What to do with a low number 1903?

[gew98]

Well it is your choice but if it has been shot enough to have a WW II rebarrel the action has been well tested. I'd shoot it with cast loads and never worry.

Jerry Liles

"Well tested" is a good way to get oneself dead with that potentially suicidal rifle. The steel of low number "lethal threes" is about par with that of the 30 40 krags. And using a milspec 30-06 loading in a krag would not be healthy or warranted. So imagine that same steel and being poorly heat treated with such a load...playing with fire.

[oldred]

"Well tested" is a good way to get oneself dead with that potentially suicidal rifle. The steel of low number "lethal threes" is about par with that of the 30 40 krags. And using a milspec 30-06 loading in a krag would not be healthy or warranted. So imagine that same steel and being poorly heat treated with such a load...playing with fire.

You're exactly right and "well tested" stated another way would be "well fatigued"! Just because it has fired a few thousand rounds is no proof what-so-ever that the next one would not be the one to ring the bell! Post no.21 above yours gives an example of what I said earlier about how even a low pressure load could cause a brittle receiver to come apart, it's an error to assume that a lower pressure round is going to make one of these things safe to shoot because a brittle micro-cracked receiver could easily fail with a reduced pressure load depending on the circumstances at the time.

[13Echo]

I stand by my statement. With cast bullet loads the rifle will be safe. Since this rifle was rebarreled in '42 I suspect it was used by the Marines (see if it has a Hatcher hole in the right side of the receiver ring) and it likely has been fired a lot with full pressure military ball, possibly even saw combat and it is still intact. As for metal fatigue its wear to the moving parts not metal fatigue that puts a rifle out of commission. Steel stressed below a certain level has an unlimited fatigue life. You don't get this kind of controversy about using cast in a Krag, a much weaker action also often with over heat treated steel or any one of a number of other rifles including early Model 70 Winchesters (overheat treated and brittle with coned breech and poor gas handling). If you are that concerned about it sell it to me. I'd love to have one for cast shooting. Still I can understand and respect a decision not to shoot such a rifle.

Jerry Liles

[oldred]

As for metal fatigue its wear to the moving parts not metal fatigue that puts a rifle out of commission. Steel stressed below a certain level has an unlimited fatigue life.Jerry Liles

Very true BUT metal fatigue does not usually become apparent until the rifle "lets go". The fact is these rifles have a long history of failures and while I agree too that the likelihood of such a catastrophic failure is slim one must ask "is it worth the risk just to shoot that particular rifle"? While I understand that yes it just might be worth it to some folks and they are willing to take a chance is it really a good idea to downplay the risks and encourage someone else to do it?


Of course really low pressure plinking loads in all probability would not hurt a thing as long as they were indeed very low pressure rounds, I guess it would depend a lot on a person's definition of low pressure for that particular rifle, considering the consequences of erring on the wrong side of this debate I have to ask again "is it really worth the risk"? .

[Larry Gibson]

Yes, the sky is falling and we must tell the king......and now I am really confused............

How many years old does a rifle or handgun have to be before "metal fatigue" sets in? Is it based on round count, number of barrels, how many times the bolt was cycled or years old? If I buy a used M98 Mauser how do I know if it "fatigued"? If 10,000 rounds are shot in a rifle/handgun over 10 years is that rifle/handgun then "safer" than if those 10,000 rounds were fired in a year? Should I hang up my M884 TD and not shoot service level BP loads any more in it because it is old and "fatigued" because I've no idea how many rounds were shot out of it before I got it? Is my M1A match rifle "fatigued" because it is on it's 3rd barrel?

If the service technicians at Ruger, Winchester, Colt, S&W, Remington and Savage would only write books about how many of their rifles/handguns they've gotten back blown up I'd bet several models would be much more documented than LSN'd '03s. As I recall in the last 15 - 20 years I've been on gun forums on the internet I've seen all sorts of actions of every make destroyed by SEE, overloads but mostly bore obstructions. All the pictures of those destroyed actions were as bad or worse than anything pictured in Hatchers Notebook. Come to think of it I've not seen a "long history of failures" of LSN'd '03s in the same last 15 or so years.......

I'm not advocating anything but this sure has scared the c**p out of me......think I'll give up this "risky" shooting business and take up golf......no wait. I've read about more golfers killed wrecking those golf carts than I've read about blown up LSN'd '03s in the last 15 years. Oh what to do........

Larry Gibson

[Abert Rim]

I was going to make a crack about having a round-counting chip installed, but some nutty Dem might see it and run with it ...

[Bullshop]

After seeing how easily some receivers were shattered into several pieces by rapping the rails with a mallet in tests done by Parker Ackley I just would never be able to shoot one. I mean I would never be able to hit anything because my mind would be on those pictures of shattered receivers and not on aiming and squeezing.
I have always tried to recognize potential danger and remove myself from it. When I walk under a big tree I look up it for hidden danger. When I walk into a large building I look up to see what is over my head so I know what to do if things start falling. I am a cautious person by nature. To me the reward in using such a rifle is not worth the risk no matter how slight.
Perhaps if it were the only rifle I had or could get I might use it with greatly reduced loads but that is far from the case for me and I will guess for most members here.

