safety of Springfield 1903 #726480

[Bullshop]

A customer has brought in a couple sporterized 1903 Springfields. We need to know if these are in the safe to use serial # range.
#1 is a Springfield # 726480
#2 is a Rock Island # 158944
Any help will be greatly appreciated as our shop may end up with these.

[405]

Since you can't control the ammo anyone puts in a gun or the history of that gun regarding any hot loads it may have been subjected to.... I'd say it's a neutral issue- best left to the owner/shooter to make the decision.

The "convention" on weaker, suspect receivers is: Springfield receivers under #800,000 and Rock Island receivers under # 285,507.

[RicinYakima]

Both are single heat treat actions that are subject to receiver fragmentation if a case head would fail. HTH, Ric

[Bullshop]

OK that is what I was afraid of. These are the type I read of in Parker Ackleys book where he destroyed several that shattered into several pieces by tapping the side rail with a hammer. Too bad!
Thanks for the help!

[405]

The book Hatcher's Notebook is an excellent resource for such things... and many more interesting tidbits! Hatcher was THE man in the middle of most of the history surrounding the M1903 and other US small arms from WW1 thru WW2.

[NickSS]

They are both single heat treat rifles and as such are suspect as to strength. After WWI the army relegated them to drill rifles but I have owned and shot several of them and never blew one up but I did load them more in the 40K or less PSI range when shooting them. I would never put a full power round through one. If they have a good bore light cast loads may give you lots of fun.

[leadman]

Go to the CMP website in the 1903 section and there is an article on the receiver number and bolts.

[Multigunner]

The main thing is these rifles have no margin for error to speak of. They don't blow up due to pressures in the normal range of WW1 era .30-06 (around 48,000 CUP) and were proof tested to 70,000 CUP, but even a pierced primer can wreck one due to insufficient gas relief and often brittle receiver rings.
Defective cartridge cases were the major cause of blow ups, the case heads spliting under normal pressures.
Also many WW1 production barrels were found to develop cracks which contributed to blow ups.

I'd be very leery of shooting one of the Low Number rifles.
Not all suffered from over heated forgings, but even those that didn't were no where near as strong as the later double heat treat 03 rifles.

Those Marine Corp Low Number rifles with the "Hatcher Hole" are far less likely to suffer catastrophic failure should a case head split or primer cup rupture.

[thegatman]

I load my low serial # Springfield using Trailboss and jacketed bullets around 147g. It shoots great. Mine was made by Springfield in June of 1943. It is all original.

[old turtle]

thegateman, the 1943 date is the date of manufacture of the barrel. It was re-barreled at least once. Look for a small punch mark on right side of the receiver. Each time the action was re-barreled they put a punch mark usually on the flat surface at the top of the small protrusion on the right front side of the action. Any low numbered receivers would have been made during or prior to 1918

[gnoahhh]

Every blown up low number Springfield in gov't records was due to faulty wartime (WWI) brass and/or Doughboys trying to fire captured German 8x57 ammo. The actions that were ever going to fail have long since been weeded out. (And don't get into being able to shatter them with a hammer blow. That same thing can be done with other case hardened actions like Krags for example, and I don't see any witch hunts going after them.) I'm not going to stand here and tell you to fire it, but I will say that I personally don't hesitate to fire them. There is so much info out there now de-bunking the urban legend of these "dangerous" rifles that I certainly regret because now their prices are catching up to other shooter-grade Springfields.

[Char-Gar]

The arguments continues to rage on, about the safety of the low numbered 03s. Extensive research as been done and still the debate continue. I don't buy the bad ammo or 8 mm were the sole cause explanation. Although there was a batch of "tin can" match ammo that did cause a number of 03s to go kaboom.

IIRC, the rate of failure of the low numbered rifles was not much, if any, different from that of the later rifles.

The fly in the ointment is not that the low numbered rifles fail at and greater rate, but when they do fail, the fragment and turn into grenades. The later rifles just bulge but stay together when they fail.

Although there were some differences in heat treatment between the Krags and the first 03, there can be no valid comparison between the two designs. The Krags don't grenade when they fail, because of the design. The Krags don't trap the gas, but the 03s. do.

