I have a low number 03 that appeaers to be well used and I would like to convert to a shooter. Is there anyone done this before and what was done.
|
   
   
|
|
I have a low number 03 that appeaers to be well used and I would like to convert to a shooter. Is there anyone done this before and what was done.
Sir--this is kind of a confusing question, as it's already a shooter, is it not? So what do you have in mind? A sporter, or shooting it the way it is, or what?
This thread will likely become one of those "can of worms" type of threads, as there has been an on-going argument about low number 1903 Springfield rifles for right around 120 years! Since you know that it is a low number, you are doubtless aware of the serial number cutoffs between low and high, further broken down by original and double heat treatment and nickel steel.
Some will tell you that you're undertaking a very dangerous task to shoot them at all. Others, the camp that I fall into, think that those which were dangerous blew up long ago. The low number rifles were used throughout two world wars, in some cases given to allies, and were used and used until many of them were re-barreled. That takes surviving thousands of rounds of ammo made by different arsenals, and often in different countries.
I have two such rifles which were assembled from mostly new parts on low number receivers by the old Federal Ordnance Corp. of So. El Monte, CA. They are fitted with new WW II barrels, but otherwise appear as originally issued. The low number receivers are badly pitted below the wood lines, and Fed Ord doubtless brought them home from overseas somewhere. I have fired both extensively using 30-30 Win. pressure loads and cast bullets. They are very accurate and fun to shoot. However, I decided long ago to not shoot full power .30-06 loads in them, although Fed Ord did proof test them. Your decision.
DG
jmho - the U.S. miltary continued to successfully issue + use them post WWII - very controversial subject - i have been shooting my low number 1906 dated one for decades with standard loads + cast bullet reloads with no problem -
never pick a fight with an old man - if he is too old to fight he will just kill you -
in this current crisis our government is not the solution , it is the problem ! -
ILLEGITIMI NON CARBORUNDUM
as they say in latin
I was told by the experts in the field that if you have low number Springfield that is still around and shooting it's not one of the ones that is going to blow up. They weeded them out pretty good. Old Elmer Keith was a fan of the 35 Whelen and he one on a low number 03 and you know Elmer he pressed the pedal to the medal and shooting 300 grains bullets from it very fast! I was interested in this because I have a 1911 03 in 35 Whelen built back in the old gunsmith days and may even have been built by a famous one, haven't finished checking it out yet to find out. I'm not worried about it. My honest opinion is the "internet" started all the controversy.
My 5 digit 03 gets shot pretty regularly
Calamity Jake
NRA Life Member
SASS 15704
Shoot straight, keepem in the ten ring.
I got my first and only one of the low-number receiver rifles about 50 years ago. Shot it with factory loads until I started reloading for it, then found out about the history on them. Gave it to my dad for a wall hanger. I've got a lower tolerance for stuff blowing up in my face, these days, than I did then. I'd make it a wall hanger, now, too. YMMV, of course. And I probably could have had more than a few more 1903's if I'd not worried about it back then. I would suggest that you not try to use one in combat conditions so you don't risk raising the pressure above "normal" levels. And good luck!Originally Posted by Der Gebirgsjager
Bill
The low number 03' rifles are perfectly fine and fit for use WITHIN THE C.U.P. LEVELS FOR WHICH THE .30-06 CARTRIDGE PRODUCES. The legend of the low serial number rifles blowing up came about after rifles sold off as surplus started getting re-barreled with calibers of greater pressure and power, like .300WinMag. It also likely didn't help that some dudes were probably handloading some spicy outside-the-recommended-range ammo for them as well. But remember that these rifles passed QC inspection when new by firing a proof round significantly over standard pressure. So standard pressure M2 Ball ammo never over-stressed these. I had a low serial # 03' that later in life had been retired as a drill rifle and been completely chrome plated from bolt to butt. Some fear the heat from that chrome plating process can worsen the heat treat even further. But I put thousands of rounds of regular .30-06 through that old girl with never an issue.
When democracy becomes tyranny, those of us with rifles still get to vote.
I know abundantly the issues of the low # 1903 Springfields. Mine was 394506 Dec. 1909. I shot full power loads with surplus 4831 and 200 gr Sierra Match Kings. That was 1968/69.
It pains me to continually see misconceptions about these rifles in that the bad ones would've already been found out and pulled from service. That indicates the issue is misunderstood. At this point it is the embrittlement of the receiver and also occurred with some early barrels. These receivers are very high in surface hardness and can mislead the owner thinking them super strong if the "skin" of the receiver is so hard, they think. Its super strong until it's not.
Read Hatcher's Notebook and let me know if there is any published work that refutes Hatcher who has at least as much or more experience than the commandant of Springfield Armory, Julian Hatcher. Just sayin'.
