rare find

[shotman]

I have 03 spring field with a serial number 876***. That is in the 1918 area . the action and all parts are near mint. Stock is near mint with the cartch and is grooved butt plate is mint .
The barrel was changed at some point to a H S 44
I was just surfing GB and found a mint 1918 SA barrel I paid more than it was worth but that should make the rifle a very good collector piece[smilie=w:

[Shiloh]

Find someone with experience in Springfield rifles. Because of the timed threads, some of the barrels are REALLY torqued on!!

Nice find!!

Shiloh

[TAWILDCATT]

I have a 1903 barrel 1914.I shoot it with cast.the 44 barrel is a high standard.better metal than the WW1 one.

[Multigunner]

I have 03 spring field with a serial number 876***. That is in the 1918 area .
[smilie=w:

I hope this is a Double heat treat receiver, the 800,000 cut off point is a ball park figure, with some higher numbered receivers still being of the older production.

Probably nothing to worry about anyway, not all that many were burned in forging, just enough of them to give cause to change the method of forging and treating. Those not overheated in forging, while not as tough as the later Double treated, should remain plenty strong enough for loads in the Military Ball category.

[leadman]

I was reading an article in the 2010 Gun Digest about the use of Mobilubricant on the cupro-nickel bullets for use in the 1903 Springfield.
Jim Foral writes that the use of this grease could be the cause of the Springfields blowing up.
He writes also that the Springfield "strutted into the 1920s, having stylishly and faultlessly hit its stride". 1921 is the year that the use of the grease was discontinued after Lubaloy jackets were developed.

A very real possibility I would think. Sloppy application of the lube and running them thru the magazine would be sure to lube part of the chamber.

[Tazman1602]

I hope this is a Double heat treat receiver, the 800,000 cut off point is a ball park figure, with some higher numbered receivers still being of the older production.

Probably nothing to worry about anyway, not all that many were burned in forging, just enough of them to give cause to change the method of forging and treating. Those not overheated in forging, while not as tough as the later Double treated, should remain plenty strong enough for loads in the Military Ball category.

Good call Multi. I can't remember off hand what the cutoff was but I remember a very stern warning about even firing one that was below a certain serial and I thought it was closer to 900K but I'm guessing............I do know some of them did not recieve proper heat treating though.

Art

[Char-Gar]

03 rifles made before February 1918/sn 800,000 are the "low numbered" rifles that can give problems. The rifle that is the subject of this post is a double heat treated rifle, which was the best, smoothest and strongest of the 03s.

[9.3X62AL]

A very real possibility I would think. Sloppy application of the lube and running them thru the magazine would be sure to lube part of the chamber.

It has been a lot of years since I read this in "Hatcher's Notebook", but Hatcher made similar speculations concerning this same question.

[shotman]

I am no expert but this is a rebarreled with a H/S dated 44 I would think that the military would not rebarrel a problem receiver. Would most of you feel the same. If it was a 500*** and a 08 barrel ok. But anyway it will only be used with CAST BOOLITS that IS MADE IN THE USA by a USA guy that dont speak %$@&%^! rick

[Bent Ramrod]

Supposedly the arsenals culled out all the low-number receivers when the rifles came in for rebuilds. I seem to recall that civilians could avail themselves of this service as well, through a NRA or DCM program. If yours was arsenal-refurbished, it would be at least a double-heat treat receiver.

I have a similar one, in the early 900,000's, rebarreled with a November 1942 manufactured SA 4-groove at Benicia Arsenal. The barrel looks like it was never fired after it was installed. I load to the old 2700 ft/sec velocities with 150 gr jacketed bullets. I figure it's easier on the rifle and certainly more accurate; also it then shoots to the sights. Cast at 1400 or so needs the sight set to 500 yards to get on the 100 yard target.