Some years back Buckshot posted some pics of his low numbered 03 that went Kaboom. They were very interesting photos and instructional.

[45-70marlin]

here is a interesting read on the old springfield receivers.
http://m1903.com/03rcvrfail/

[TNsailorman]

Any military ammunition from any era can fail. After several failures, steps were taken to try to minimize the results of the failures. Double heat treating was one of those measures. Now the problem of what caused the failure is a mute point. As charger correctly points out, the results of ammunition failure are handled very different by the two rifles(low number and high number Springfield 1903's). After I found out about low numbered Springfields in the middle 60's, I never bought another and let the only one I had go to a Collector who promised to never fire it. Some people insist on courting danger and playing Russian roulette. Firing a low numbered Springfield falls into this catagory. The only case I ever had to burst on me was in a(I think I rememberas a) 1917 Enfield, with the rear of the original 1943 EW case bursting at the very thickest part of the base. Much of the World War II ammo that I have measured, especially ammo manufactured early on, was out of spec on dimensions and I suspect, metalurgy also. We needed ammo fast and quanity trumped quality. My failure looked all the world like a slightly jagged hacksaw cut through the case beginning in the extractor groove and continuining into the base of the case for about where the normal resizing would end on the case. The rifle handled the gas very well and it blew out thru the bolt and I only got some fine brass particals and powder particles in my forehead just above my right eye. Thank goodness I had on safety glasses. I hate to think of what would have happened if the rifle had been a low number Springfield. If I was a collector, I would not hesitate to buy one and pay well to get a good example. But being a shooter and not a collector, I will pay more and get one that is safer. The argument about the unsafe ones being weeded out by now may have some merit but I remember a famous movie saying, "do you feel lucky, well do you." Just my experience and not binding on anyone. James

[BruceB]

On a number of occasions, Elmer Keith wrote of his work at the Ogden Arsenal during WWII, and specifically about the low-number Springfields he worked on.

He said that the rifles were rebarreled, a new (nickel-steel) bolt was fitted and a couple of proof loads ("blue pills") were fired. The rifle was then returned to service.

I have a low-number Rock Island '03 which survived decades of factory hunting loads in Michigan's Upper Peninsula. I still shoot it with cast loads, but NOT with fast-burning powders....about as quick as I go in the powder burn rate is 4198, and in moderate loads at that.

I don't worry about it, but I do try to treat it gently.

[Bullshop]

So as usual opinions seem about evenly divided between continued use and taken from service.
I wanted these rifles because even though they have been neglected they were at one time fine examples of true craftsmanship.
I have passed on them and let them go back to the owner.
I did pass on the info from this thread.

[MakeMineA10mm]

There is one more element to this argument as well. If you read deeply into this issue, you learn that the original heat-treat method was done by eye, and when the metal appeared to reach a certain color, the receiver would be quenched. Trouble was on some days, especially on overcast days, the coloring wouldn't show up until the heat was waaaaay over-done. They changed to a more controlled system where the heat was actually measured and a double-heat-treat process was used.

Interestingly, they heat-treated Krag receivers the same way as the early Springfields, and as has been mentioned before, no one cries and howls about how safe (or should I say dangerous) shooting Krags is... So, if you think Krags are safe to shoot, so are low-numbered Springfields, especially with low to medium pressure loads (like with cast boolits!).

Another factor which is not spoken of or read much, is that, while the heat treating was found to be a genuine issue, there were extremely few (possibly only one, IIRC) fatalities from the blow-ups and only a few guys seriously injured. What is not heard almost at all, is that this was during the waning of yellow journalism (or at least the first strain of it in America -- not going to comment about our "modern" liberal media), but the principle of "if it bleeds, it leads" was well in-swing then. I feel there's no question that the problem was whipped into a frenzy well beyond it's real level of problem in the press to sell newspapers. Unfortunately, this is also the type of situation where 100 years onward, we are struggling with what to believe and the fear-factor leaves a lot of good rifles unused.