I love 1903 Springfields but there are better rifles out there. Think Gewehr 1898 Mausers.
High number 1918 Springfield C-stock. Greek repatriated. My current 03.
This is the only pix I have of the 1909 rifle. It was in stunning condition. This photo from 1968. I spent years with this rifle learning about .30-06.
This rifle had a slight ~warp~ in the left sidewall of the receiver. You could feel the bolt locking lug ever-so-slightly rub the left sidewall when running the bolt closed to open. It was warped from the oil quench. You have to know these rifles to inspect them properly in today's environment and discount historical rhetoric as the last word on the subject. There have been rifles that grenaded when a properly produced rifle would not grenade under excess pressure. I'll admit its a delicate subject but I'd rather see civil discourse included when the subject comes up.
Post-WW2 publications from US Gov't stressing the safety of these low number rifles is not a good indication of serviceability in 2023. War-time issue and post-WW2 foreign issue are not a good guarentee that your FACE will survive a catastrophic failure. Your wife will have questions. Be prudent in your choice of vintage military firearms. They deserve an easy passage into the future for them who come after you and I.
Last edited by Dutchman; 08-05-2023 at 09:56 PM.
In general,chrome plating would not affect heat treatment of steel .......If the plated reciever/bolt etc were heated to eliminate hydrogen embrittlement post plating,then again,this would not make the steel harder .......in fact it would be beneficial to some extent....some small parts ,like sights ,extractor etc might be heated in the polishing ,and temper drawn in spring parts......however,I dont see a drill rifle being post plating treated ,as it was not intended to be used.
Excellent and that CUP pressure sure isn't 30-06 FACTORY AMMO!!!! Nor is it the loads for the 06 out of modern loading manuals. Best thing to do is look up the cup for the 30-06 way back in the WW1 days. The map for it was around 48,000 psi and it's only recently in the past few years that they raised it.
Anymore it seems anywhere you go and ask a question you will only be amazed at the different numbers of answers you can get. This business of the low number Springfields is serious business and I would highly recommend you read what is said in Hatchets Notebook. Remember. Elmer did tend to push things a bit and as a direct result he did blow up a few firearms along the way.
Facta non verba
I have and shoot regularly a couple low number 1903's, using moderate velocity cast bullet loads. From what I have read, many of the blow ups were from either faulty cases, greased bullets of certain match ammo , and perhaps even a few 8mm cartridges jammed into the chambers. I don't like too use fast shotgun powders in them, unless with low velocity plain base bullet loads, but would rather use somewhat slower burning powders like RL-7, 3031, or 4895 for my cast loads.
My opinion is they are safe enough with proper loads, but when you make a reloading mistake, the action may not contain the pressure like a high number model.
Don't throw a double charge or use stretched mystery brass. Just my free opinion, not worth 2 cents
Elmer blew a hell of lot of Colt single actions.
It's not so much the strength of the 1903 action the myths talk about, but the brittle action from the wrong heat treating. If any escape I'd say the numbers are very small and heck those may all be gone now.
Improper heat treat, glass brittle metal.
Many years ago while attending CST in Colorado a customer brought in a low number for some thing or another. The school policy was no one worked on them period. The customer became very upset with this and really threw up quite a fuss. Ben Spann was running things at the time and tried to talk to him but the customer would have no part of it. Finally Ben said he would show him why they were not allowed and pulled the metal from the wood and with a very tiny hammer gave the center rail only the slightest tap and that center rail shattered into two pieces. Later one of those pieces was Rockwelled and I think on the skin it was in the mid 60’s and the core looked like a galina sample. I dont remember what the customer had to say but it is said he left and didn’t have much to say.
Last edited by Reg; 08-06-2023 at 01:24 AM. Reason: Spelling
Facta non verba
FYI;
American Rifleman March 1, 1925 By Major Whelen….”It happens; that beginning with serial number somewhere about 800,000, Springfield Armory adapted a new method of heat treatment for their receivers. This new method gives greater tensile strength than the old method. It is simply progress and improvement, and does not mean at all that previous receivers were defective in any way. As a matter of fact they are not, and from a practical point of view the difference between the two heat treatments means nothing at all. I would just as soon have an old receiver as a new one. In fact the receiver of my favorite Springfield sporter rifle is in the 200,000s, and I would not think of changing it for anything.”
The American Rifleman February, 1936 “R.F. Sedgley, Inc. has offered to check the headspace of old-type M-1903 actions for NRA members free of charge. The firm is in a position to adjust defective actions and to proof-fire the rifle at their quotations. They are also prepared to re-heat treat such old-type receivers for added toughness or to eliminate the condition of excessive brittleness. Sedgley has so re-heat treated ten thousand or more of such actions and I have not heard of any blow ups to date.”
