Cast OK in a low-number 1903 Springfield????

[Typecaster]

I have always heard that low-number 1903 receivers have inconsistent heat treating and are undesirable.

Should my S/N 433,XXX Springfield be relegated to the wall or should it be OK with light cast loads?

[45nut]

Quote from Hatcher's Notebook:
In 1923 Springfield Armory undertook an investigation to determine the practicability of re-heat treating receivers with numbers below 800,000 to determine if they could thus be given strength equal to receivers of later manufacture. One hundred receivers were re-heat treated and tested. The result indicated a considerable variation in carbon content, many receivers being low enough to require re-carburizing before heat treating.

The test showed that while the old receivers were improved by re-heat treating, they were still likely to burst at pressures slightly in excess of 50 percent above normal, while the later double heat treated receivers would successfully withstand very high pressures. The Board stated: "The test brings out quite clearly the fact that uniform results cannot be obtained by re-heat treating old receivers which vary widely in chemical composition."

It may be noted that one trouble encountered with the low numbered receivers was that some of them were dangerously weak by reason of having been overheated, or burnt, during the forging process.No amount of re-heat treating would cure this trouble.
End Quote:

That said,, if you were certain to keep the ammo segregated for that rifle from any other -06's around and use 2400, or something similarly low pressure and only use CB's I would use it myself.

Trail boss powder may be ok also since the usual pressures are under or around the 30K mark.

[Ricochet]

Hatcher also reported that some of the early Springfields fractured with the "Guard Cartridge" loaded with 9 grains of Bullseye under the standard 150 grain jacketed '06 bullet. He said that the pressure of this load would be low, but felt that the rapid pressure rise of the fast-burning powder caused a shock that fractured the brittle steel. An incident he reported with the "Guard Cartridge" was one in which the gun didn't burst, but simply fell apart after firing. I'm paraphrasing from memory.

[BruceB]

My low-number Rock Island 1903 (#151xxx) has fired a couple of thousand cast loads since it came to me about five years or so back. It has also fired a few roughly-factory-equivalent jacketed loads in preparation for a hunt where it was to serve as my iron-sight rifle for poor weather. It was used extensively for over fifty years as a deer rifle in the UP of Michigan in the hands of my uncles, using nothing but factory loads for all those years.

I have reservations about using fast-burning powders in these older and more-brittle receivers. The total (peak) pressure is one factor, but I think that the RATE at which that pressure is generated might also be important. In other words, I prefer the more-gradual pressure rise of slower-burning powders over the almost instantaneous pressure spike of fast powders, particularly and specifically for these HARD receivers. The same preference applies to Krags, which were made using the same uncertain heat-treatment methods as the early '03s. Some of these receivers have shattered like glass under a light hammer-blow in a vise. Why subject them to the sharper pressure-impact of a fast-burning powder?

In Lyman Handbook #47, starting cast-bullet charges for 311041 .30-06 loads give about the same velocity for both 20.0 2400 and 25.0 4198......just over 1700 fps. BUT, the pressure for 2400 is over 22,000 CUP and the 4198 pressure is 13,100! That is about FORTY PERCENT lower pressure! I can assure one and all that this LOWER pressure is also built-up slower than the peak pressure with 2400, meaning it's a more-gradual impact on that brittle steel. Is this not a desirable way to treat an old warhorse???

At the higher end, their max load of 27.0 2400 yields 2141 fps at 34,500 CUP, while 748 gives 2503 fps with 37,500 CUP. Dropping that 748 load to the velocity of the 2400 recipe will again show much-lower pressure than the 2400 does at the same speed.

None of this means anything at all in terms of accuracy, but it most assuredly DOES tell us something about a safer method of treating these low-number and more-fragile receivers, in terms of pressure and the way the pressure is created. My Krag and low-number '03 see no powder faster than 4198, and I'm a happier handloader for that reason.

[45nut]

Great post Bruce.