[Le Loup Solitaire]

The info I once recorded says that 0 -800,000 is (considered) a low numbered 1903 Springfield. According to the records; Double Heat Treatment started from 800,000 and ran to the number 1,275,767. Anything over that number is Nickel Steel. So there are 475.767 DHT's around...of which yours is easily one of them and totally safe to fire. To confirm any of this you can punch up milsurps.com and PM either Rick the Librarian, or John Beard, both of whom are expert level sources on all matters pertaining to 03's. Congrats on a nice find. LLS

[Shiloh]

Supposedly the arsenals culled out all the low-number receivers when the rifles came in for rebuilds.

That is my understanding.

Saw a low #Springfield '03 last spring at a gunshop.
average condition only. $850 IIRC.

Shiloh

[Multigunner]

Well guys Hatcher's notebook (page 223) records that Springfield Receiver number 801,548 blew up and while on paper it was recorded as a double heat treated receiver it apparently was not.
He goes on to say that at around the 800,000 mark a number of the older receivers that had been put aside for some reason were in his words "put in process".
He makes it clear that he did not believe that serial number 801,548 had received the double heat treated process, and implies that a few others made up into rifles after the 800,000 cut off date were possibly from this older misplaced and later found group of the older type heat treatment.

Theres no way of knowing what method of heat treat was used just by looking at the receiver, and if as Hatcher says these receivers had been set aside earlier and not previously numbered its not unlikely that such an error could occur.


I am no expert but this is a rebarreled with a H/S dated 44 I would think that the military would not rebarrel a problem receiver. Would most of you feel the same. If it was a 500*** and a 08 barrel ok. But anyway it will only be used with CAST BOOLITS that IS MADE IN THE USA by a USA guy that dont speak %$@&%^! rick

As you say they would not have knowningly have rebarreled a low number receiver at the arsenal.
The US Marines though continued to use the Low Number rifles well into WW2, and for the most part did their own repairs and modifications, including the "Hatcher Hole" which is a gas relief port drilled in the receiver ring to vent gas from a split case head. Split case heads from a few lots of defective WW1 manufacture ammunition was a major cause of low number receiver blowups.

So long as the ammo used does not exceed the pressure levels of US Ball ammo in use when the rifles were in service pressures themselves didn't cause blow outs. Blow outs were due to blown cases, (from one of several possible causes) venting into the receiver ring and not having a method of escape before the ring ruptured.

PS
Again according to Hatcher a number of defective (burnt steel) WW1 manufacture barrels ended up being used after 1918. These had passed proof but had internal cracks that gave way after many firings.

I'm sure your rifle is fine, at least the odds are greatly in your favor.
If it were mine I wouldn't assume the worst.
Also since the USMC seems to have had no problems with their low number rifles I would say that so long as theres nothing radically wrong with the ammo used the Low Number rifles aren't as likely to suffer a cracked receiver now as they were in the days of the soft headed defective ammo Hatcher speaks of.

[NoDakJak]

Several weeks ago I purchased a 1903, Rock Island action at a gun show. It has the gas release hole in the left side of the reciever. Serial # is 1774XX. There is a barrel loosely screwed into the action that is marked, RA 12-42. The previous owner shot this with both factory and handloads for many years. I believe that I will install a new barrel and use it for a cast boolit rifle. Neil

[madsenshooter]

One rifle in the range of shotman's, was used in some headspace vs pressure tests on page 219 of Hatcher's Notebook, serial #876523. I wouldn't be afraid to use a low numbered Springfield as a cast shooter, I regularly use Krag receivers for my projects, and I've found only one of them with cracks behind the locking lug recess. It appears the locking lug of the bolt only bore on the outside edge of the recess and the cracks radiate from there. Serial #13,xxx, rings like a bell too. I think the heat treatment of the Krag had improved over the years, late 98 receivers bear a star imprint that could only have been put there while the forging was hot, perhaps just a proof that it had reached a certain color, but certainly an indication they were trying to standardize the process. Lots of other letters and such stamped on too.

[Bob S]

The Navy also continued to use "low number" Springfields and Rock Islands intill they were placed in stores when we finally got M1's, which was after V-J day. There were still a bunch of low numbered '03's in stores at Crane when I retired in 1993. All of these found their way to CMP in subsequent years and were sold.

