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

[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.