1936 “American Rifleman” it see that the practice of exchanging the low-number receivers for high-numbers when a rifle was sent in by a civilian for work was stopped unless the person requested it. Seems some people did not like losing these (hard) smooth working actions. This question is not new, from Nov, 1932 American Rifleman, person 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.”
“Question & Answer Handbook” NRA 1959 Julian S. Hatcher “As to safety, there were about 800,000 SA, 285,000 RIA made, or over a million in all, and they were continued in service until superseded by the M1 rifle. From 1917 to 1929 inclusive, records were kept of all accidents to receivers of Springfield rifles, and during that time of the 800,000 low-numbered Springfields there were 33 reported burst or about 1-24,000. Of the 285,000 RIA LN receivers there were 24 reported burst or about 1 in 11,800. There were 9 cases of sever injuries; no one was killed, and in most cases there were no injuries or only minor ones. From the above, the user of one of these rifles can judge whether or not he cares to continue firing it or not. The chance for an accident does exist though it is slight.”
American Rifleman Feb, 1936
“Fortunately, the law of averages makes such accidents very unlikely. Out of the million old-type M-1903 receivers and every Krag receiver (case hardened in the same way) made between 1892 and 1917 there have been very few accidents for a negligibly small fraction of a percentage point when compared with the total number of possibilities during all the years up to 1936. The sensible thing to do however is to check the old-type actions for headspace or have them so checked. If the headspace is found to be normal or in good condition it should safely handle all standard loads.”
“Ordnance Went Up Front” by Roy F. Dunlap Samworth 1948 (speaking of low-number rifles) “I saw hundreds of these in the war, used with all types of issue ammunition including armor piercers with a rather high chamber pressures. These low number actions are safe with practically all government and commercial ammunition in .30-06 caliber, with the possible exception of very high-pressured target loads or heavy-bullet hunting cartridges.”
“If the barrel is obstructed in the rear end, it seems to make little difference whether the receiver is of the old heat treatment or the new except that in the latter case the receiver does not shatter but merely bulges and sometimes splits.” – The Bursting of Rifles in Service by A.L. Woodruff
General Julian Hatcher, then a young ordnance officer suggested drilling a hole in the left side of the receiver as a gas relief port to cut the incidence of burst receivers. While this was generally ignored by the Army, the Marine Corps took the suggestion to heart and many of the Marine Corps low numbered '03s of the era will be found with the so called "Hatcher Hole" in the left side of the receiver. After W.W.I, the Marines solved the "low number gun problem" by rebarreling them when sent back for refit, drilling the Hatcher Hole and reissuing them with instructions that they were not to be used for firing rifle grenades. The high numbered guns are extremely strong and never experienced any problems.
November, 1921 Arms & the Man ‘Concerning the Strength of the Springfield” by Hatcher (speaking of the new receivers) “The qualities of this receiver are very well demonstrated by a test to which one sample out of every lot is subjected. It is fastened into a vise while a workman takes an iron bar and attempts to break it off by striking it a heavy blow on the weak section over the magazine well. The receivers made before 1917 will fly to pieces like glass when they are treated in this manner.”
The Springfield 1903 Rifle by LTC Brophy page 195-196
“The new Rifles to be used this year will consist of rebuilt and new rifles are in all aspects as good as new rifles. All rifles are furnished with new barrels and new stocks- type C modified. The carbon steel ejectors were found to break near the ejector pin hole and are now being made of nickel steel. Experiments were made with W.D. Steel 6150 (Chrome Vanadium) to see if sears and cocking pieces made from this steel would give better results than the present low carbon case hardened steel. The results were very satisfactory, but due to the increase in cost, it was not considered advisable at this time to make the change.”
The interesting note is that Nickel Steel was used from 1931 National Matches and on another interest note and observations was that a extra gas hole was to be drilled on the left side aligned with the lug
Now if you think this is about the low-number 1903's you are mistaken, this is about the Model 1917.
The 1903 Springfield failed for the same reason the 1917 did. All the 1917 blow-ups were attribute to bore obstructions. The people who did the actual inspection on the 1903 came to the same conclusion.
Small Arms Design & Ballistics Vol. II by Townsend Whelen “All Army rifles which have been “accidentally” injured in service are shipped to Springfield Armory for examination. Mr. A.L. Woodward, Engineer of Test at the Armory for the past thirty years states that in ninety nine percent of the cases the accident has been caused by an obstruction in the bore, or by firing a wrong cartridge, that is an improper or wrongly sized cartridge, or one handloaded to excessive pressure. It is interesting to note that in the majority of these accidents an effort is made to conceal the real cause of the accident, but the evidence is always perfectly plain.”
