rock island 03, sn under 15000.....sproterized

[mike in co]

gentlemen,
need some input
i have seen an 03 rock island sn under 15000 that has been sporterized.
recvr deilled and tapped for a lyman peep, but no sight. bbl is trash in the bore..looks like a sewer pipe. the gun has an excellent polished blue finish. the stock is iffy. poor fit of nose cap and butt pad.not a great finish/corase. long front ramp and poorly selected frt sight...

it is still stock 30'06.
but serial number says this should be a cast bullet shooter only ? yes/no ???

would one buy such a gun to make a shooter out of it ?? what would you pay ?

i like the 03a3 much better ....

opinions ?? ideas ??
mike in co

[pietro]

JMO, but I wouldn't buy it, never mind shoot it. (sorry)

.

[LewR]

This is an ongoing arguement that never has a definate answer. Low serial numbered 03's are the subject of much debate as to their safety. With all I have read, and all the shooting I have done with my RIA 03, bad cases are more the Achilles heel rather that the receiver itself.

That is just my humble opinion, and is in no way the word of an expert.

[Dutchman]

There is no debate. There is only argument between people who are knowledgeable and people who are ignorant and use faulty logic to justify their opinions.

Low number 1903 rifles have always been unsafe and are still unsafe due to incompatibility of the receiver heat treat, lack of gas escape features and cartridge case failure.

The entire lot of low number rifles were condemned by the Army. The USMC used them during WW2 as Marine lives were cheap and expendable during wartime.

Leave the low number 1903 alone.

There is no source of information on 1903 Springfield that refutes Hatcher's Notebook. Hatcher was commandant of Springfield Armory. There is no one, any where that has provided any information or opinion that refutes Hatcher. If you want to argue about low number 1903 rifles you better have your ducks in a row and know Hatcher inside out, front to back. If you can't do this you have no place in the discussion. If you've never even read Hatcher's Notebook it's best if you sit down and STFU because you're not qualified to have an opinion on the subject.

My experience with 1903 Springfields started in 1968 with 394506 made in December 1909. It was like-new. Hatcher's Notebook is the 2nd oldest book in my firearms library after Sixguns by Keith. I've read Hatcher front to back and sideways multiple times. I won't argue about this subject because there's nothing to argue about. I take Hatcher's word on the subject. If somebody knows a more authoritative person or information on the subject then step right up and let 'er rip.

Low number rifles are *still* coming apart, aren't they Buckshot? The causes, like double charges of pistol powder, still point to the poor heat treat that leaves the receiver brittle. Don't ever assume that if it was going to blow up it would have blown up already. That, mi amigos, is faulty logic that may get you deader than dirt.

One last word: There is something worse than getting yourself killed in such a circumstance. What's worse is the kid next to you at the range catches a piece of receiver fragment in his head and dies. Think about that.

bumper sticker::: "I'm not opinionated, I'm Dutch" [smilie=l:

[Le Loup Solitaire]

The two lines of thought on low number 03's are well known. One either fears and respects the possibility of experiencing an "incident" or ignores it. If the possibility is on your mind then you have two options: A) don't use full house mil-spec ammo or factory fullhouse ammo and load 30-06 cases to your own specs with either jacketed bullets or casts. As pointed out by E.H. Harrison in his writings for the NRA, it is not necessary to use any machine at full power to achieve any desired performance. One can take the pressure and velocity down in an 06 and still shoot target and hunt effectively....with jacketed or cast.
It sounds like the bore is gone so the action needs to be rebarreled. 06 Barrels are still available at parts sources. Another option is to change the barrel to one of another caliber using the same case- i.e 270, 25-06 etc. 35 Whelan would be a choice if hunting were the object, but full power loads might be in the same league pressure-wise as fullhouse 06. In the hunting world success has been achieved with a lot less than 06 and I'm not BS thinking of taking elephant or grizzley with a 22 or a 32-20. Big game have been successfully hunted with .303 and 30-40 Krag. Those who would scoff at that or feel undergunned would do well to get a 300Win mag, or 300Weatherby or something bigger to start with. The things wrong with the outside of your gun can be fixed, adjusted and made right. Sights can be changed and the rifle can be as beautiful as one wishes/as a sporter can be. One would, and often does buy a gun with that in mind. Its a personal call. I personally prefer original military and have restored several including an RIA. I 've only started with one sporter once (a 1917) and it did not have holes drilled in it or the ears ground away. So it is hard for me to say what I would pay for it. If the receiver is in good shape and you want to continue the projects as a sporter then the receiver should be worth at least around a 100+. As for the 03A3, its a good rifle and there is no conroversy over the strength of the steel. I've got a couple of them and they shoot well. In sum, I would not shy away from the RI, but you also have to do a rough estimate/cost analysis on what it would run to rebuild the rifle to your requirements. In the end it will look and shoot as well as anything else out there....maybe better. LLS