[Buckshot]

...............I had a NRA Springfield sporter that had belonged to my great grandafther. I shot oodles (don't know how many zeros that has) of ammo through it with nary a problem. The early ones were heat treated 'by eye' instead of using a pyrometer to ascertain the actual heat.

Think of them as having unbelieveable compressive strength, and on the other hand no shock resistance. If while cogitateing on that you thought 'File', you thought right.

The NRA Sporter I mentioned died due to a double charge of H4227 behind a Lyman 311284. What actually did the deed was the unsupported brass outside the breech rupturing, to wit:




Notice the chrystalized sctructure of the steel. An artifact of being overheated when quenched, and a faulty draw.

In case you're wondering, I did have my chrono set up and that 217gr slug tripped it at 3057 fps.

..................Buckshot

[NVcurmudgeon]

Bruce, I followed your trail in the Lyman book and it is real food for thought. Maybe my Krag will be healthier on a diet of 4198. Here I was smirking because I was shooting 16.0 X 2400 in .308, .30/40, .30/06, .303, and 7.65 X 53 with fine accuracy. I have IMR 4198 on the shelf, research continues!

[Char-Gar]

I am far from an expert on these matter, but why should that hinder me from shooting off my mouth. IIRC, there have been some detailed examination of the failure rate of low numbered 03 vs. the high numbered versions of the same. Long story short, there isn't a significant statistical difference in the failure rate.

However... the real difference comes when one does turn loose, due to the brittle nature of the steel, the receiver come into pieces, a la Buckshot's rifle. When a high numbered rifles fails it bends, swells and twists, but does not do the grenade thing.

The Krag rifle with the same steel as the low numbered 03s, don't grenade when they fail, due to the design where the gas is not trapped like the 03s. There are numerous instances of Krag failure, but I don't recall ever hearing or reading of any body hurt when it happend. Most often they just crack that lone locking lug on the bolt.

[Larry Gibson]

If I had a low #'d M1903 in good condition I'd shoot it. I have in the past and have also helped others develope loads for theirs. I probably would use 311291 over 28-30 gr of 4895 with a dacron filler. A double charge would be imediately apparent with powder spilling all over. Pressure would be under 20,000 CUP and the time pressure curve would be much slower than with faster powders. Velocity will be in the 1700-1850 fps range which is optimum for the 10" twist. That load is already a proven load in my other '03s. Were i to use 311299 or 311284 I would also use 4895 as the pressure with those bullets in the 1700 - 1850 fps will be in the 20-23,000 CUP range. Just my thoughts on what I'd do with a low #'d '03.

Larry Gibson

[versifier]

I wonder if having the barrel/action cryo treated would help?

Surp 860 should be great with it as is.

[Shiloh]

.... Were i to use 311299 or 311284 I would also use 4895 as the pressure with those bullets in the 1700 - 1850 fps will be in the 20-23,000 CUP range. Just my thoughts on what I'd do with a low #'d '03.

Larry Gibson

I have tried IMR 4895 with both my 311299 and a commercial 311284 in a Krag and '03 Springfield. The results were inconsistent with unburnt or partially burnt in the bore of both rifles.

This powder was new manufacture from a surplus powder vendor
and was slower than cannister 4895 but not a lot slower. Works fine with J-bullets.

Any thoughts on this folks??

Shiloh

[MtGun44]

Buckshot,

Sorry to see the results of the reloading error, hope there was no injury
beyond the loss of a fine rifle and some embarrasment. It is interesting that
this is considered a rare and dangerous failure, but when a modern Sako
fails in much the same way I was suprised that shooters who viewed the
pix had no particular reaction to a modern "quality" bolt rifle with the receiver
split exactly in half with no hint of distortion, just shattered. Also the amount
of metal in key areas was shockingly small. I assume everyone has seen these
pix with the barrel split in three strips front to back and the 300 Win mag
factory brass split comically into three equal strips down to the belt. If not,
I have them somewhere.

