Early Springfield 1903 Rifle ... 4 digit serial

G

Gunner13734

Inactive
I found an early 1903 Springfield rifle. I'm not familiar with the gun and was wondering if someone could share some knowledge. Serial number is 9XXX. It has been refurbished and has an 1942 barrel. Gun is in great condition. Any thoughts?
 
Who made the rifle?
Some of the early rifles were properly heat treated. The problems began when the process was moved and changed. There are certain manufacturers that never had a problem with the heat treat process.
 
It does not matter and there were only two makers.

Springfield and Rock Island.

Both had the same issue and the SN is so early as to be a slam dunk.
 
"...The problems began when the process was moved and changed..." Nope. The issue was determining the heat treat temperature by eye vs a gauge. It was proven that the experienced guys doing it would judge a different temperature on sunny days than on cloudy. Temperatures were much higher on sunny days resulting in burnt steel. And who made the rifle didn't matter.
Your rifle's receiver was made in 1903 and was changed from a .30-03 to a .30-06 in 1906. The barrel of course is not original. The rifle is also what is known as a 'Low Serial Number' and is not considered safe to shoot, even with the '42 barrel.
"...It has been refurbished..." That alone destroys any collector value. So does the 1942 barrel. Anyway, start here. http://www.m1903.com/
 
We will be discussing and debating the L/N Springfield problem till the Crack of Doom. My understanding-based on my reading of Hatcher-is there a few bad batches traced to specific years-long before 1917. The M1917 was adopted not to replace but to supplement the M1903. I have never heard of any uproar over "exploding" Springfields in the hand of troops in WWI. As opposed to the controversies over the 7th round stoppage in the M-1.
 
Not, it was not batches, its was luck of the draw. Heat treat cannot be done by eye in varryi8ng conditions, plain and simple.

ALL early 1903s were subject to brittle receivers.

That said, most that survived had been fired and no issues (Marines on Guadalcanal >

I would take it in a heartbeat. I am not concerned.

Someone else that is, good enough.

The 1917 did not Supplement the 1903

The 1903 Supplemented the 1917, 75% of the WWI rifles were 1917s.

Just because a Receiver cracks with a hammer blow, does not mean it can't take the pressure.

If it does go, then is a lot of shrapnel as opposed to a 1917 bulge.

What people ignore is the unsupported head of ALL 1903s, and that is far more likely to blow trough and get you than the receiver as the gas path is not controlled.

And I saw a modern Model 70 blow up recently and it was pretty well shattered.
 
I bought Springfield #9105 last year. I have put 100's of handloaded rounds through the gun. I have researched the receiver failure issue a little and the number of failures is very small with no recorded failures since 1929. The gun in question would be a first year gun and according to Hatcher's notes there is 1 recorded failure from that year out of 30305 firearms.

I have heard that a contributing factor to the receiver failures was also possibly due to variations in the ammo being produced at the time being and once more stringent quality control was introduced the failures stopped.

There's a risk of blowing up any gun anytime the trigger is pulled. The risk may be slightly higher with one of these but the risk is very small compared to other risks taken by normal individuals everyday.
 
Pretty much true.

However, the quality control was lacking in receivers through the 800/400k Springfield/RI mfg. ie the same lack of scientific heating (by eye)

Sadly not one did a real analysis and then hit one with a hammer as that is the condemning action.

Probably the same thing would happen with the Krag.
 
Krag runs at lower chamber pressure and has the superior rimmed cartridge.
Worst I have seen with a Krag was a broken (single) locking lug. Strange gun, the "safety lug" is bigger than the main. The Norwegian Krags are said to be fitted with both lugs in contact for 6.5x55.

You would think 80 years of development would give us NDT that would separate the sheep from the goats, but nobody has a better idea than hitting or dropping receivers. Which breaks the brittle ones and bends the tough ones.
 
Classic junker. But it should make for a decent over-the-fireplace wall-hanger, or a great conversation piece down in the Mancave.

You can tell 'em, if you can say it with a straight face:

"Yep, that rifle right there was what my great gran-pappy used over several wars to fight hisself out of Balleu Woods, Guadal Canal, and the Chosin Reservoir." :eek:

The more liquor involved as you tell this awesome family tale, of course, the more credible it becomes. ;)
 
We all have our opinions on the safety of older Springfields.

Shoot if if you wish or don't. Thats your decision.

However, I'm a CMP MI, and conduct Sanctioned CMP GSM clinics and matches.

In doing so I'm required to follow the CMP rules. Their rules dont allow low numbered serial numbers in their shooting event.

Therefore neither do I.
 
Remember, ... those long arms also serve who only stand duty as Safe Queens or Wall-hangers, but never see the range.
 
Appreciate the feedback. So I risked my like and decided to take her to the range. I fired 20 rounds of ball ammo and it performed without fault. I will retire her from future trips but I'm glad she got one last box of rounds.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top