My Springfields are both high-number, but even those I mainly shoot with cast bullet loads nowadays. A 170-200gr lead boolit going 1500-2000 fps is plenty fun and interesting for these old rifles, and I'd shoot the same level of loads out of a low-numbered '03, as it's not stressing the action at all.

Now, I know BullShop was in a different situation. He stated these two he saw were sporterized and in rough shape, so I'd have probably passed on them too. If I'm getting a past sporterized Springfield, I'd want to be able to shoot any loads in it, and would definitely want a higher-numbered one.

My favorite '03s are the late '20s to early '30s rifles. They are like works of art... I certainly understand what you were feeling there BullShop!

[Char-Gar]

Makemine.. Just a couple of observations vis-a-vi your post. This is just for the record and anybody that might stumble on to this thread.

1. The heat treating of the Krags and the low numbered 03s were not the same.

2. The Krag and the 03 are entirely different designs. In case of a case failure, the 03 traps the gas in the action and the Krag does not. The results is that the 03s can come to pieces and the Krags will not.

The "Hatcher" hole was added to latter versions of the 03 (right side of the front receiver ring) to give the gas a place to escape should it get loose in the action. These two rifles can't be compared and the notion that what you can do with one, you can do with the other is not valid.

Back about 1961, I had a total case failure with some Pre-War Remington Palma Match ammo. The rifle was a 1919 double heat treated Springfield 03. Most of the gas blew out the Hatcher hole, but there was plenty left to enter the firing pin hole in the bolt and blow the striker back to full cock.

3. The use of a low numbered 03 with reduced or cast bullet loads is a matter of personal choice. There is always the chance, such a round can be double charged , the result of the rifle turning into a grenade. That happened to one of our long standing board members a few years back.

Therefore in these matters, I will never tell others what I would or would not do. There are too many folks who will see that as a green light and I will not be able to look over their shoulder as they load.

4. My favorite 03s are the double heat treated models. I feel they are smoother and stronger than the later nickle steel receivers. The change to nickle steel had nothing to do with safety, but with reduced cost.

I hunted up a good 1921 DH treated Springfield as the basis for my son's rifle, which is now on my bench in the process.

As always, my disclaimer below should be included.

[MakeMineA10mm]

Chargar,
Thanks for posting this. I went back and re-read my previous post and decided that I left a little too much up for inference. I'll go back and edit that post a little and refer them to this one.

As far as your points, let me address them one-by-one:

1. I should have said the METHOD of heat-treating of the Krags and Springfields were the same, in that the objectionable part (a human using his eye's perception of the color of the steel) was the same on the Krags as Springfields. Naturally, the design-level of pressures the two actions were meant to take ARE different, and therefore, the level of heat and quench-point to achieve that would most-likely be different. However, my point that the same, in-exact, by-eye judgements IS accurate. I'll go look and see if I can find where I read this at, but I've been reading A LOT about Springfields for the last few months, so it may take some looking... I didn't mention it above, because my memory is sketchier on this point, because I was more focused on the Springfield at the time, but I believe the author wrote that a few Krag actions came apart as well... I'll have to find the article to be sure.

2. I don't disagree with anything you say here, except stretching what I actually said. I was slightly inexact about my point, and you assumed I was implying more than I did. I never said you could do anything with a Springfield you could do with a Krag (insofar as loading it). What I was inferring (and I think was pretty clear) is that if one thinks a Krag is safe to shoot with loads that are appropriate for its age, design pressure-level, and condition (making sure it doesn't have the locking lug crack), then you can apply the same logic to loading your Springfield, insofar as the concern over receiver heat-treating is concerned. (Again, based on the article I read that said the process, as far as the objectionable issue of using the human eye to judge proper heating is concerned.) I suppose it could safely be stretched to the point that if a guy thinks the Harris load (16.0grs of 2400) is safe in a Krag, it would be safe in a low-numbered Springfield.

