Low # RIA 1903 shooting mild cast loads?

[Italia1825]

Thanks avo,
It’s been a while since I’ve done research on it. I quit looking some years back when you could stop buying a barrel of them for 200 bucks


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ecramer]

I have a low-number RIA '03, but it must have passed inspection at some point because it has a 1918 SA barrel. I've shot it with full commercial '06 ammo with no problems, but now I use trailboss and cast 200-grain plinking rounds.

[pilot]

I also have a five digit RIA with a 1919 barrel. I use the Ranchdog 170 grain boolit with 28 grains of H4895. Nice and mild with pretty good performance.

[Char-Gar]

The low numbered 03 threads can get very interesting. Somebody will drag out the old Ordance study that shows the low numbered 03s didn't fail at a higher rate than the high numbered versions of the same rifle.

While it is true, that is not the question or the problem with the low numbered rifles. The real issue is what happens when once does fail. The high numbered rifles, just swell up leaving the bolt in the rifle which is well locked up. When the brittle low numbered rifles fail, they turn into grenades.

Buckshot, some years back blew up a low numbered 03 with cast bullets and posted pictures of it here on this board. Of course, he did confess to double charging the case.

These low numbered 03s were heat treated just like the Krags, but the Krag design does not trap the gas like the Mauser/03 does. That is the reason for the Hatcher hole.

About 1961, I was shooting a lot of Pre-War Remington Palma Match ammo when one case blew out the side. There was smoke coming out of the action and enought of it went back through the bolt to blow the striker back to full cock. No damage was done to me or the rifle. It was one of the double heat treated Springfields, with a 1919 date, if I remember correctly.

I don't see a problem with shooting the low numbered 03s, but be darn sure what you put in them. Also remember that metal like people, does not get stronger with age.

[Nick Adams]

That's hard to say but what I've seen lately.... for a 1903, $800-900 isn't uncommon (03A3 maybe a hundred less) for a nothing special parts rifle. Double that (+) for an extremely nice (fit/finish) high ser#, correct cartouche, etc. rifle. Even more for the finer examples and especially if a history/provenance is available (I know, "buy the gun, not the story").

Yeah, if a particular SA or RIA 1903 has the correct stock and all (or mostly all) original correct parts, and is otherwise in good shape generally, I've seen prices in the $1100-$1500 range.

The 1903A3s are a different story and don't yet command those prices ... except at Gun Shows where the pre-1950s firearms always seem overpriced.

[crankycalico]

issue is that it was supposed to be specific production dates at specific locations that were actually proven to be done wrong, and thus the whole caboodle of rifles under a certain number was considered bad..... although it doesn't seem to have been an issue until civilian sales occurred.. passed the hammer test? get rebarrelled for ww2

I have seen DRILL RIFLES that were rechambered with the demilled barrel that have survived shooting factory 150 grain core lokt...

[Eddie1971]

I had a low number SA 1903 for years. I just had loaded for it on the low side with neck sized cases. This was in the says before I casted my own. Never had any issues. It was a 1907 vintage receiver that got re barreled in 1915 at SA.

[Baltimoreed]

Attachment 236175My 1935 ‘03 is not a low number but I only shoot cast in it since I’ve put it back into a military stock. It had been sporterized with an unmolested recvr but a cut bbl. I cut it to 21 in and shortened the wood 3 in to keep it proportional. Moved the lower band an inch lower too. Refinished a scant stock. One of my better builds.

[Ron in PA]

I shoot my low number RIA with IMR 4895

[avogunner]

Nice Rifle Ron!

Man....if these guns could talk!!!

[SvenLindquist]

A mint 100% correct high condition pre WW I SA/RIA 03 will bring thousands in a large commercial auction.

As the older collectors are passing they are starting to appear BUT you have to really know your stuff to get in that game.

Even Canfield got snookered years ago with a rod bayonet gun that was a "built gun".

One of Poyer's rifles, an almost correct pre WWI 03' sniper is hitting the blocks in 2 weeks estimated at $1200-1800. Were is 100% correct it would hit $5000.00
I know the rifle well.

[Rich/WIS]

One of Hatcher's observations when determining cause of failure was that several failed with guard cartridges, basically the 150 gr jacketed bullet backed by Bullseye. His opinion was that the LN receiver failed due to the sudden pressure spike from the fast speed of Bullseye. The receivers held as pressure built with regular powders but failed due to the sudden shock of the fast burning powder.