[sundog]

Research enough and eventually you will come across an investigation conducted concerning this. Specifically mentioned (and I wish I could provide the source at this point) was either Iwo Jima or Okinawa (I think it was Iwo), that based on the numbers of low number rifles in use the expected failure rate 'should' have been three (3). There were none. I really wish I could provide the source, because as I remember it was up and up and well documented. Anyway, there it is for what it's worth. Maybe someone else remembers this or knows the reference. In any case, with all the available data, I think I would forgo putting one of these back into service. It's just not worth the risk.

[Bret4207]

I believe Hatchers book was accurate for the information he had at the time it was written. Is it still gospel? I don't know. At one time all Arisaka action were identified as cast iron junk and Ross and Carcano action were man killers. With all due respect to Hatcher, Dutchman and all others concerned, I just don't think it's cut and dried. And yes, I own the book and have read and re-read it several times.

Were it me Mike, the barrel would be the deciding factor. For a low pressure cast shooter it may well be fine, especially if you get it maganfluxed to check for cracks.

[Mk42gunner]

gentlemen,
need some input
i have seen an 03 rock island sn under 15000 that has been sporterized.
recvr deilled and tapped for a lyman peep, but no sight. bbl is trash in the bore..looks like a sewer pipe. the gun has an excellent polished blue finish. the stock is iffy. poor fit of nose cap and butt pad.not a great finish/corase. long front ramp and poorly selected frt sight...

it is still stock 30'06.
but serial number says this should be a cast bullet shooter only ? yes/no ???

would one buy such a gun to make a shooter out of it ?? what would you pay ?

i like the 03a3 much better ....

opinions ?? ideas ??
mike in co

Mike,

In the condition you describe, you would be buying the rifle for the action. If it were me, I would pass on this one and find another action to buy that you wouldn't have doubts about.

Of course if you could get it for nothing, you could make one of those tacky floor lamps out of it.

Just my opinion, but I would let this one go.

Robert

[Bloodman14]

Wall hanger?

[Larry Gibson]

I concur with Mk42Gunner, in this case you would be just getting the action and would have to rebarrel. Thus it is simply not worth it to me as there are too many other actions available. I too have read Hatcher forwards and backwards. I have also shot a lot of low numbered M1903s over the years with cast bullet loads. I'm not advocating it one way or another, just saying what I did. What would I do if a nice sporter LSN M1903 came my way? I would shoot it with cast bullet loads is what. But that is my choice. I guess that makes me ignorant and having faulty judgement but so be it. But with 3 HSN M1903s I don't really have to be concerned. The "debate" on this issue will probably continue forever.

To answer the question; pass on the deal as a LSN M1903 just isn't worth it to rebarrel.

Larry Gibson

[missionary5155]

Greetings
I guess this will get hashed out till there are no more shooters.
My SA #500, xxx was rebarelled in 1943. I have been shooting cast loads in it since I bought it many years ago as a complete DCM rifle. I check it off and on for the tell tale cracks I should see but until then I will keep on launchng it´s favorite cast load at bowling pins.
But as stated above I would not spend the money on a drilled one.

[leadman]

High number Springfield sporters are available for around $300 that just need some cosmetics tuned up. No need to change the barrel or sights in most cases. Have seen some pretty good ones for that price.

Money wise and the fear of a brittle action doesn't make good sense in this case to me.

[Calamity Jake]

I to shoot a low(under 29,000) SR 1903 with a 1919 FA barrel, it has a much later made bolt in it.
I understand about the heat treat on the guns so have shot only low vol. cast in it, about 400rounds at this point. 16gr of 2400 doesn't generate much pressure so I feel like I am safe.
I won this months BR match with it, the old gun shoots good.

[45-70marlin]

check this site out on the subject. http://m1903.com/03rcvrfail/

[Dutchman]

check this site out on the subject. http://m1903.com/03rcvrfail/

Below was written by a friend of mine whose involved with NASA after he read the above medical doctor's opinion. In other words, this "analysis" is nothing but fluff. Don't take it as being authoritative concerning 1903 Springfields.

"His article is a perfect example of making statistics tell the story you
want them to tell. While I'm not a statistician, I am a mechanical
engineer who helps run a hazardous research and development test
operation. I not only have to know statistics but the limitations of
statistics. Often, it's my a$$ that's going to get perforated by high speed
metal chunks if I get it wrong.

"In his article, the good doctor shows that he has a good grasp of
statistics, but a poor understanding of the limitations of statistics.

