1903 sporter
- Thread starter gunnerpup
- Start date
CMP description of "low number" 1903 Springfields
A short explanation of "low number" 1903 Springfields from the Civilian Markmanship Program (CMP)
http://thecmp.org/cmp_sales/rifle_sales/m1903-m1903a3/
A short explanation of "low number" 1903 Springfields from the Civilian Markmanship Program (CMP)
http://thecmp.org/cmp_sales/rifle_sales/m1903-m1903a3/
I had forgotten where the cutoff was and thought it was lower. Yeah, while I am not a fan of any 03 Springfield which has been sporterized I would avoid those with the heat treat issues. Don't have an 03 but have a pretty nice 03A3 Remington, originally a DCM gun dating back to the 60s. If I recall correctly the selling price on the papers was about $18.
Ron
Ron
$18 was more money in the '60's. Week's pay or more for some people.
The 'Sporter' an '03 for sure? Rear sight on the barrel? Makes a difference.
"...single heat-treated by a method that..." That's from the CMP link. The 'method' was heat treating techs with great deal of experience judging metal temperatures by eye. That temperature proved(using pyrometers) to be considerably higher on bright sunny days than on cloudy days. Meant the steel was burned. That's what made it brittle. The techies working during W.W. I didn't have the same experience and made things worse.
The 'Sporter' an '03 for sure? Rear sight on the barrel? Makes a difference.
"...single heat-treated by a method that..." That's from the CMP link. The 'method' was heat treating techs with great deal of experience judging metal temperatures by eye. That temperature proved(using pyrometers) to be considerably higher on bright sunny days than on cloudy days. Meant the steel was burned. That's what made it brittle. The techies working during W.W. I didn't have the same experience and made things worse.
J.G. Terry
New member
It would be helpful to have some more information on your rifle. What do you mean be "sporter." Is the rifle built as a sporter or is the stock cut off and handguards gone. Is there a date on the barrel behind the front sight? A two grove barrels and a date in the early 1940's tells us that rifle has be rebarreled and reissued in WW2. Many high quality sports were made up on low-number receivers after WWI. As I understand it the Marine Corp never pulled the low number Springfields.
Art Eatman
Staff in Memoriam
The numbers below 800,000 for 03s from Springfield Armory and below 256,000 from Rock Island are the unsafe versions. Other sources did not have the problem. SA was not the only producer.
Update: Check this out:
http://m1903.com/03rcvrfail/
Update: Check this out:
http://m1903.com/03rcvrfail/
The more I study this issue, the more I see links to people whom the shooting community considers to an authority figure. Dr Lyon’s is one, he is a low number Springfield fan and by his analysis he is promoting risky behavior.
http://m1903.com/03rcvrfail/
Some Observations On The Failure Of U.S. Model 1903 Rifle Receivers
Dr Lyon’s risk analysis is solely based on the list in Hatcher’s Notebook. There are known low number blowups before Hatcher’s list starts, and there are known low number blowups after Hatcher’s database ends. Hatcher’s list is an incomplete list of low number accidents. It is really disturbing to realize that Dr Lyon is a medical Doctor and to see that his analysis ignores underlying causes. Dr Lyon’s is not interested why these things break. His analysis is strictly on the numbers in a data base. For him, the characteristics of low number receivers are irrelevant. The technology of the era, the poor quality of the steel, the lack of process control technology, these are all ignored by Dr Lyon. It is as if low number failures have no assignable causes. No rhyme or reason to a blowup, they are totally unknowable and unforeseeable, the receivers just blow up, random acts of God His statistics provide assurance to many that the risk of shooting a low number receiver is very small, but his analysis is very flawed .
The fact Dr Lyon is a medical doctor should give us all pause as to trusting authority based on titles or education. Very brilliant men can be total fools. I am thinking of two very brilliant men: Donald Rumsfeld and Allan Greenspan. Rumsfeld foolishly lost the war in Iraqi, there is at least one book titled "Fiasco" on the subject, and that ought to give on an idea of the total failure by Rumsfeld. Allan Greenspan blew up the world economy, no small accomplishment. Neither thinks they really made bad decisions or assumptions during their delusional management period that lead to these catastrophes. It is very disturbing to find that a medical doctor just ignores underlying causes. This might be a reason why over 100,000 people per year die to medical errors. The brilliant fools in the medical profession can’t admit they make mistakes and are not looking to fixing the system, or their biases.
Art Eatman
Staff in Memoriam
The safest use of a low-number '03 is as a lamp post, set by one's favorite recliner to read by its light.
Just one more opinion thrown in here:
If I owned one of these low number 1903s I would shoot it with cast bullets in the 1700-2000 fps range, bullets like the Lyman 211384, and never give it a 2nd thought.