I think that going from the single heat treat to a double heat treat was more progress than anything else. Remember the early 1903 were made from the same steel, with the same heat treatment and by the same folks that made the Krags. They realized that the actions could be built stronger so they did. There may have been a time when they considered removing the low-number guns from service but I think they all changed their minds after the 1917 was manufactured and in service for a while. There were numerous blow-ups of the 1917, and I’m not talking escaping gas but shattered receivers and barrels. One unit alone managed to destroy over a dozen rifles in a short time. The investigation of these concluded that all were a result of a bore obstruction. Interesting is that some were blamed on improper attachment of the bayonet, after the first shot the front of the bayonet became loose and dropped in front of the muzzle. (Could this happen with a 1903?) If a 1903 had a major failure the rifle was wrecked and out of service regardless of heat treatment. Another factor that may have entered into the 1903 decision was a paper published in “Army Ordnance” by A.L. Woodworth of Springfield Armory suggesting that without a bore obstruction the pressure of the 30-06 cartridge did not have enough pressure to shatter a receiver.
Reference:
“The Bursting of Rifles in Service” by A.L. Woodworth reprinted in the American Rifleman December, 1929 does not have date of original paper.
“The Price of Carelessness” by S. Trask Arms and the Man May 4, 1918. ( Problems with the 1917)
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 it turn into never shooting them? While reading a 1936 “American Rifleman” I see that the practice of exchanging the low-number receivers for high-numbers when a rifle was sent in by a civilian for work was stopped unless the person requested it. Seems some people did not like losing 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.”
From; Some Observations On The Failure
Of U.S. Model 1903 Rifle Receivers
Joseph L. Lyon, M.D., M.P.H.
Expected Failures after 1929
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.
Larry Gibson
“Deficient observation is merely a form of ignorance and responsible for the many morbid notions and foolish ideas prevailing.”
― Nikola Tesla
Good post Larry. There is something I want to bring up. Many people thing if you do indeed have a bad 1903 receiver that you have have it reheat treated. This state negates that: According to General Hatcher, in "Hatcher's Notebook", receivers which had been "burned" by overheating could not possibly be salvaged by re-heat treating.
They were burnt. Any metallugist would know what that means and they can't be brought back.
Thank you, Mr. Gibson, for a very comprehensive and complete post. This should be the final, ultimate word on Low Number 1903 rifles. I shall print off a copy of this post and put it in my Brophy book about the M1903.
DG
There will never be a final word, that's why this issue has gone on since invented those two rifle and you may as well add the Krag, they too had brittle receivers. What saved the Krags from catastrophic blow ups was the case was totally enclosed in the barrel. Some cracked Krag receiver were still being fired until it was discovered they were cracked. Again there will never be a final word as this will go on in the world long after we are gone.
So this fellow's expertise is where? Statistics. He figured all this out while sitting in his LazyBoy with his calculator. Its all about numbers and ratios of numbers. Does he know anything at all about metallurgy? Nope. He's a medical doctor not a metallurgist. His numbers have concluded that your low number 03 is perfectly safe to shoot due to his findings, his numbers. This fellow's numbers should never be included in any discussion on the safety of 03 Springfield low number receivers.
There are *still* low number 03 receivers failing up to the present day. Why they fail should be studied and viewed in the total context of the issue, which is pretty much impossible given the number of opinions shared. Most carbon steel case hardened receivers will fail given similar treatment. This is certainly true, even my favorite 98 Mauser action. But if you look at numbers, statistics and ratios you also need to look at *probability* of failure. How do you mitigate the risk of failure? Simple. Don't shoot it.
Present day failure:
http://www.jouster2.com/forums/archi...p/t-58765.html
WARNING ON “LOW-NUMBER” M1903 SPRINGFIELDS
https://thecmp.org/sales-and-service...e-information/
CMP does not recommend firing any Springfield rifle with a ”low number” receiver. Such rifles should be regarded as collector’s items, not “shooters.”
Is a low number 03 worth less than a high number 03? No, not at all. A low number 03 in pristine as-mfg condition is worth a considerable $$$$ due to its being a historical artifact. Its worth is not based on its firing ability.
Dutch
Posting Permissions
| BP | Bronze Point | IMR | Improved Military Rifle | PTD | Pointed |
| BR | Bench Rest | M | Magnum | RN | Round Nose |
| BT | Boat Tail | PL | Power-Lokt | SP | Soft Point |
| C | Compressed Charge | PR | Primer | SPCL | Soft Point "Core-Lokt" |
| HP | Hollow Point | PSPCL | Pointed Soft Point "Core Lokt" | C.O.L. | Cartridge Overall Length |
| PSP | Pointed Soft Point | Spz | Spitzer Point | SBT | Spitzer Boat Tail |
| LRN | Lead Round Nose | LWC | Lead Wad Cutter | LSWC | Lead Semi Wad Cutter |
| GC | Gas Check |
Reply With Quote