"In the article, he takes the known historical data and shows that based
on this data, firing a low-number M1903 is safer than a lot of common
activities. Absolutely true, based on the data at hand.

"But here's the limitation - While his conclusion is true for the whole,
his conclusion is faulty for a particular single rifle.

"Here's the problem - we don't have enough statistical data to determine
the distribution of M1903 low-number receiver strength. Looking at a
particular specimen, you cannot tell if it's better or worse than
average. Nor can you tell how much better or worse than it is from that
average.

"Given the poor process control that Hatcher documented (heat treatment
by eye), I'd say that process variability is quite high, meaning that
there will be many guns that are much better than average. Conversely,
there will be many guns that are much worse than average.

"Even if we knew the distribution, we don't know any fatigue behavior: we
don't know the relationship between heat-treatment-related-strength and
how many rounds of a known pressure that receiver design will take
before catastrophic failure at that strength. Could be one. Could be
one thousand. Could be infinite.

"So it boils down to this - while on average, firing an M1903 is safer
than some average daily activities, firing a specific M1903 may be far
safer or far less safe. NO ONE CAN TELL!

"While the doctor says I may have a 1 in 100,000 chance of one blowing
up, if that one in 100,000 happens to be the one in front of my face, I
have a 1 in 1 chance of getting hurt or killed.

"Here's the other little tidbit I'll toss in there that the doctor
doesn't address. Back in Hatcher's time, the Government's assessment of
the worth of a soldier's life was pretty low. I'd bet that back then, a
soldier's life was viewed to be less than that of a rifle. (see note
below) So any sort of judgment of past cost versus benefit (IE:
scrapping rifles versus potential soldier death) must be looked at
through period assessment of soldier life. Or, better said, it's NOT
that the Marine powers that be thought that the chances of failure were
low, it's that they didn't see the *consequences* (cost of soldier
death) of failure being high, so overall, the risk was acceptably low.
Keep the rifles. Replace the dead soldier as they fail.

"Clearly today, the Government's assessment of the worth of a soldier's
life is far, far higher. If you care to see, do a Google search for
"Risk Management Guide for DoD Acquisition."

"Note: Proof of the escalating value of soldier life can be seen
historically in the public's reduction in tolerance of military deaths
over time. In WWII, we lost about 500,000 soldiers, and I daresay we'd
have tolerated more. In Viet Nam, we lost about 50,000 before we'd had
enough. In the current OIF/OEF, we've lost about 5,000 soldiers and I
daresay that the average American has had enough."

by B.H.

[Dutchman]

I believe Hatchers book was accurate for the information he had at the time it was written. Is it still gospel? I don't know.

You don't know but you cast suspicion on Hatcher without offering any substance.
Hatcher's Notebook was written in 1947. My edition has a 1957 updated section. There is nothing that refutes previous statements.



At one time all Arisaka action were identified as cast iron junk and Ross and Carcano action were man killers.

Apples & oranges. We're not talking about Arisaka or Carcano or Ross rifles. This particular debate tactic of shifting the focus from the actual point to something else to degrade credibility won't work:).



With all due respect to Hatcher, Dutchman and all others concerned, I just don't think it's cut and dried. And yes, I own the book and have read and re-read it several times.

Please offer up any published information, factual information, to support your doubts concerning the Commandant of Springfield Armory since you've basically tossed his opinions by the side of the road.



especially if you get it maganfluxed to check for cracks.

Cracks in 1903 receivers is not and has never been an issue. Receivers failed catastrophically without any prior indication. Magnafluxing would only bring a false sense of security.

Lt.Colonel Wm. Brophy, in his most outstanding research work on the 1903 Springfield has how much discussion of low number 1903 rifles?

Not one word. Published in 1985. He did not touch the issue. And rightfully, what could he say that Maj. General Hatcher hadn't already said?

In his book, U.S. Infantry Weapons of WW2 by Bruce Canfield.. How much space did he devote to low number 1903 rifles?

Not one word. Gee, that must mean it's not an issue, right?

To be credible, any treatise on low number 1903 must refute Hatcher. The simple fact of the matter is there is no such treatise.

If it was me, now in 2010 with a low number 1903.... I'd most likely take the same route some others have suggested and shoot low pressure cast loads. But beware that the one single significant and potentially deadly danger in such a case is a double charge of fast pistol powder.

Dutch

[Char-Gar]

For the original question... I see no sense in buying a rifle with a bum stock and a worthless barrel unless it can be had for next to nothing.

The low number argument has raged as long as I have been involved in guns which is well over a half century. Everybody can pick their experts and go to neutral corners and come out swinging.