[SvenLindquist]

If anyone kept records on SMLEs, P14s, P17s, Mausers, Mannilichers, M-1s etc etc as exhaustive as Hatcher's we would all be frightened of shooting them as well. When you break down all the 03 failures and eliminate those caused by incorrect ammo (like 8x57), plugged bores and defective ammo (WCC soft caseheads), the number of failures is statistically insignificant given over 1,000,000 manufactured. Add that to the fact that 1000s were rearsenaled and issued to troops in WWII and RF Sedgley used 100s to build sporting rifles (I own 4) leads me to opine that no low # gun with correct headspace shooting modern ammo is going to blow up. I have seen no verifiable reports since WWII of any 03 failures. Please don't repost the grainy old pictures that cannot be source verified or cause verified.

Serious 03' collectors will snap up a 100% correct low # gun for huge money. If we find an owner who is scared of it and willing to sell it cheap, so much the better.

Here's a restocked 5 digit rifle that will probably go for <$1000.

[Rich/WIS]

ADDED NOTE: After reading the posts I did a quick review of data on burst rifles in my copy of "Hatcher' Notebook". Of the approximately 65 rifles (18 HN) returned for examination between 1917 and 1929 in most cases injuries (when reported) were slight or not serious, three were serious and four were recorded as severe. Three were loss of right eye and one loss of finger on left hand. Thirty four failed with heat treat either the cause or a contributing factor with bad ammo. Ammo was identified in 46 cases as either the cause (HN receivers) or a contributor on LN receivers. Firing 8mm was identified on four. Other causes show up in 39 other (some HN), mostly barrel obstructions but some due to bad barrels (heat treat and/or bad steel). The one factor that stood out reading the reports was that bad ammo (weak case head/excessive pressure/oil or grease) combined with a LN receiver was a disaster waiting to happen. Oddly of the HN failures the vast majority were RIA. This quick analysis is not intended to show whether the LN receivers are safe or not, but only to add info to the discussion.

[SvenLindquist]

65 of almost 2 million. Statistically insignificant.

[fatnhappy]

Mine is serial number 11xxx

I understand there’s inherent risk which I accept. I shoot cast in it exclusively. My load being 30 grains of IMR 4895 and a 311290

I neither endorse nor advise anyone else to do the same, merely point out these rifles saw significant service prior to being removed from front line TOE

[georgerkahn]

My dad carried a lo-number Rock Island 1903 for 1 1/2 years in the Philippine jungles, WWII, and the infantry group he was in found the 1903 a better choice for their survival over the M1. (Correct or incorrect choice -- it's one I'm happy my dad made, as I was conceived shortly after his honorable discharge ). He brought "his" rifle home, storing it in attic to later give to me, but when this time came -- it was GONE! (A roofer? Whole house fan installer? "?????"? -- regardless, "someone" had stolen it!)
Not that many years ago, the CMP listed some and I bought one as a memory of dad's. The one CMP sent me is a Rock Island Arsenal S/n 11,6xx (1904) w/ RA 05/17 barrel & original sling. It appears to me as it was both well used, and well taken care of. I'm not knowledgeable enough to determine what collectors call "correctness", but I have that with some of his medals and dog tags -- and it means a lot to me. (I keep bolt out of it -- this kept locked in safe)
I have yet to shoot this firearm -- re the post (#35) -- things may indeed become "significant" if you're the next accident victim. Many buy, say, lottery tickets thinking they may be a winner; compare statistical numbers vs. getting struck by lightning -- or, in this case, have a 1903 blow up .
In any case, is there a "guaranteed to go bang; hit a target with reasonable accuracy at 75 yards; and NOT blow up a RIA '03" load for a firearm as I have? I'd really love to shoot this relic -- and, still with ten fingers and two working eyes -- return it to its place.
Thanks!
geo

[SvenLindquist]

GK, as I said earlier there is NO validated incident, since WW II of a low # 03 with correct headspace and modern ammo "blowing up". Back when I was a serious 03' collector (57 WW I and earlier 03's and 36 RF Sedgley sporters all but 3 of which were built on low # actions) I shot them ALL, factory, post 1950 mil spec and handloads including a 257 Bob, 270 WCF and 300 H&H. No drama at all. IMHO the low # myth has been given life by the NRA in which Hatcher was a big shot.

