first rifle: springfield 1903

An avid mil-surp collector, he tells me that the quickest test to check for a potentially brittle receiver is to look at the bolt handle. If the bolt handle curves slightly back toward the butt, then it is a later (safe) production rifle. If the bolt handle comes straight down from the receiver, then the receiver MIGHT be one of the mis-tempered ones.
Click to expand...


All the references say that during the change over from single heat treat to double heat all the bolt handles were given a slight swept back.

But, the serial number is a better way of verifying whether the receiver is a low number or not, because bolts can be swapped.
 
An avid mil-surp collector, he tells me that the quickest test to check for a potentially brittle receiver is to look at the bolt handle. If the bolt handle curves slightly back toward the butt, then it is a later (safe) production rifle. If the bolt handle comes straight down from the receiver, then the receiver MIGHT be one of the mis-tempered ones.

This assumes that bolt and rifle numbers match.
Click to expand...
can't think of how many things are wrong with this.

1. US did not serialize small parts. the only thing on springfields was the main serial number on the receiver.

2. the earliest swept bolts were used after 1.1 million serial rifles, meaning that there were over 300,000 rifles made with the new heat treatment process before the bolts were modified. therefore the swept bolt was not meant as an indicator that they were safe to fire but rather were just another of the slight modifications that the 1903 saw over the course of it's service.

3. I have a swept bolt on a low serial rifle. now this rifle saw refits at the end of each world war. the first resulted in a new barrel from springfield as the barrel date is 6 years newer than the serial number on the rifle and the remington swept bolt was a common replacement on springfields being placed into storage at the end of WWII. if a person were to look at just the bolt on my rifle they would assume that it is perfectly safe under that logic but it is not.
 
rockislife04 said:
if you compare the hardness to a rifle that was done "by eye" and it is the same i would bet that it was treated correctly.
Click to expand...


Casino better's/gambler's think the same way, but less then 10% actually have their dreams come true.

Your rifle, your health, your choice - I wish you luck.


.
 
I had never heard the story about the Marines and hammers, and I rather doubt it since a blow to the receiver hard enough to break a brittle receiver could be hard enough to inflict permanent damage on a good one.

The Marines simply chose to risk the danger (which is, admittedly, fairly small), as was done in WWII when SHT rifles were rebuilt by arsenals rather than having the receivers destroyed as had been done previously when the rifles were returned for rebuild.

The Marines always had a smaller budget than the Army, and turning in a suspect rifle might have meant no rifle at all for some time.

Jim
 
I rather doubt it since a blow to the receiver hard enough to break a brittle receiver could be hard enough to inflict permanent damage on a good one.
Click to expand...


The best article I have seen on the brittleness of these early 03’s is Rifle Magazine, May-June 1985 About Low Number Springfields Sedgley’s and others. By Hugh Douglas.

Hugh used a sample size of five low number and one “high number” 03 receivers. He held one in his left hand, his right hand held an eight ounce nylon faced hammer, and drawing the hammer back 18”, he struck the receiver siderail. All of the receivers, including the 808,000 receiver shattered. He had the pictures in the article.

Previous to this article, he purchased a 600,000 1942 rebarrel, but it had a small crack on the receiver. Laying the thing on his kitchen table he “impulsively, I lightly tapped the bridge with a 5/8” open end wrench. The crack now went all the way from front to rear of the bridge. “What the hell!!”. Wielding the small wrench a little harder, I struck the rifle rear bridge and it broke off flush with the bolt raceway. The metal along the broken edges looked like a broken cast iron casting. Using the wrench I proceeded to break the action into pieces until finally there was only an irregular piece of the receiver ring attached to the barrel. Several hard blows and the shattered receiver ring dropped off the barrel. “

If tapping the receiver with a hammer is obviously too much, then get a 5/8” open end wrench and hit the thing. Or, drop it on the floor, as I have read of single heat treat receivers shattering on a concrete floor.

I remember an account from the old Culver’s forum and one poster just tapped his single heat treat and it fell into pieces.