IMHO low numbers 03s don't fail at a much higher rather than high numbered rifles. But when they do fail you have a grenade situation. When a high numbered rifle fails, it locks up and swells up. That is a world of difference.

If I had a good low numbered 03 I would shoot it with cast bullet loads, but be careful about not having an overcharge.

Lots of us shoot Krags which used the same heat treatment as the low numbered 03s and think nothing of it. Krags are very hard and often brittle. Seldom does a Krag fail. But do to the fact that they don't trap the gas like an 03, when they do, the results are not near so bad.

[skeet1]

Unless you can get the rifle for free I would not mess with it. If it was in the correct and complete military dress it could be a collector but since it has been drilled and taped and the barrel looks like a sewer pipe I would consider it junk. You might be able to salvage the trigger guard / magazine, guard screws, etc.

If you have to pay for this rifle you might as well get something worth having like a double heat treat or nickel steel Springfield. Even if it is sporterized at least it will likely be safe.

Skeet1

[blastit37]

I have not finished reading my copy of HNB so I beg to ask the question of our esteemed Engineering Staff: why can't a brittle receiver be found with a hardness check?

[Dutchman]

I have not finished reading my copy of HNB so I beg to ask the question of our esteemed Engineering Staff: why can't a brittle receiver be found with a hardness check?

Just brittleness isn't the original and only problem with low number rifles. It was damaged steel due to improper temperature during the forging process. There were also some barrels that were damaged the same way during the upsetting step for the chamber shank end. Hatcher had the "blue pill" proof pressure increased to ween out the bad barrels. You'll read about it...

They are all brittle. Ones that were damaged and ones that weren't. So it's not just a matter of finding ones that are brittle. That's really the biggest problem and the hardest problem for newbies to understand.

Hatcher's Notebook doesn't make finding the information as easy as it could. You really have to have good reading comprehension skills and don't stop when you get to the first mention of the problem as it's brought up in a couple of places. It's really a good idea to leave a page marker when you find a spot you want to save.

LarryG said he wasn't "advocating" one way or the other. I am. This is one of a couple/few areas with vintage & antique firearms that I feel strong enough about to have an opinion and speak out on it. You'll notice in this whole thread so far the results of the initial query have been predictable. Nobody has stepped up to the plate with any factual published information that refutes Hatcher. That's because none exists.

Subjective opinions are really not worth a lot in a case like this. If you were asking how a particular cast bullet shot in a specific rifle then the collective experience of this forum would blow away anybody who said howdy doo. But this isn't such a case. There's very specific history with this subject and it does get contentious. I believe I've staked out the prudent side to advocate. What's important is newbies who know nothing about this subject and read all the subjective opinions that are empty of calories and believe they have credibility. I do wish that those people here who have knowledge of this topic acknowledged that subjective opinions can be dangerous to people who don't know anything about this topic. There needs to be a consensus for no reason other than the safety of new shooters who look for answers and find nothing but endless debate that leads nowhere.

Dutch

[Bret4207]

Y

This particular debate tactic of shifting the focus from the actual point to something else to degrade credibility won't work:).



If it was me, now in 2010 with a low number 1903.... I'd most likely take the same route some others have suggested and shoot low pressure cast loads. But beware that the one single significant and potentially deadly danger in such a case is a double charge of fast pistol powder.

Dutch

Dutchman, obviously you feel strongly on this issue. I don't mean to argue with you over Hatchers beliefs, I'm merely saying that with the passage of time additional information should have come forward to say nothing of new methods of testing the particular rifles in question. I haven't seen that done.

In the end you come to the same conclusion some of us did- use low pressure loads. That's only if the owner feels it's safe. No one is arguing for a blanket approval of all early '03's.

Another statement you made I will take outright issue with- "The entire lot of low number rifles were condemned by the Army. The USMC used them during WW2 as Marine lives were cheap and expendable during wartime."

If you have some solid evidence that the Commandant of the Marine Corps and his staff decided Marine lives were so far down on the ladder of concern as to make them little more than cannon fodder, please provide that information.

[Larry Gibson]

Dutch

You state; "Nobody has stepped up to the plate with any factual published information that refutes Hatcher. That's because none exists. "

I'm not going to disparage Hatcher at all but there has already been a pleathora of articles written providing information that at least gives other reasonings and opinions. Several even question his motives for wanting to junk all of the current service M1903s and build all new M1903s. I'm not going to go there at all. However, on a previous thread many years ago (on the original shooters.com site I believe) there was quite a discussion on this topic. I asked a question then; "How many LSN M1903s have blown up since the known bad ammo of WWI manufacture was used up?" There was only one example provided and it was with a D&T'd receiver that had been "torched" to anneal it. That example also was only of a split receiver ring and not a catastrophic failure.

