my particular brand of fun. I may still see if I can find the couple of parts that I know are missing so it at least looks complete.

The .270 is more than what I need for deer, but with a lot of things I do, I tend to branch out, or at least daydream about branching out. So it's for deer, but could possibly be used for elk or any other big game in Washington.

Open sights and old eyes are making shooting tough. I sighted in the lever action at 100 yards and could hit reliably in a 6 inch circle, but that was as good as I could group. My shooting skills are a bit rusty, but the worst part is the distance from the rear sight to the front sight. Shooting my buddies rifle with a scope made me think that I'd be better off aiming through one.

 

[Stewart]

A couple pics of the Springfield

 

[Ricardo O.]

Try EyePal http://www.eyepalusa.com/

 

[zen leecher aka bill w]

I can't tell if that's a reproduction stock or the original one that's been stripped. With the exception of the sling swivel stuff all the other hardware is missing. That's what makes me ask if its a reproduction stock. It looks like a "C" stock.

 

[wetline dave]

There is nothing wrong with a .270 for deer size game but I find them a bit lacking on bigger thicker skinned animals. An 06 is perhaps one of the most versatile calibers available. There are factory loads from 125 grains to 22o grains and if you go to some of the premium high energy loads you are approaching 300 Win. Mag capabilities.

Regarding the Springfield action it is a weak action as compared to Mauser actions and can not withstand very high pressures. Modern factory loads would not be a consideration for use in my opinion, particularly the high energy loads.

I know there are a lot of devotees of the .270 that will claim and have shot everything with them. Over the years I have owned a few and within what I perceive limitations is a nice rifle. But it is not the rifle I want if I have to shoot at a 500 pound plus elk at over 200 yards. With a .270 I really wouldn't want to take a shot at an elk much over 100 yards. I hate tracking wounded animals.

Dave

 

[shotgunner]

There is nothing wrong with a .270 for deer size game but I find them a bit lacking on bigger thicker skinned animals. An 06 is perhaps one of the most versatile calibers available. There are factory loads from 125 grains to 22o grains and if you go to some of the premium high energy loads you are approaching 300 Win. Mag capabilities.

Regarding the Springfield action it is a weak action as compared to Mauser actions and can not withstand very high pressures. Modern factory loads would not be a consideration for use in my opinion, particularly the high energy loads.

I know there are a lot of devotees of the .270 that will claim and have shot everything with them. Over the years I have owned a few and within what I perceive limitations is a nice rifle. But it is not the rifle I want if I have to shoot at a 500 pound plus elk at over 200 yards. With a .270 I really wouldn't want to take a shot at an elk much over 100 yards. I hate tracking wounded animals.

Dave

Don't even know where to began with this Dave (so I wont) Sounds more like a matter of person preference.. which is fine.

Enjoy the holidays.. B

 

[Wormonhook]

I'm offering on opinion and not an attack, got it?

I've had the opportunity/blessing to hunt a variety of animals using a variety of rifles and calibers. I've taken whitetail deer with .243, mule deer with .270 and .3006. I've taken moose with .3006 and .300 Win Mag. I've taken a dozen elk size and moose size animals with .3006, .300 Win Mag and .375H&H (300gr bullet). There was also a Cape buffalo with the .375. I've taken very small deer type animals (i.e. dog-size antelope) with .3006 and .375 H&H. I've shot targets and vermin with .22, ,22-250, and .223.

In all of these years and all of that hunting, I lost one wounded animal. The one wounded animal I lost was a blue wildebeest I shot through the chest with a 180gr .3006. It ran off, no blood trail, and we never found it. The following year I went back and shot another one through the chest with a .300 Win Mag and it ran 100 yards and dropped...and there was NO blood trail. The expert tracker found it. I saw another wildebeest shot with a .458 Lott using 400gr bullet and it staggered a little ways before it dropped.

I mention all of this, not to brag, but because these are my credentials.

My opinion is there seem to be folks who want to say "I shot this big/huge animal with this small caliber rifle.". The implication seems to be that the better hunters use smaller calibers. And this is where I strongly disagree.

In my opinion, a true sporting and ethical hunter uses the largest caliber they can effectively and accurately shoot to kill their game. We, as sportsmen/sportswomen, owe it to the animals we hunt. They deserve a clean, humane death. And, by the way, that is also why goose hunters use 12 gauges.

I also believe folks spend too much time focused on minute of angle accuracy off of the bench shooting those smaller rifles rather than trying to improve their skills to hit a paper plate at 150 yards offhand with a bigger rifle.

Robert Ruark said it best many years ago: Use Enough Gun.

By the way, if I ever decide to shoot another wildebeest, it will be with at least a .375.

 

[Wormonhook]

By the way, I have a sporterized Enfield that will kill deer and elk. It isn't much to look at and I don't have to worry about beating the stock up when I'm using it. Thinking about it, I've got too many guns in my safe, I need to clean house!

The most fun gun was a suppressed Mauser 30.06, the most universal and impressive was the .375.

 

[Stewart]

The other caliber I've considered is 30-06. If I stumble into a screaming deal, most common calibers are on the table. I'll shoot from a bench or prone to get sighted, but practice is all standing. My big game count is zero and 2017 is going to be the year that changes, I hope. I'm already planning my scouting trips.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Guy Gregory]

The conclusion of the (at least) 40 year old debate of .270 v. .30-'06 is that for most north American game, it's personal preference. I shoot '06, my bro shoots .270 and some of the new WSM cartridges. I bought my Ruger Mod. 77 used with scope for a couple hundred bucks, I put about 100 rounds through it so I know where it shoots. You really can't go wrong either way, Stewart, and there's plenty of fine, lightly used rifles of those calibers out there for not much money.

 

[Stewart]

I looked at a new 270 today. Think I'll hit the pawnshops and gunshops and see what else is "handy".

Stainless barrels don't seem very stealthy. Is that just something in my head?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Guy Gregory]

IMHO, stainless is fine if you hunt in an area full of straight, shiny, reflective things. Or never get out of the car. Sure is pretty, though.