Although it was Army "policy" to scrap low numbered receiovers as the rifles came in for overhaul, it appears that the "policy" was not rigidly enforced, particularly during the early years of WW II when many were rebuilt with new barrels and placed back in service.

Resp'y,
Bob S.

[Multigunner]

One thing to look out for are reactivated Drill Rifles. These seem to have been mostly low number rifles deemed not worth having a replacement receiver and deactivated.
Some have bought these and reworked them into firing condition, most intending to use low pressure cast bullet loads only.
While these are probably safe in the hands of the present owners who know what they have, if the rifle were later to be inherited by a relative, or end up in the hands of a bidder at an estate sale, that did not know it to be a reactivated DP they might well assume it to be safe with full power ammo.

I'd suggest that any reactivated rifles be prominately marked as such, and with warning to use low pressure loads only.
It might be better to install a permanent chamber sleeve chambered for a less intense cartridge like the .32-20, or as some have done transform it into a clone of the .22 rimfire trainer.

As I come a bit closer to the end of my time on earth I've begun to think hard on where my collection will end up long after I'm gone.
I don't intend to leave behind any firearms that aren't totally safe to fire with available ammo for which it is chambered.

[Dutchman]

The rifle that is the subject of this post is a double heat treated rifle, which was the best, smoothest and strongest of the 03s.


Sorry but I have to correct a few things as there is more than a few incorrect assumptions in this thread.

The double heat treat were not the strongest. The nickel steel were the strongest action. The double heat treat isn't smoother than the low number rifles as they both are case hardened. But the high number double heat treat are both slick, strong and safe. But the nickel steel receivers are stronger, but not slick at all.

Dutch

[Dutchman]

I am no expert but this is a rebarreled with a H/S dated 44 I would think that the military would not rebarrel a problem receiver.

The rifle in question was sold to a hardware salesman in 1953 in Elephant Butte, New Mexico. At the same time in the same hardware store there was an old nail keg full of new-in-wrap 1903 Springfield replacement barrels for $12 each. The salesman bought one of those at the same time. Sixteen years later, after he died, his son-in-law found the HS44 barrel and had it installed by Joe the gunsmith down the street. Cost $36.

Trying to make a point:wink:

Why in the world would you assume the rifle in question was rebarreled by the military? That assumption is too far fetched to be credible. New barrels and 1903 Springfields were dime a dozen when I was a teen in the 60s. People were buying them and having new barrels installed all the time. It was commonplace.

Being a gun collector and firearms researcher has taught me that you can't make such assumptions. Drawing a conclusion with nothing to base it on leads to faulty information being shared and passed on decade after decade and makes the standard for the forum mediocre at best.

Dutch

[Multigunner]

If the rifle is in full military trim I'd say odds favor the rebarreling being an arsenal or at least company armorers work. If the rifle were customised and did not carry the original military rear sight base I'd figure it to be a civilian rebarreling.
No garauntee either way, just the odds.

Restorations of old milsurps is not an entirely new thing, but the vast majority of extensive reworking of old Springfields by civilian owners was geared towards creating a fine hunting rifle.

There are other possibilitys of course, the rifle may have seen service in a foreign army decades after WW2 and been rebarreled in some third world workshop. Many Springfields, apparently mostly 03a3, ended up in Greece for example.

It would be nice if the New Zealand/British Remington Contract 1903 rifles hit the market, they were likely used only as training rifles.

[NickSS]

I have owned many springfields over the years and I have to say that they have all been good shooters. As I recall, Hatcher noted the serial number of every Springfield that blew up and there were something like two dozen of them. The rest remained in service and in use for a good long time. These rifles were used through WWI and many were also used in WWII. I myself have owned several low number Springfields and have shot them use both jacketed and cast loads. I never loaded them above the 2700 fps load level and using modern powders the pressure was lower than the original 1906 load. I never felt that I was doing something dangerous and never had a problem with one. The army changed their heat treatment in 1918 but there were something like a million single heat treat rifles in use when they did so and a war was still going on. If you do a statistical analysis of the likelyhood of a rifle blowing up it would be very small if only a couple dozen blew up out of one million. Now I am not advocating shooting high pressure loads in a single heat treat rifle especially rifles that are nearly 100 years old but used with moderate loads there is statistically small chance of having one blow up on you. In fact you would have more chance having a fatal accident driving to or from the range than a blowup happening.