The fact that your rifle was rebuilt by RIA not RA (if the bbl is 05/17) indicates that the arsenal had no issues rebuilding it and reissuing it. You will also find 1000s of low # guns rebuilt during WWII with no issues.

Get the headspace checked and enjoy it.

[georgerkahn]

SvenLindquis -- Thanks ever so much! For many years I've heard rhetoric including taking a lo-number '03 to the range is a good way to insure empty lanes on either side of you ! I had no idea it was rebuilt, and definitely by Rock Island Arsenal! I've had a hunch CMP would not intentionally purvey anything which may prove to be unsafe, although they did also provide a "disclaimer" re the rifle. I noted their word "some" rather than "this particular" -- reckoning it was a dual -- both the "press" as well s legal -- cya for them. If/when the ice and snow melt enough to get to range -- in the time window before challenge #2: *MUD* -- I may just shoot it.. long overdue. I have a bit of Greek HX ball ammo from the 1980s (bought from club) for my Garand match shooting. Do you think this would be a safe try -- or, perhaps a better put way in these litigant times: If the RIA 11,6xx was yours, would you attempt shooting it with this load? (On a scattergun, we once tied it to a tractor wheel, using a string on trigger to "proof it".... would this be a smart move on this one?)
Thanks.
geo

[Der Gebirgsjager]

George, just for you, I pulled out one of my old notebooks and looked up the load I've shot very successfully in the now-distant past with my low number RIA #424xx. It was a Ideal 173 gr. cast spritzer with gas check, lubed, sized .308", 22.4 gr. 2400, CCI #200 primers. Here's the 50 yd. target -- well, the best one. Use the load at your own risk.
Attachment 237163

I enjoy reading the Low Number Springfield threads. This is about the 3rd such thread I can remember since joining the forum about 5 years ago. They usually go on and on, with all shades of opinion ranging from "that thing is just like a hand grenade waiting for you to pull the pin" to "no risk at all." Everyone has an opinion. And I consider some of the nay sayers that always contribute to the discussion to be very knowledgeable people,
and their opinions worth considering.

A very well known gun writer who sometimes frequents this forum wrote in a popular gun magazine just a couple of years ago that he had witnessed a low number blow up at his local range, and he went on to repeat all the old warnings against using them. I sent the man a personal letter via his publisher and asked him to come up on the forum and discuss the incident and its details, as at the time it was one of the forum's hot topics with thread posts of several pages. He never put in an appearance. My letter wasn't obnoxious or challenging, just a request that he contribute to the community knowledge of such events.

I'm going to cast my vote with those who believe that the past incidents very often had a contributing factor like the ammo, bore obstruction, etc., and that a relative few just decided to let go without any outside help at all. I also think that it's been so long and they've been used so much that those which were going to fail have done so.

Since you told us in detail about your low number rifle, I'll return the favor. There once was a company named Federal Ordnance of S. El Monte, CA, which specialized in making something from nothing. Well, almost nothing. They'd scour the planet for junker guns and parts and rehab them into something saleable. One of their products was a run of low number Springfields. They bought a bunch from (?) that were just absolutely, completely worn out with nothing salvageable but the receivers. Now these rifles had been used by the US military and then kindly given to another country to use some more. If we suspected the safety of the rifles, now wasn't that a nice thing for us to do! I've been under the impression for many years that they were repatriated from China, as they appeared on the market about the same time all the Chinese Broomhandle Mausers and Chinese
88 and 98 rifles, but some say they came from S. America. In any event, even the receivers were pretty awful. They looked o.k. on the exposed portion, but under the woodline they were incredibly pitted. This was not apparent to casual inspection, and could only be seen when the rifles were disassembled. They rebuilt the rifles with unissued '03 and some '03-A3 parts, and the finished result was very pleasing to the eye, looking almost like brand new rifles. They cautioned in their advertisement that they were low number rifles and for collectors only. Naturally, I bought two of them, one being the RIA mentioned above, and the other a SA, which I liked the less of the two because it has a scant stock which I've always considered to be neither fish nor fowl. I much prefer the original straight wrist 1903 stocks. But, the moral to this story, if there is one, is that the US used these rifles, passed them along to someone else who used them almost to destruction, and they still work for me. I am cautious about
the loads and do not shoot full power military or commercial ammo in them, but they still provide the enjoyment of shooting cast boolits with moderate loads, and the pleasure of examining them and saying, "Will you just look at that!"