Every day when you stand up from the fart sack you subconsciously run a risk matrix through your head, or you should, considering risks like falling down stairwells, how you drive, how much you lean your motor into a curve, even how much sugar you throw into your pre-diabetic mouth. Statistically what are the odds of that '03 giving out under lw pressure loads? Answer that question for yourself, no one else can make that assessment and decision for you. As I stated above, I would be comfortable with it. But here's the thing: I don't own one and knowing what I do about them, would never buy one. Why? Buy a high number Springfield or RIA, or better yet a Remington '03 or Remington/Smith Corona '03A3. There are bazillions of them already sporterized and the 1940s guns will handle anything SAAMI without so much as a hiccup.
If I owned one of these low number 1903s I would shoot it with cast bullets in the 1700-2000 fps range, bullets like the Lyman 211384, and never give it a 2nd thought.
Every day when you stand up from the fart sack you subconsciously run a risk matrix through your head, or you should, considering risks like falling down stairwells, how you drive, how much you lean your motor into a curve, even how much sugar you throw into your pre-diabetic mouth. Statistically what are the odds of that '03 giving out under lw pressure loads? Answer that question for yourself, no one else can make that assessment and decision for you. As I stated above, I would be comfortable with it. But here's the thing: I don't own one and knowing what I do about them, would never buy one. Why? Buy a high number Springfield or RIA, or better yet a Remington '03 or Remington/Smith Corona '03A3. There are bazillions of them already sporterized and the 1940s guns will handle anything SAAMI without so much as a hiccup.
One of the odd things about those "low number" Springfields is that they are not so much "weak" as brittle.* They won't stretch, like some Mausers will under high pressure, instead they just blow. The point is that Elmbow's comment about shooting cast bullet loads might not be good advice. The damage is often done not by high pressure loads, but "light" loads with fast burning powder, like Bullseye, which will deliver a sharp, fast blow.
Jim
*I broke a LN receiver with a light hammer, so I do know what brittle means.
JK
Jim
*I broke a LN receiver with a light hammer, so I do know what brittle means.
JK
J.G. Terry
New member
Two sides to the Story...?
Some of the stories about failure of the Low number 03's have been refuted. The failures were do to other problems. My feeling are that it is not wise to use anything that you consider unsafe. There is a flip side to the low number business. If has not blown up by now it's OK. I wonder if any of the 03's rebarrelled and reissued during WW2 blew up? How about those the Marine Corp 03's used from day one?
Some of the stories about failure of the Low number 03's have been refuted. The failures were do to other problems. My feeling are that it is not wise to use anything that you consider unsafe. There is a flip side to the low number business. If has not blown up by now it's OK. I wonder if any of the 03's rebarrelled and reissued during WW2 blew up? How about those the Marine Corp 03's used from day one?
Interesting point JG. What I think you try to say is the "bad" Springfields fall within a certain serial number range and not every one to the 800,000 something rifles are actually "bad".
This bring up another question. During the 1960s there was an outfit IIRC that called itself Springfield Armory or something similar. They built up new receivers and used surplus parts to make complete 1903 and 1903 rifle clones. They weren't quite as nice as the original but functioned decently and were accurate enough. At least the one I had was anyway. The actions were a bit rough but smoothed out some with use.
It's been more years than I care to count since I had a genuine 1903 from the real Springfield arsenal so memory on how the receiver was marked escapes me.
The only 1903 I have now is a Remington 1903A3 early enough to have a four groove barrel. I take it out once in a while and use it as a cast bullet shooter.
Paul B.
This bring up another question. During the 1960s there was an outfit IIRC that called itself Springfield Armory or something similar. They built up new receivers and used surplus parts to make complete 1903 and 1903 rifle clones. They weren't quite as nice as the original but functioned decently and were accurate enough. At least the one I had was anyway. The actions were a bit rough but smoothed out some with use.
It's been more years than I care to count since I had a genuine 1903 from the real Springfield arsenal so memory on how the receiver was marked escapes me.
The only 1903 I have now is a Remington 1903A3 early enough to have a four groove barrel. I take it out once in a while and use it as a cast bullet shooter.
Paul B.
J.G. Terry
New member
03's
I have not thought of those faux 03's in a while. Can't remember the name either. Santa Fe? There was a day when you could run up on some interesting Springfield's. Many years ago a friend gave us a low number Springfield less the bolt. As it happened we had a correct low-number bolt. That rifle was among the first made and had not been butchered.We were able to make it right. The rifle was given to another friend who was leaving town. No telling how much that rifle was worth today. One of my finds many years ago was a 1927 NM Springfield made into a sporter with a very nice stock. That rifle proved to be exceptionally accurate. The only shooters I have is a O3A3 made up from a drill rifle. I's dynamite with lead bullets. Breaking the LN receiver with a hammer appears in Phil Sharpe's reloading book. On the other hand high quality sporters were made up on those old actions. One authority recently spoke of the notion that these rifles would jump up out a corner and blowup.
