You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
1903 Sprinfield info please
- Thread starter dlb435
- Start date
henryfrapp
New member
buy Joe Poyers book the 1903 Springfield and its variations.
The Low Number Model 1903 'Gamble' !
I used the data in the reports that were 'linked' in the posts above. It was quite Enlightening! Since first hearing of the issue, I have had the feeling that the overall problem was a very small number of receivers out of the millions produced.
I have an '03, #223xxx. Tracking down the history shows it to be created in 1906. After sifting the data about the S A rifles and how the problem receivers were diagnosed, I have to say that the investigators seem to have really narrowed the point of 'Problems' to a few male employees who suffered from poor visual color interpretation when matching the red-hot colors of the steel as it was heated to the proper tempering level. In the analysis of the sub-standard guns the records show that there is a reasonable correlation between the work schedule of a few workers and the low-temper numbers of the steel. Very few of the early rifles suffered the disability... In fact NO '03's produced in 1906 were ever found to be defective.
That news is in the stats provided the govt. investigators. That, coupled with the 100 yr history of Rifle #223xxx as a successful hunter and sporterized gun used a lot up to about 1985 when I obtained it.
I am satisfied to use 'lite-load' or 'fusion ammo, keeping the chamber pressures lower than some of the hotter 30-06 loads put out by ammo producers. That Lite-Load 170 gr. soft tip bullet works quite well.
I think I have made my decision to continue using the Model 1903 I have. If the history put it into the 'bad receiver groups' I might not want to use it....but that doesn't seem to be the case.
I used the data in the reports that were 'linked' in the posts above. It was quite Enlightening! Since first hearing of the issue, I have had the feeling that the overall problem was a very small number of receivers out of the millions produced.
I have an '03, #223xxx. Tracking down the history shows it to be created in 1906. After sifting the data about the S A rifles and how the problem receivers were diagnosed, I have to say that the investigators seem to have really narrowed the point of 'Problems' to a few male employees who suffered from poor visual color interpretation when matching the red-hot colors of the steel as it was heated to the proper tempering level. In the analysis of the sub-standard guns the records show that there is a reasonable correlation between the work schedule of a few workers and the low-temper numbers of the steel. Very few of the early rifles suffered the disability... In fact NO '03's produced in 1906 were ever found to be defective.
That news is in the stats provided the govt. investigators. That, coupled with the 100 yr history of Rifle #223xxx as a successful hunter and sporterized gun used a lot up to about 1985 when I obtained it.
I am satisfied to use 'lite-load' or 'fusion ammo, keeping the chamber pressures lower than some of the hotter 30-06 loads put out by ammo producers. That Lite-Load 170 gr. soft tip bullet works quite well.
I think I have made my decision to continue using the Model 1903 I have. If the history put it into the 'bad receiver groups' I might not want to use it....but that doesn't seem to be the case.