[oldred]

The issue is about fatigue in a rifle of already questionable integrity due to improper heat treating not a normal rifle that that has no known issues. In this case if the rifle is indeed one of the many produced with improper heat treating then it has been fortunate enough to survive despite it's known weakness, as most (but not all!) have, but to continue firing this rifle is tempting fate IF it is indeed one of the poorly built examples. Fatigue, while not a concern normally, in this case could be a real concern but that does not have anything to do with a properly built rifle that does not suffer from the known deficiencies that exist with these firearms due to the improper heat treating. Weak and brittle receivers on these rifles is a well known fact and documented accidents have happened in the past, considering the past record I would hardly say that a warning about the shortcomings of these rifles (NOT all rifles) is a case of crying the sky is falling.

[Larry Gibson]

So, I'm still confused; Is it "fatigue" or is it "questionable integrity due to improper heat treating not a normal rifle that that has no known issues" or is it "tempting fate"?

The one thing I learned from the mallet test was "don't smack the receiver with a mallet."

Again, don't get me wrong. I am not advocating anything. I would just like something more concrete than the above. I know of many LSN '03s that are still in use. I know of no deaths or serious injuries from a LSN '03 action for no reason other than letting go just because of the "fatigue, heat treatment or fate" in the last 25+ years. If you have an SEE, an over load or a bore obstruction the damage will be catastrophic regardless of the action used. We have seen too many other actions catastrophically destroyed posted on forums in the last 20 years to believe other wise.

Well maybe I am advocating something; how's about you all sending me all your LSN'd '03s so you won't tempt fate.....I'll pay the shipping.........then I'd have one!

Larry Gibson

[13Echo]

I believe the mallet test broke the receiver rails, not the receiver rings. Most of the rings that let go that I'm aware of were due to defective cartridges, blockages, or suspect practices such as greasing bullets that increased chamber pressure. The real problem with the '03 is how much cartridge head hangs unsupported outside the chamber. When that lets go it can be a mess. But that's also how the highly regarded Mod 70 is breeched as is the M17 Enfield. Incidentally early Mod 70s are also brittle and can fail the mallet test. Still the low numbers are suspect and I can't fault someone for being cautious. I still believe they are perfectly safe for cast bullet loads.

Jerry Liles

[oldred]

The LSN action failures are not myth, they have happened in sufficient numbers to cause major concerns even "back in the day" so there's no doubt about the potential for failure. As far as "fatigue" or "questionable integrity due to improper heat treating" it's not a question of one or the other, in this case it's both. The potential for failure in these LSN receivers is well known and the fact one may have been fired several thousand times without incident is not necessarily proof that it's safe, rather the fatigue from that wear could easily be a contributing factor to failure of an otherwise already compromised receiver. Maybe you think these old LSN receivers are safe but documented failures along with the known facts surrounding the improper heat treating makes a LOT of others think otherwise.


The warnings about these poorly treated receivers have come from many sources for a long time it's pretty well documented and not just "an old wives tale"!

[oldred]

From the Civilian Marksmanship Program,

*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”.



Some interesting info on the bolts there but that line,

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

makes it plain what their stand on the issue is! Like I said earlier this is a real safety concern and NOT just an "old wives tale"! Considering the consequences of what could happen if a person chooses to ignore these warnings is it really worth the risk just to shoot a rifle?

[Multigunner]

Well From what Hatcher and others wrote not all the Low Number receivers were bad, but there was no "non destructive" method of weeding out the bad ones, all those that failed so spectacularly had been proofed at 70,000 CUP so pressure alone was unlikely to be the culprit in the failures.

I'm not a machinist but I've drilled enough holes that I can judge by the feel, and the sound, whether core steel is brittle. I'm fairly sure any USMC armorer boring the hatcher hole would have been able to judge whether the core metal of the receiver ring was brittle.

As for the Krag, while made with old school methods these had no record of blowing up, but some suffered fractures or setback when they tried to up the FPS of the service Ball cartridge increasing the chamber pressure. The bolt was more likely to be damaged rather than the receiver.
Some European Krags also suffered fractures, though this was mostly put down to a sharply machined corner without the proper radius, some FN Mauser bolts fractured one leg of the split left hand lug for the same reason.

Some Lee Metford and LE rifles suffered broken bolts due to defective ammunnition, and some action bodies cracked as well. As metalurgy improved incidents became uncommon.

Till someone puts the effort into devising a reliable non destructive method of determining if an LN 1903 receiver is brittle the question will never go away.
I'm pretty sure that such a method already exists , its just never been applied to antique fire arms as of yet.

[M-Tecs]

Interesting read

http://m1903.com/03rcvrfail/

http://m14forum.com/bolt-action/1003...ringfield.html

http://forums.thecmp.org/showthread.php?t=134357

[fatnhappy]

I shoot mine. There are only 11,231 springfields with lower serial numbers. I neither advise nor encourage anyone to do the same. I feel "if you need to ask then don't."

[Alferd Packer]

Tie it to a tire pointing downrange and fire a magazine full thru it'
It its still ok, then shoot cast loads thru it and enjoy shooting it.
That's my story.

[mpbarry1]

what numbers are considered low? i know some of the eary receivers fail with higher pressures, just not sure where the safe serials start?

[mpbarry1]

oops, i see it in the great link posted by MTech. thanks!

[WILCO]

Thanks for the information guys! I learned a thing or two today!

[Blanket]

Better not shoot Krags either, same steel and HT process. By the way does anyone know how many failures there were?