I have not thought of those faux 03's in a while. Can't remember the name either. Santa Fe? There was a day when you could run up on some interesting Springfield's. Many years ago a friend gave us a low number Springfield less the bolt. As it happened we had a correct low-number bolt. That rifle was among the first made and had not been butchered.We were able to make it right. The rifle was given to another friend who was leaving town. No telling how much that rifle was worth today. One of my finds many years ago was a 1927 NM Springfield made into a sporter with a very nice stock. That rifle proved to be exceptionally accurate. The only shooters I have is a O3A3 made up from a drill rifle. I's dynamite with lead bullets. Breaking the LN receiver with a hammer appears in Phil Sharpe's reloading book. On the other hand high quality sporters were made up on those old actions. One authority recently spoke of the notion that these rifles would jump up out a corner and blowup.
Last edited:
Mainre used their low SN RI at Guadlacanall initially.
They transitioned to the higher fire power Garand (stole or traded for them) as the Army troops amply demonstrated the improvement in output.
By Guadalcanal end they had re-equipped or acquired all Garand.
The point was those iffy 1903s stood the full test of combat.
Frankly in my opinion the unsupported case head is a far greater danger than the old guns (and getting to the gun range in the first place has its own risk factor that's drastically higher than the gun itself)
They transitioned to the higher fire power Garand (stole or traded for them) as the Army troops amply demonstrated the improvement in output.
By Guadalcanal end they had re-equipped or acquired all Garand.
The point was those iffy 1903s stood the full test of combat.
Frankly in my opinion the unsupported case head is a far greater danger than the old guns (and getting to the gun range in the first place has its own risk factor that's drastically higher than the gun itself)
There is a lot of argument from ignorance, that is, if you have not heard of it, it must not have happened. Nassim Nicholas Taleb got a Nobel prize for his work on Black Swan events. I recall reading a quote of his, "just because you have not seen a Black Swan does not mean they don't exist" An interview I listened to, basically he said, just about when you think you know everything, that is about the time when something really unexpected happens.
There are lots of accidents, things breaking, things happening in the Armed Services that you will never hear of. People with security clearances (except for Hillary Clinton) know that they will go to jail if they talk about what they are doing or what they know, if it is classified. Now when it comes to Safety Incident Reports, the fact of the matter is, the Armed Services only release Safety Incident Reports to Safety Investigators and to Law Enforcement who have a need to know. That fact that none of the people reading this thread or posting in this thread have seen or will ever see a complication of Safety Incident Reports should be a clue that, none of you ever had, or will ever, have a need to know.
Also, there is the assumption that somehow you should have known, because you know everything. If you are truly omniscient, there are a lot of things I would like to ask you. Not only about the past, but also about about financial advice for the future! Being God like has to be a real advantage in timing the stock market.
You know, if I had never heard of opioid addiction, I would never have known about it. I never met anyone who later died from opioid addiction, and yet when I listen to the news, seems one heck of a lot of people are dying from it.
No civilian is required by law to report a rifle blow up to anyone. Occasionally someone reports a blow up, I have found descriptions of low number blow ups on Facebook with cast bullets. These are some pictures of blowups that are not accounted for in Hatcher's Notebook
The Micheal Petrov rifle is sort of interesting. Micheal Petrov was a low number fan boy, had a big collection, wrote about low number rifles on Culver's. He is dead now. But anyway he once posted, but took off, pictures of two low number M1903 that he had fired 8mm Mauser rounds. Both rifles, according to the posts, survived. He had a lot of faith in his low number M1903's and from the last owner of the above rifle, he had fired full power rounds through that rifle before selling it. To the guy whose face is in the picture. The thing blew up on him. Too bad Micheal did not experience the rush as I would have considered that poetic justice.
In 1927 an Army panel conducted tests, they reheat treated a number of low number receivers than put them through over pressure tests. According to Hatcher 33 % failed, and the panel recommended destroying all one million rifles as the whole population was too dangerous to issue. Military leadership decided that a $40 rifle was worth more than a trooper. We have no idea, nor will we ever have, an idea of the number of people injured with the things. Only Hatcher's list exists and it ends in 1927.