Thus I'll simply ask you to provide any examples of catasrophic failures of LSN M1903s that have occured within the last 50 years that involved safe ammo or reloads? Even more specifically can you show us a LSN catastrophic failure involving the use of a low pressure cast bullet load?

It is one thing to cry wolf or yell the sky is falling and we must tell the king but cananyone can anyone show us that the emporer doesn't have any clothes on?

One last thing; many of us use "low pressure" cast loads that do not use the fast burning powders and preclude the possibility of a double charge.

Larry Gibson

[Le Loup Solitaire]

The statement that "Marine lives were cheap and expendable during wartime" is inappropriate for this forum or any other discussion. It is wrong, disgraceful and an insult to The Corps. We always went back even under fire to get our wounded and dead to bring them home whether it was Iwo, The Canal, or Hue or any other place. That hardly fits the definition of cheap or expendable nor does it belong in in any reference to our history or heritage. LLS

[Shiloh]

Wall hanger?

One will never know what has been run through it in all those years. When was it made?? 1910 or so??
Wall hanger.

Shiloh

[Dutchman]

The predictable outcome has convinced me that I'm done with this subject in this forum. That doesn't mean I think any of the responses contains anything credible on the subject. It's just a waste of my time and effort.

Dutch

[mike in co]

The statement that "Marine lives were cheap and expendable during wartime" is inappropriate for this forum or any other discussion. It is wrong, disgraceful and an insult to The Corps. We always went back even under fire to get our wounded and dead to bring them home whether it was Iwo, The Canal, or Hue or any other place. That hardly fits the definition of cheap or expendable nor does it belong in in any reference to our history or heritage. LLS

sorry loup...he is just reporting facts...he did not say he agreed with them, just showing why the guns were still in use.

you have taken the data out of context.

mike in co

[Bret4207]

Bull. That answer implies the Marine Corps specifically went out and collected low number '03's to issue because they didn't care if they hurt someone or not. Bull. The Corps stuck with the '03 because that's what they could get. The Army and Navy got the M-1 first because that's how things work. The Corps got what it could get and waited on the Navy to decide when it was convenient for them to start issuing M-1's.

I have a USMC marked '03. It's not a low number. So I think that argument is bull.

[Larry Gibson]

Below is a quote from an old American Rifleman;

For over fifty years the NRA (With Hatcher as technical Editor) and others all gave the same information in regard to shooting low-numbered 1903 Springfields. That was, use good brass, check the headspace and do not load over service pressure. When did in turn into never shooting them? While reading a 1936 “American Rifleman” it see that the practice of exchanging the low-number receivers for high-numbers when a rifle was send in by a civilian for work was stopped unless the person requested it. Seems some people did not like loosing these (hard) smooth working actions. This question is not new, from Nov, 1932 American Rifleman a man asking if his low-number was still serviceable. Answer: “These older receivers are safe to use with any standard factory ammunition of old or modern ballistics, providing the cases are in good condition. There should be no grease on the cartridge or in the bore, and the breech space must be no greater than about .005 inch.”

It probably speaks for itself.

Larry Gibson

[45-70marlin]

+1 Larry G.

[leadman]

There is an article in the 2010 Gun Digest by Jim Foral titled: "The age of Mobilubricant" that addresses the past practice of lubing the cupro-nickel jacketed bullets with this grease.
There is also reference to blown up low number Springfields using this grease after the jacket material was changed and the greasing prohibited by the military.
Reference was made to soldiers using too much of the grease and it was getting on more than just the bullet.

Interesting reading.

[mike in co]

and the end of the sage...when i went back in yesterday..it had been sold.....thanks guys

mike in co

[Dutchman]

As of 2010::::

http://www.thecmp.org/m1903.htm


*WARNING ON “LOW-NUMBER” SPRINGFIELDS
M1903 rifles made before February 1918 utilized receivers and bolts which were single heat-treated by a method that rendered some of them brittle and liable to fracture when fired, exposing the shooter to a risk of serious injury. It proved impossible to determine, without destructive testing, which receivers and bolts were so affected and therefore potentially dangerous.

To solve this problem, the Ordnance Department commenced double heat treatment of receivers and bolts. This was commenced at Springfield Armory at approximately serial number 800,000, and at Rock Island Arsenal at exactly serial number 285,507. All Springfields made after this change are commonly called “high number” rifles. Those Springfields made before this change are commonly called “low-number” rifles.