After that performance, no matter what else may be said about a modern
Sako, I would never fire one, let alone own one. I don't mean to step on
anyone's toes that is a Sako lover - but that brittle failure really scared me away.
I understand reloading errors, but dramatic blowups with factory ammo,
and a shattered receiver are quite serious to me.

I'd shoot an early Springfield with ordinary pressure j-loads or cast loads,
keeping to the 'un-doubleable' bulkier powders for light cast loads, knowing
I am no smarter or no more mistake proof than Buckshot or anybody else.

Bill

[Larry Gibson]

I have tried IMR 4895 with both my 311299 and a commercial 311284 in a Krag and '03 Springfield. The results were inconsistent with unburnt or partially burnt in the bore of both rifles.

This powder was new manufacture from a surplus powder vendor
and was slower than cannister 4895 but not a lot slower. Works fine with J-bullets.

Any thoughts on this folks??

Shiloh

Have you tried a dacron filler over the powder for consistant ignition?

Larry Gibson

[Bob B]

In using using reduced powder charges in reloading cartridges I use a flashlight to check level of powder in each case.This is cheap insurance. Bob B

[Buckshot]

..............The fault, other then the double charge was in the Springfield's breeching. WHile the cone breech is touted for slick feeding, it exposes more of the brass cartridge case outside the barrel. In the upper left and lower left photo, in the botom left corner of each you can see a piece of the cartridge case. This is a remnant of the solid head. If you could see it well it would be evident that it ruptured.

You can see some of it, but it's much more visible in person, and that is the vaporized brass that had plated certain areas. It is also possible that this rifle had faulty headspace as I never did check it. If so, correct headspacing might have saved the rifle. My gunsmith miked the barrel threads and said they were fine, as was the rest of the barrel. Viewing the pieces, miking the threads and such, we both felt that had the case not blown, the rifle would have withstood the event.

If I was able to get another nice low numbered Springfield I would first have my gunsmith check it for headspace, and I might even have it magnafluxed. WIth that I'd have no qualms at all about shooting it. That and the fact that I have altered my charging and boolit seating schemes.

..................Buckshot

[Shiloh]

There is a low # Springfield Armory '03 at the local gunshop with a 5 digit SN and a barrel marked SA 11. Does the barrel date match the receiver?? Right next to it is a 7 digit serial numbered '03 both are priced at $799.00

I hope the buyer is aware.

Great pics by the way Buckshot. To bad about the rifle, fortunately no injuries. Thats moving a slug right along at 3057 fps.

Shiloh

[kycrawler]

i have a low number 03 i hand picked at the cmp south store , it has seen a few hundred cast loads and i hope to send many more through it

[FWAddit]

I had a low-number Springfield that had been shot so much when I got it that, for the first two or three inches ahead of the chamber, the lands were worn down to rounded ridges. The area was shiny, though; no spalling or pitting. Since the rifle had obviously withstood so many rounds already, it didn't worry me to shoot it, but I regularly used fairly mild loads, whether jacketed or cast.

I expected the worn throat to let boolits tilt over crooked, but oddly enough, it shot even the Lyman 311299 very well.

[Newtire]

I passed up a chance at a low numbered "Sedgely" (sp?) Springfield. It was priced below $200.00 and sporterized/bubba'd. The guy at the gunshop said they re-heat-treated them but got home & read much about it in the Hatcher book and decided against it. All it would take would be just one blown up gun with parts blowing in the wrong direction and hurting/killing yourself or someone else. Just isn't worth taking a chance at any cost. People shoot damascus barrelled guns too. It just is not worth it.

[EDG]

Rifle Magazine had an article on low number Springfields 25 or 30 years ago.
The art director, the late Dave LeGate, held about a half dozen LN receivers by the tang and whacked them with a screwdriver. He broke all of them. Some broke into 3 or 4 large pieces.
He also whacked a high number Springfield receiver that was a few numbers above the 800,000 cutoff and it broke too. This article was accompanied by photos of the deceased receivers.
Large crystalline structure was evident in all.