3. No disagreement at all.

4. I like your signature line, and I agree with it wholeheartedly. I would hope beyond all hope that no one would ever read someone's opinion on the interweb and follow it as gospel. These internet forums are DISCUSSIONs, NOT GOSPEL handed down from on high. Anyone who would read any posters opinion and then not go follow it up with their own research is asking for it, and I think this is implied in any internet forum. I've been involved with them since the 90s, and I've been a moderator at the 3rd largest forum for >7 years, and yes, disclaimers are good, but it's common sense and smarts that trump all...


I'll do some looking when I have time and see if I can find the article about the heat-treating being the same and post it here.

[gnoahhh]

It's my understanding that the eyeball method of gauging heat temperatures at the Armory were plenty accurate. What happened was this: the heat treating department had huge windows providing ample amounts of daylight for their operations. With the dramatic increase in production demanded by our entry into the Great War they did two things. They added a bunch of newbies to the heat treating gang and went to additional shifts- at night. The new guys didn't have the keen eye for heat colors that comes with experience, and at night they were at the mercy of artificial light making it difficult to properly gauge the heat colors. The proof testers started getting a few failures which, coupled with reports of a couple of failures in the field (from stupid tricks pulled by inexperienced Doughboys) caused the engineering staff to scramble and come with a solution. First stop gap measure was to switch from "eyeballing" to using pyrometers to accurately gauge temperatures. The second was to change the metallurgy of the steel (the noted "double heat treat"), which took place around March-April, 1918.

Although I wouldn't chamber a low # Springfield to .300 Weatherby, I also don't hesitate to fire one if it's in sound condition and in it's original chambering. I stay in the very low pressure range with both jacketed and cast bullets, something I do when firing any 100 year old rifle. I'll not recommend use of these things nor advise against it. It's just what I do, and what all of my U.S. Martial collector friends do.

[Char-Gar]

Makemine... Communication between humans, even in the best circumstances is difficult. Folks often don't hear/understand what others said. The words of other, pass through many filters before they engage the brain. Often the brain does weird things with what it thinks it hears.

Of all the communications systems I know of, these Internet boards are the worst and most open to misunderstandings.

It is good we can keep at the subject, until we are on the same page and at least know if we agree or disagree and on what issue. Way to often, folks just get pissed if challenged and then the fight becomes general. Thank you for taking my comments in the spirit they were given and not taking offense.

I have had several low numbered 03s over the years and while my intellect told me what I could and could not do with them, there was that nagging voice in the back of my mind that said.."Yea, but what if?". Those rifles were sold down river and another with better numbers acquired. Having anxiety, either founded in fact or not, does nothing good for the trigger squeeze.

[Bullshop]

The guns I passed on would have been put up for sale in my shop. I see most everyone in agreement that they use only reduced loads for these.
My concern was that the buyer of these may have no idea and not even be a re-loader.
In that case only current modern factory ammo will be used some of which is darn hot like the Hornady light mag ammo.
So the question comes down to this, are they absolutely safe with all currently available factory ammo?

[Char-Gar]

From a legal standpoint, I would never risk selling one of those rifles, knowing their history and having no control over where they went and what was fired in this. It would be a lawsuit waiting to happen.

[9.3X62AL]

Having anxiety, either founded in fact or not, does nothing good for the trigger squeeze.

ROGER THAT, for sure. Another nugget of wisdom from a regular source of same. Thank you, sir.

[looseprojectile]

I think you did the right thing.
My take on the matter of shooting the low number Springfields is this.
I have owned perhaps a dozen low number Springfield rifles. All were fired with military ball ammo by me as well as I can remember.
1903 and 03A3 rifles were made in the millions. A few failed, maybe a dozen total.
What are the odds? You are as likely to win the lottery as to have a low number rifle blow up. I believe the ammo to be the problem. The ammo is more of a variable than anything else.
The question in my mind is do I feel lucky? Hmmmm? I will continue to acquire and shoot almost any gun that comes my way and use the knowledge that I have gained over the years to temper my loading and shooting.
Some gun owners do not have any knowledge at all regarding the relative strength of differing makes models and designs of guns. I hope I have enough for me. And a few words of caution can never hurt.