In view of the safety risk the Ordnance Department withdrew from active service all “low-number” Springfields. During WWII, however, the urgent need for rifles resulted in the rebuilding and reissuing of many “low-number” as well as “high-number” Springfields. The bolts from such rifles were often mixed during rebuilding, and did not necessarily remain with the original receiver.

Generally speaking, “low number” bolts can be distinguished from “high-number” bolts by the angle at which the bolt handle is bent down. All “low number” bolts have the bolt handle bent straight down, perpendicular to the axis of the bolt body. High number bolts have “swept-back” (or slightly rearward curved) bolt handles.

A few straight-bent bolts are of the double heat-treat type, but these are not easily identified, and until positively proved otherwise ANY straight-bent bolt should be assumed to be “low number”. All original swept-back bolts are definitely “high number”. In addition, any bolt marked “N.S.” (for nickel steel) can be safely regarded as “high number” if obtained directly from CMP (beware of re-marked fakes).

CMP DOES NOT RECOMMEND FIRING ANY SPRINGFIELD RIFLE WITH A ”LOW NUMBER” RECEIVER. Such rifles should be regarded as collector’s items, not “shooters”.

CMP ALSO DOES NOT RECOMMEND FIRING ANY SPRINGFIELD RIFLE, REGARDLESS OF SERIAL NUMBER, WITH A SINGLE HEAT-TREATed “LOW NUMBER” BOLT. SUCH BOLTS, WHILE HISTORICALLY CORRECT FOR DISPLAY WITH A RIFLE OF WWI OR EARLIER VINTAGE, MAY BE DANGEROUS TO USE FOR SHOOTING.

THE UNITED STATES ARMY GENERALLY DID NOT SERIALIZE BOLTS. DO NOT RELY ON ANY SERIAL NUMBER APPEARING ON A BOLT TO DETERMINE WHETHER SUCH BOLT IS “HIGH NUMBER” OR “LOW NUMBER”.

[Larry Gibson]

Dutch

From my perspective I don't have the problem as all of my '03s are HSN with HSN bolts. However, I also try to keep an open mind. I've had numerous "experts" tell me that I endanger not only myself but the entire western civilization by shooting smokeless loads in my TDs. We will find, if we look, that many "authorities" with a hind end to cover will only recommend BP loads if any at all in old 19th Century rifles used with BP. I've also been told, who knows how many times that it si certain death and destruction to shoot 7.62 NATO in a Spanish FR7. I've neither dies not destructed and I've shot lots of US M80 through several of them. Thus, considering I've also shot lots of WRA and LC M2 through a couple of LSN '03s in years past I find CMPs "recommendation" to be typical of that concerning the LSN '03s. They only "recommend", they do not say "thou shalt not". I do believe CMP is simply covering the hind ends from a legal perspective and I, frankly, do not blame them. There is a difference, to me anyway, between "thou shalt not" and "does not recommend".

I've been through all of this before and know no one is going to change your mind or mine nor probably anyone elses. Since I am a "shooter" and not a "collector" I wouldn't pick up a LSN '03 unless it was a very nicely done sporter still in excellent condition. Then I would shoot it with cast bullets (probably 311291) using a medium burning powder (probably 4895) with a charge (probably 28 gr) that gives good accuracy at 1700 - 1800 fps at 24 - 26,000 psi. That is just my choice on what I would do and I do leave every one else to their own choice. Just my thoughts and not a recommendation one way or the other.

Larry Gibson

[c3d4b2]

In the end you come to the same conclusion some of us did- use low pressure loads. That's only if the owner feels it's safe.

The issue with these rifles is, how do you determine if the rifle is safe or not? The problem with the questionable rifles lies in the receivers metallurgical composition. The reason this series of rifles are considered unsafe is there are no nondestructive tests to determine the metallurgical composition. The analysis of the failures that Hatcher reported was based on the metallurgical analysis of the receivers. Even with today's technological improvements, a brittle failure is still a brittle failure.

Also,

The firearm designs and published loads have safety factors included in them. Normally if one part of the system (high pressure cartridge....) falls outside the safe operating parameters, the other system components can compensate. Using a rifle with questionable components removes one of these safety factors.

What happens if there is a double charge, a high pressure cartridge gets mixed in, or a multitude of other unforeseeable events. Will the rest of the system be able to compensate for the increased stress to the system.

[Larry Gibson]

A "double charge" of 28 gr of 4895 is 56 gr. In an '06 case that makes it obvious and improbable that it wouldn't be noticed when putting the dacron filler in. Thus besides it being a very good accurate load with a low psi (less than the BP load for the 45-70) it has the built in "fail safe" against a double charge. As ti the what...."if" part one just needs to pay attention to what ammo is used just as with any other potential cartridge mix up. There are lots of those also but we don't hear "never shoot an '06 because you might put an 8x57 in it (that's an unforseeable event)". Anyways I am only stating the reasons of how and I would shoot a LSN '03 if I had one and what I'd do to mitigate the potential (still a big "if" in many minds) danger.