These receivers were weak, their billets had been burnt in the forge room, this was a well known issue at the time, well known enough that even as late as 1948 there is a section in the American Society of Metals Handbook about burnt forge billets. “Burning is an extremely overheated condition that causes the more fusible constituents of the steel to melt….results in hot shortness of the material… This is evident since steel that is burned entirely on the inside, may appear quite satisfactory on the surface.

Springfield Armory had not equipped their forge room with pyrometers, and there may have been the perverse incentive of piece part payment. If they paid their forge workers based on piece part, it would have been to their advantage to heat the billets to as hot a temperature as possible as it would have made stamping the parts quicker. Regardless, given that Springfield was behind the time in pyrometers, it is no wonder that billets were burnt.

Hatchers shifts the blame onto the forge shop workers, as if their suspicion of pyrometers and new technology had anything to do with Army management not installing pyrometers. People today are laid off all the time with labor saving technology, but back then, there was no such thing as welfare or unemployment compensation, so it is certain that the forge shop workers were not eager to embrace change. But, they are not the people running the Armory, the Colonel is running the Armory, and the Green suiters were having a great time playing polo on the parade ground, and were ignoring what was going on inside their factory. After all, who the heck was in charge of Springfield Armory? This is another great Hatcher misdirection, you don’t even understand how or why you think the forge shop workers created this situation. They did not, all the forge shop workers did were to stamp out parts following the work instructions put in place by the plant managers on the equipment provided by the plant managers. It just so happens that the plant managers were Regular Army officers. If the forge shop workers did not have pyrometers then it is the fault of the Army, not the consequence of some fictitious labor dispute.

Hatcher is a great magician, he displays a shiny thing, makes a hand flip, Hatcher plays the misdirection so well that no one ever finds the Army under any of his three monte cards.
 
I bought a low number 03 (serial # below 200,000 from SA) from an old gentleman. The said the rifle belonged to his late father who used the same rifle when serving in the army air corps during the war. He and his father were plinking with the rifle when he was a teenager. Between his father and him thousands of surplus rounds have gone through the barrel. After taking ownership I have shot a few hundred rounds myself, surplus and reloads. Damn good rifle.

I know I am taking some risk shooting that 03. My rifle, my health, my choice. Mine alone, as I will not allow anybody else to shoot it.

-TL
 
"You'll never have a problem, until you have a problem" :) You're right, it is a risk.

Tangolima, do you have any photos of the rifle? It couldn't be an Air Service rifle could it? (that would be so incredible I hate to even bring it up, but who knows?)
 
how many rifles,i want proof here, have actually failed out of these low serial rifles? how many deaths has it caused? And how many people that are saying they are faulty have shot them and had them break in their hands?

the philosophy: "believe none of what you hear, and only half of what you see" might come into play here. I only have what a few people wrote about these guns but no physical proof.

Also back to my original reason i started this thread, i took the trigger and sear out and noticed that it a little rounded at the top edge. i will pick up a sear and see if it fixes the problem.
 
Oh, sorry, as usual we have gone too deep down this rabbit hole again.

Back to your original question. I looked at my rifle. There is a slot cut on the cocking piece that engages the safety level. If the sear or the cocking piece have be ground, the cocking piece may have moved forward a bit, so that the safety level can no long engage the slot on the cocking piece. Solution is simple. I will file the slot back a bit.

Note that the slot actually has 2 segments. The main segment is perpendicular to the axis of the cocking piece, and there is a inclined plane leading to it. Both segments will probably need to be moved back, but work on the inclined segment first. Important is to make sure the engagement between the main segment and the safety is slightly positive, neutral at least, never negative.

Hope this helps.

-TL
 
thank you tangolima, i will see what i can do. I know i can get an original sear so i may pick one up and try that first, becasue there is some wear on that. If that doesnt work i will go your route.
 
I think risk needs to be put into perspective.

There is emotional reactions. Thats normal reacation, but it overwhelms connotative thinking.

Add up all the risks you take in a day. Get in the car and you have a significant risk of getting into an accident. As that is a routine we all grew up with the perceived risk is low when in fact its quite high.

Compare that risk to a 1903 blowing up. OMG! The risk has been retired long ago with shooting, but its still, OMG. The same person who will not shoot a 1903 will think nothing of driving all over town and the country.