Life is good

[MakeMineA10mm]

Found some references. This is my favorite page about the low-numbered '03 problem (VERY thorough and cites it's own sources): http://m1903.com/03rcvrfail/

From that page, some high points that we've discussed:


Between July and December 1917 eleven rifle receivers shattered, causing one severe and 10 minor injuries to the soldiers using the rifle. Despite the intense demand for rifles caused by our entry into the war, production at both Springfield Armory and Rock Island Arsenal was halted in early 1918, and an investigation launched to determine the cause of the problem.

It was determined that the workers responsible for heat treating the receivers had used an "eyeball" method that relied on the color of the heated metal to determine if the steel had been heated to the correct temperature. Unfortunately, according to General Hatcher, the officer in charge of the investigation, "... it was quickly found that the ‘right heat’ as judged by the skillful eye of the old timers was up to 300 degrees hotter on a bright sunny day than it was on a dark cloudy one" (See Hatcher, Julian Hatcher’s Notebook , Third Edition, Stackpole Books, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, 1966, page 215). Heating to the higher temperatures led to crystallization of trace elements within the steel, making it too hard, and rather than deforming under high pressure, the receiver shattered, often permitting the bolt to exit the receiver, causing injury to the shooter. Between 1917 and 1929 three soldiers lost an eye to receiver failure, and six more had unspecified injuries consider serious. An additional 34 soldiers received minor injuries from receiver failures. There were no deaths reported from the failure of a Springfield receiver.

The heat treating method was immediately changed to a double heat treatment, and pyrometers were used to determine the temperature of the heated receivers. The change in heat treating was instituted between serial number 750,00 and 800,000 at Springfield and by serial number 285,506 at Rock Island Arsenal. Rifles manufactured after these serial numbers are referred to as "high numbered" receivers and are commonly stated to be safe to shoot.



During the 1920's officials within the Ordnance Department investigated the problem more thoroughly, including destructive testing of receivers. Three rifles with low serial numbers were fired with cartridges that produced known levels of pressure starting at 70,000 pounds per square inch. One receiver failed at 80,000 pounds and the other two at 100,000 pounds. All of these receivers withstood pressures well above that experienced with military ammunition, yet none failed until pressure was raised between 50% to 100% above normal operating pressure. In 1926 24 high numbered receivers were subjected to pressures up to 125,000 pounds per square inch. None failed. (See Hatcher pp 227-229).


Between 1917 and 1929 there were 68 burst receivers. Of the 68 no serial number were available for 11 receivers, four of those that failed in 1917. Two of the 68 were made at Springfield Armory and had serial numbers in the 950,000 range. Of the remaining 57 receivers 33 were manufactured by Springfield Armory and 24 by Rock Island. Hatcher provided the serial number and the date of failure for all 33 Springfield Armory receivers, and the same data for 22 of the 24 Rock Island receivers (see Hatcher, pp 442-447). This information was used in the analysis that follows. The overall failure rate by 1929 was 68/1,085, 506 or 6.3 per 100,000 receivers. The failure rate varied by site of manufacture, and each manufacturer is discussed separately.


The failure of 11 receivers in 1917 was believed to be due to human error in the heat treatment process of the receivers, but after the change to double heat treatment there were four receiver failures, three Springfield manufactured receivers, and one Rock Island manufactured receiver (Hatcher does not provide the serial number). All four receivers were definitely double heat treated. In no cases did the receiver shatter as was the case with the low numbered receivers, but the failed receivers did bend.

The failure rate for the double heat treated receivers up to 1929 was slightly less than 1/100,000, for Springfield manufactured receivers, and 0.5/100,000 Rock Island receivers. The double heat treated receivers did fail, but at a much lower rate than the earlier receiver, and did not shatter, and so had less potential to seriously injury the shooter. Those who state that the double heat treatment method solve the problem generally ignore this evidence

I am aware of one receiver failure of a high number receiver about 1987-88 in Salt Lake City, Utah. The rifle was made by Springfield Armory and the serial number was over 1,000,000. The ammunition was said to World War II military ball ammunition. A piece of the receiver was blown off and there was evidence of crystallization along the fracture line. The stock and magazine were wrecked. The shooter sustained minor injuries, and sued the seller. The seller of the rifle found evidence the rifle had been fired with the bore full of grease. The seller's insurance company settled out of court.