Larry Gibson

[Shiloh]

R0ck Island started DOuble heat treatment at Sn # 285,507
From the CMP Sales page http://www.thecmp.org/m1903.htm

Could be dangerous to fire yours.


*WARNING ON “LOW-NUMBER” SPRINGFIELDS
M1903 rifles made before February 1918 utilized receivers and bolts which were single heat-treated by a method that rendered some of them brittle and liable to fracture when fired, exposing the shooter to a risk of serious injury. It proved impossible to determine, without destructive testing, which receivers and bolts were so affected and therefore potentially dangerous.

To solve this problem, the Ordnance Department commenced double heat treatment of receivers and bolts. This was commenced at Springfield Armory at approximately serial number 800,000, and at Rock Island Arsenal at exactly serial number 285,507. All Springfields made after this change are commonly called “high number” rifles. Those Springfields made before this change are commonly called “low-number” rifles.

SHiloh

[BruceB]

My 1903 is Rock Island #151xxx...clearly a "low-number" rifle.

It was sporterized by my Grandfather, Wallace Anderson of Houghton, Michigan, back in the late '40s/early '50s. He was a working gunsmith who once told me that at least one of "his" rifles was in every State of the Union. He built a sporter for each of his four WWII-veteran sons, and I was the recipient of this one when my Uncle Don died a few years ago.

Grandpa worked from the blank, and this rifle wears a stock of very fancy fiddleback maple. Gramps also did his own polishing and bluing, and checkering too, although this piece lacks checkering because Don didn't care for it.

My point is this: none of my many relatives in the UP were handloaders, and all were (and are) avid deer hunters. The rifle was used for at least 50 years of annnual hunting, as testified by the extreme bluing wear on barrel and action...and it was almost certainly all done with factory .30-06 loads. I'd think that at least a couple hundred rounds of factory '06 have been down the barrel, and maybe a lot more than that .The sights clearly illustrate that my relatives knew their stuff: the 1903 arrived with an aperture receiver sight and a low-mounted K3 Weaver scope, making it perfectly-suited for the woods of the Upper Peninsula...AND about 90% of hunting anywhere.

I have restricted the rifle to lower-pressure loads since it arrived, and don't worry about it very much. It usually fires a few-score rounds per year. However, my daughter has spoken for it as a family heirloom, which it surely is. At the time she gets it, I will either disable the rifle or at least have a VERY serious talk with her about it. My hide is old and not worth all that much. The future mother of my grand-kids is another matter altogether. She is gun-savvy and level-headed, otherwise I'd disable it and be done.

I'll hate to do it, because it's a lovely piece of "family" art and history. However, facts is facts.

[HelpIminCA]

Hi guys,
I'm brand new here so no offense. I want to start casting for my O3A3 but I have heard a few rumors about the issue here. So can you guys fill me in on what a low serial number is?
Mine is 3660469 a Smith Corona with stamps FJA and RAA.
So should I give up my dream or what?
Thanks and forgive my ignorance. Thats why I am here.

[nicholst55]

Hi guys,
I'm brand new here so no offense. I want to start casting for my O3A3 but I have heard a few rumors about the issue here. So can you guys fill me in on what a low serial number is?
Mine is 3660469 a Smith Corona with stamps FJA and RAA.
So should I give up my dream or what?
Thanks and forgive my ignorance. Thats why I am here.

Your 03-A3 should be perfectly safe with any safe-and-sane load, factory or otherwise. That is assuming that it's in good condition; if there is any doubt, have it inspected by a qualified gunsmith.

The high versus low serial number argument only pertains to the original M1903, with the barrel-mounted rear sight, and then only to a specific serial number range. Enjoy your 03-A3!

[HelpIminCA]

Thanks Nichols,
My buddy who gave it to me is a gunsmith so I'm pretty sure it's good. I'll have him double check it though. I like what Dutch says. If it can happen it will happen. So I want to make sure it can't happen. I can't tell you how glad I am to find this site. Thanks again.
I'm guessing the RAA is Rock Island arsenal? So what do you guys think of the Lymon 210 gr 311284 mold? Is this the wrong place to ask.
Nichols, you made my day man. I'm super happy this thing is do-able! Can't wait to get started. Thanks again. If it wasn't for the internet and folks like you guys I would never have time to research all this.