How many people get killed each year by a 1903 blowing up? (and how many were killed or even seriously injured when it did happen?)

How many get killed, maimed and injured in auto accidents?

How many die of cigaret smoking, alcohol drugs or by those who suffer from the consequences of their actions?

The entire country went buggy in 9/11 when in fact all you had to do was have locked cockpit doors that had been recommended for 20 years?

Risk is relative. The vast majority of the 1903 blow ups were due to other issues (cartridge issues predominately, but greased bullets came into play as well.)

So yes there is risk, so is breathing, but a used 1903 is a much smaller risk than simply driving to the gun range.

Shooting one that has issues and obvious damage etc is foolish, but then thats true of any gun.
 
I think risk needs to be put into perspective.

There is emotional reactions. Thats normal reacation, but it overwhelms connotative thinking.

Add up all the risks you take in a day. Get in the car and you have a significant risk of getting into an accident. As that is a routine we all grew up with the perceived risk is low when in fact its quite high.

Compare that risk to a 1903 blowing up. OMG! The risk has been retired long ago with shooting, but its still, OMG. The same person who will not shoot a 1903 will think nothing of driving all over town and the country.

How many people get killed each year by a 1903 blowing up? (and how many were killed or even seriously injured when it did happen?)

How many get killed, maimed and injured in auto accidents?

How many die of cigaret smoking, alcohol drugs or by those who suffer from the consequences of their actions?

The entire country went buggy in 9/11 when in fact all you had to do was have locked cockpit doors that had been recommended for 20 years?

Risk is relative. The vast majority of the 1903 blow ups were due to other issues (cartridge issues predominately, but greased bullets came into play as well.)

So yes there is risk, so is breathing, but a used 1903 is a much smaller risk than simply driving to the gun range.

Shooting one that has issues and obvious damage etc is foolish, but then thats true of any gun.
Click to expand...

i couldnt have said it any better myself

i am attempting to join a local club shortly. upon completion of joining the club i will ask someone who is very knowledgeable about weapons and ask him to give a once over to my 1903. if he tells me that there is anything wrong with it other that the chance of a accident then i will not shoot it, and it will become a wall hanger. If i find out that everything is a ok(other folks have said so) that i will go forward in shooting it.
 
Crossman's book on the 03 suggested checking the fwd guard screw seat for chipping. The idea was that the small top hat shaped guard screw hole was usually chipped in all the suspect receivers he'd inspected back in the 30's. I had a Rock Island low number for many years that I used exclusively with mild cast bullet loads with incredible accuracy. The seat on that one was intact and I felt comfortable shooting it. Your milage may vary however. Check the seat. Rod
 
On another web site a poster stated that the Marine Corp sorted their bad low number receivers from the “good” by removing the action from the stock, removing the bolt, and hitting the receiver twice with a heavy hammer. I think this is a great idea.

These receivers were shattered by holding the stripped receiver in the left hand and hitting them with a nylon faced hammer in the right. Total arc was around 18”.



In spite of all the words in Hatcher's Notebook that provide the illusion that the double heat treat receivers are indestructible, and this whole affair a great Army triumph, I have read a number of posts of double heat treat failures over the years, one guy revealed he had a list with 28 double heat treats that had failed, when one failed, he added it to his list. The double heat treat receivers were made out of the same poor quality material as the single heat treats: the plain carbon steels used in the single and double heat treats have erratic hardening depths, so one receiver would be soft, another brittle hard. I also believe the process controls were just as bad. In my opinion, they should have gone to alloy steels but instead stayed with this obsolescent material (obsolete now for such a safety critical item), doubled the process time (and cost) by the extra heat treat.

I am unaware of any non destructive technique to sort good from bad, but a nice hard hit from a hammer, one intended to make the receiver ring, is as good as any cheap way of sorting out the very bad receivers. If the receiver cracks, then it is obviously bad.

I know no one reading this will do this, because of the concern that the receiver might fail. Which, when you think of it, this is rather muddled thinking. Why anyone would want to be behind one of these things when it fails during firing is beyond me.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top