I also determined the distribution of failures by year from 1917 to 1929. Since the failure rate of receivers is a rare event, we assume that a receiver failure follows a Poisson distribution, and that the standard deviation is identical to the mean number of failures in a year. The number of failures by year for each manufacturer is shown in figure 2, and figure 3 and the combined rate in figure 4. Springfield Armory receivers had their highest failure rates in 1917 (5), and again in 1929 (5). The range of receiver failures per year varied from zero to five with no failures in 1919 and 1922 with an average of 2.64 failures per year.

The failure rate per year for Rock Island receivers varied from zero (1919, 1924, 1927-28) to seven in 1918. The average failure rate per year was 1.69.

Hatcher reports no receiver failures after 1929, but if the rates experienced between 1917-1929 continued up to 1939 there would have about 43 additional receiver failures. Or if all the low numbered rifles were withdrawn from service and replaced by high numbered rifles we would have expected up to 12 receiver failures through 1939. This provides a range of expected failures for this time period (12 to 43). An unknown number of low numbered rifles were reworked and put into service during World War II. There are no reports of receiver failures with these rifles.



The lack of receiver failures after 1929 may have occurred because the rifles with the most brittle metal had been eliminated in the 1917-1929 period. Another important factor is the exhaustion or retirement of soft brass cartridge cases manufactured during the crisis of World War I and still being used up to 1929..

Additional evidence for this explanation comes from the experience of the 1st Marine Division on Guadal Canal The Marine Corp made no effort to replace their low numbered Springfield rifles, and these rifles saw heavy use on Guadal Canal between August 1942 and February 1943. No receiver failures were reported in the training period before the battles, and during the four major battles that occurred in the seven month period in 1942-43. While it's not possible to estimate the exact number of rifles involved, up to 7,000 would have been in use by the three rifle regiments of the 1st Marine Division, Based on the failure rates of 1917-1918 between one and two rifle receivers would have been expected to fail.



The problem of Springfield receiver failures was a rare event throughout the service years of the Springfield rifle despite statements to the contrary. It was also concentrated in certain years of manufacture suggesting that an important component of the failure was human error in heat treatment. The heat treatment problems had been present long before the manufacturing pressures of 1917. The receiver failures were also compounded by a design flaw in the support of the cartridge case head in the Springfield rifle, and this problem was exacerbated by uneven manufacturing of brass cartridge cases during 1917-18.

It also suggests that ammunition manufactured during World War I likely played a major role in receiver failures.

I still haven't run across the place where I read about the similarities between the Krag and Springfield. I know I'd remember the phrasing / description if I read it, but I haven't found it on-line. I could have been in a book or magazine.

However, I have found about three or four posts in various other internet forums discussing it, and all agreeing with the point that the heat treat and steels used were the same between the Krag and the early Springfields. Here's one post I found at SurplusRifleForum.com:


Chargar
Post subject: Re: Krag safe to shoot?
Posted: Thu Oct 28, 2010 2:15 pm

The Krags and low numbered 03 have the same steel and heat treatment. The 03 have a design that traps the gas from a ruptured case and the rifle can turn into a grenade. Julian Hatcher when he was in command of the arsenal started drilling a hole in the left hand side of the 03 receiver to vent any unwanted gas. Even today this is called the "Hatcher Hole".

I had a double heat treated 03 back in the early 60s and found a bunch of Prewar Remington factory Palma Match ammo. One of the cases let go and the gas came back through the fireing pin hole and blew the striker back to full cock. Neither the rifle nor I was injured, but I learned to respect gas at loose in a rifle action.

The Krag action does not trap the gas so they don't blow up.


Last edited by Chargar on Thu Oct 28, 2010 2:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.

:groner:

Sorry buddy! (Done it to myself more than once!) [smilie=1:

[gnoahhh]

Well, that is a very concise summation of the issue. Thank you for sharing.

[Char-Gar]

Makemine... Yes, I held that opinion until recently. I read something about the differences in the heat treatment of the Krag and 03. But, like others, I dis-remember where I read it.