[Larry Gibson]

BruceB

A friend of mine has his fathers LSN '03 that he sporterized back in the early '50s. He did a really decent job on it and used a Herter’s stock. He passed away about 10 years ago from cancer. A couple months back my friend and I were looking through his gun safe and he pulled the rifle out. It has a K4 scope on it and is still in excellent condition. I observed it was a LSN SA and mentioned it. My friend then pulled out an old ammo can with his dad's reloads in it saying he had only briefly looked to see what was in it when he brought his dad's stuff home years ago. The reloads were in old military cases with varying headstamps. There were 800 CCI primers and a couple old cans of H4895 that had $1.75 price tags on them! There were also 4 full boxes and about a half of a box of Herter's 180 gr bullets. Jack said he and his dad would shoot about 5 or 600 practicing through the summer. The load written on the box was 50 gr of 4895 under those 180s. We pulled a couple bullets and sure enough there was 50 gr in them. The primers, while almost completely flat did not give any other indications of high pressure. Several of the boxes had more than 12 times fired recorded. What brought tears to both our eyes was a note that was found in the box. It was to my friend from his father telling him the rifle was a good one and he knew it had killed a lot of deer and a couple elk. He said to keep it in the family. The rifle is an heirloom now simply because that's what his dad wanted and not because it is a LSN '03.

Larry Gibson

[spqrzilla]

I find the references to "Hatcher's beliefs" odd. Hatcher did not have a "belief" with respect to the improperly heat-treated '03's. He had personally investigated failed rifles and together with the engineers at an ammunition plant that supplied failed rifles to him, concluded that the rifles had improper heat treatment. This was confirmed by a team of expert metalurgists at the time.

The army board that recommended no longer issuing the rifles did not have him as a member, although it did have his brother on it.

Hatcher's opinions on the rifle were based on first-hand investigation. I'd not call that a "belief".

[sundog]

In #6 I made reference to material I had read a while back about the failures. I think this is it: http://m1903.com/03rcvrfail/, at least it refers to the same information. Sorry, my history time line was a little off. Anyway, this article is very interesting.

[30CAL-TEXAN]

I have a low number 03 and I shoot it pretty often. Not quite as often as the 03A3 but that is really just because I don't like the rear sight on the 03 as much.

I know it's not the most scientific analysis but I figure since my rifle was made in 1908 and it has a 1944 barrel, it probably wore the first one out ( mine is not refinished, has a worn out blued surface but has a 1944 parkerized bbl). I am very nice to this rifle and I typically feed it low pressure, low velocity loads so I don't feel like it will be a problem.

Just my .02

[Bob S]

Here's a Dope Bag article from That American Rifleman from circa 1950's:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v76/BobS1/Springfield%2003s/JSHonLowNumbers.jpg

J.S.H. is Julian S. Hatcher. He was retired and serving as the Technical Editor of The American Rifleman at the time.

If you go back and read Dr. Lyon's article, I think he plaguerized (sp?) this one.

Resp'y,
Bob S.

[Bent Ramrod]

There were a couple of articles in the Rifle magazine back in the 1980's (IIRC) by Dave LeGate, the guy who did all the cartridge drawings for Rifle and Handloader, on low-numbered Springfields. LeGate was a collector of Springfields and had a few low-number examples, as well as a few loose actions and receivers of the same vintage. He'd read the Hatcher articles and the ones in American Rifleman over the years and decided to put them to the test. He was able to shatter the low number receivers with none-too-heavy blows from a light plastic mallet. Not just one receiver out of the bunch, but any one he picked until he decided to quit. The thin section on the ejection side went easily, but the thicker section on the other side and the receiver ring shattered as well. He thereupon decided to relegate his low-numbers to non-shooting status forever after. Apparently even a brittle receiver can take a certain amount of lengthwise thrust, when a blow from the side would shatter it like glass. He had photos showing the grainy, crystalline surfaces in the breaks.

In the second article, LeGate had glued one of the shattered receivers back together and was displaying it at a gun show. One of the table browsers had a reminiscence of the days when he had worked at Sedgeley's when they made and sold Springfield sporters. They used mostly low-numbered actions with the military designation and number ground off the receiver and a matting pattern applied. The receivers were then "re-heat-treated" with an acetylene torch and allowed to cool. The actions and barrels were assembled and a "proof load," consisting of a greased military ball cartridge, was fired. If the bolt set back enough to affect headspace, the barrel was turned 180 degrees, rechambered if necessary, and a new extractor clearance cut. There are apparently a lot of Sedgeley Sporters with two extractor cuts on opposite sides of the chamber out there. The front sight was banded on, so the two cuts were the only evidence of this treatment.

After reading these articles, I lost any interest I might have had in low number Springfields, and I load my double-heat-treated specimen down to the original velocities for which it was designed.