[Multigunner]

The problems with the brittle recivers of some, not all those Low Number receivers, was not in ultimate strength of the lock up, but rather in how the metal reacted when a split case head or other over pressure excursion occured.
The Double treated receiver ring would give and bulge, while the Low Number receiver would fracture.

The Low Number rifles were proofed or reproofed at 70,000 CUP, plenty high enough for any normally encountered over pressured cartridge so long as the case didn't fail.
The enclosed locking recesses of any Mauser type opposed lug design, (though in fact the design wasn't strictly a Mauser innovation since similar lug placement was used by the Lebel and 1888 Commision Rifle before Mauser adapted it to his rifles), gives escaping gas from a ruptured case a broad area to work on. Without a gas escape vent the full force of the gases is applied to the inside of the receiver ring.

According to Hatcher and other sources there were a number of lots of Wartime manufacture ammo that was dangerously defective, and the cause of a lot of accidents.

I believe Hatcher considered the Double Heat treat receivers to be the strongest, though on paper the Nickel Steel receiver may have the advantage.
Nickel Steels have a remarkable ability to return to shape after elastic deformation, but in practice they may not be significantly stronger at time of maximum load bearing than the Double treated receiver.

[Bert2368]

Sitting in front of me is the '03 Springfield my dad got from CMP sometime after the Korean war and before 1965 or so (first time I remember seeing it).

SN is 124020XX. Springfield Armory action, SA barrel marked 8-44. Has had less than 20 rounds put down the barrel since dad got it, and was not visibly used since the WWII era re-arsenal in Ogden Utah. Dad got it to spoterize, thank goodness he never got around to that project.

The inspector in Ogden was someone frequently spoken of on this forum... Cartouche is O.G.E.K. Elmer missed the floorplate catch not quite latching properly though.

[Tazman1602]

Man you guys have forced me to dig out some of my safe queens. A Smith-Corona serial somewhere in the 3 million, Remington serial 4 million something. and Springfield serial 101xxx......................(might have the Smith and the Remington backwards)

Both the Smith-Corona and the Remington I have shot with commercial ammo but have never put a bullet down the Springfield because of the serial number my notes tell me. Sadly, the only one of the three that doesn't have a butchered stock is the Springfield.......

I was doing a gun show in Michigan about 1993 or 94 and the guy at the next table had a brand new still in the cosmoline/wrap 03-A3 and still looking a bit green from parkerizing?? I think, I turned around to beg the $300 for it from my wife and when I turned back around another guy had the gun in his hand and was reaching for his wallet.

That's pretty strange I guess that I'd remember a single gun like that after all these years I guess, but it was the prettiest 03 I've ever laid eyes on.

YEAH RIGHT........been sitting in the safe except for cleaning for close to 15 years and now, since I found this place, before I know it what am I doing? Taking a lead slug and pounding it down the barrels of all three. You guys are a bad bad influence on me!!!!!

[nicholst55]

Um, Bert... did you type one too many Xs in that serial number? I read it as 12 million, four hundred two thousand, and some odd. I wasn't aware that Springfield made more 1903s than they did M1 Garands!

[Bert2368]

Um, Bert... did you type one too many Xs in that serial number?

Oops- Yes, I fat fingered that one. Corect # is 124020X. Still puts it in the double heat treat range, from what I read.

[TAWILDCATT]

Bob S:I shot many a 1903 in the navy.all low numbered.I left the navy in 1951.I was AOM3C.
the worst thing here is some one read about low numbered and went in a panic.
same as lead poison.the last burst was in 1929. none since.I shoot mine,the barrel is 1914 and perfect so I shoot lead reloads.1 inch at 100 yds.13.5 gr of red dot with 311291.most blew because of firing 8 mm mauser.as now not to many people knew ammo back then.
Please stop rehashing something that no longer aplys.