Basically, you want to shoot your low number, go ahead. It is your hands, eyes, head, not mine. If your low number blows up, and you are not killed, tell us about it. About 66% of the things should be OK, though there is no way to determine how OK. Based on what I have read about the materials and technology of the period, there should be a wide variation to the things, which was commented about by the 1927 board. Low number receivers varied too much to be restored to any consistent quality. Keep in mind, structurally deficient items do not necessarily fail the first time, they do however fail earlier than expected.
I would stay away from National Ordnance Receivers. There are enough blow up posting on those things that they are only worth the sum of their GI parts. I had one, the lugs set back the receiver seats so much that it became difficult to open the bolt. I believe the casting was soft and was giving way as rounds were fired. It was only a matter of time till it blew. I am glad I got rid of the thing before the case head blew, which has happened to others. I was not as educated on the subject as I am now, but I was getting suspicious that something was wrong with the rifle.
There are lots of accidents, things breaking, things happening in the Armed Services that you will never hear of. People with security clearances (except for Hillary Clinton) know that they will go to jail if they talk about what they are doing or what they know, if it is classified. Now when it comes to Safety Incident Reports, the fact of the matter is, the Armed Services only release Safety Incident Reports to Safety Investigators and to Law Enforcement who have a need to know. That fact that none of the people reading this thread or posting in this thread have seen or will ever see a complication of Safety Incident Reports should be a clue that, none of you ever had, or will ever, have a need to know.
Also, there is the assumption that somehow you should have known, because you know everything. If you are truly omniscient, there are a lot of things I would like to ask you. Not only about the past, but also about about financial advice for the future! Being God like has to be a real advantage in timing the stock market.
You know, if I had never heard of opioid addiction, I would never have known about it. I never met anyone who later died from opioid addiction, and yet when I listen to the news, seems one heck of a lot of people are dying from it.
No civilian is required by law to report a rifle blow up to anyone. Occasionally someone reports a blow up, I have found descriptions of low number blow ups on Facebook with cast bullets. These are some pictures of blowups that are not accounted for in Hatcher's Notebook
The Micheal Petrov rifle is sort of interesting. Micheal Petrov was a low number fan boy, had a big collection, wrote about low number rifles on Culver's. He is dead now. But anyway he once posted, but took off, pictures of two low number M1903 that he had fired 8mm Mauser rounds. Both rifles, according to the posts, survived. He had a lot of faith in his low number M1903's and from the last owner of the above rifle, he had fired full power rounds through that rifle before selling it. To the guy whose face is in the picture. The thing blew up on him. Too bad Micheal did not experience the rush as I would have considered that poetic justice.
In 1927 an Army panel conducted tests, they reheat treated a number of low number receivers than put them through over pressure tests. According to Hatcher 33 % failed, and the panel recommended destroying all one million rifles as the whole population was too dangerous to issue. Military leadership decided that a $40 rifle was worth more than a trooper. We have no idea, nor will we ever have, an idea of the number of people injured with the things. Only Hatcher's list exists and it ends in 1927.
Basically, you want to shoot your low number, go ahead. It is your hands, eyes, head, not mine. If your low number blows up, and you are not killed, tell us about it. About 66% of the things should be OK, though there is no way to determine how OK. Based on what I have read about the materials and technology of the period, there should be a wide variation to the things, which was commented about by the 1927 board. Low number receivers varied too much to be restored to any consistent quality. Keep in mind, structurally deficient items do not necessarily fail the first time, they do however fail earlier than expected.
I would stay away from National Ordnance Receivers. There are enough blow up posting on those things that they are only worth the sum of their GI parts. I had one, the lugs set back the receiver seats so much that it became difficult to open the bolt. I believe the casting was soft and was giving way as rounds were fired. It was only a matter of time till it blew. I am glad I got rid of the thing before the case head blew, which has happened to others. I was not as educated on the subject as I am now, but I was getting suspicious that something was wrong with the rifle.
Last edited:
J.G. Terry
New member
Blow-ups
Didn't failed case heads on military rounds have much to do with low number failures. Also, to see a destroyed low number means what. We don't know except the receiver failed. Was this related to case hardened receivers or a Bubba massive overload? Years ago I bought a GI high number receiver. The lugs had set back from an overload (s). We used it as example of receiver damage. Exactly what percentage of low number Springfield's failed overtime. Does anybody know how many high number O3"s failed.
Didn't failed case heads on military rounds have much to do with low number failures. Also, to see a destroyed low number means what. We don't know except the receiver failed. Was this related to case hardened receivers or a Bubba massive overload? Years ago I bought a GI high number receiver. The lugs had set back from an overload (s). We used it as example of receiver damage. Exactly what percentage of low number Springfield's failed overtime. Does anybody know how many high number O3"s failed.
Last edited: