Springfield 1903

[kraigwy]

Can anyone tell me about my 1903 Springfield based on its serial number 1,187,410? It is a Mark 1 and very interesting. What unit was it issued too? Where did it serve? Anything at all you may know, I am interested.

I can tell you it was made in 1920. (beginning serial number for 1920 was 1,162,501, beginning in 1921 was 1,211,300), other then that it would be difficult to tell you more. I don't know of any records on what unit got the rifle, or were it went from 1920 to the time you got it.

This comes up every now and then on the CMP forms. Even the CMP dosn't have much on records of guns they sold prior to 1996 when DCM became CMP, but for $25 CMP will check their records to see what they have.

Even then that wont tell you much except if they had it and who they sold it to.

 

[Slamfire]

I was told by someone long ago that "they got most all the bad ones" I remember hearing that they would shoot the proofing high pressure "Blue pill?" and if it passes then it was safe to shoot.

For more than a decade Springfield Armory and Rock Island Armory had been rejecting failed rifles and never figured out they had a process problem. I find this incredible and evidence either of a coverup, incompetence, or complacency. Or a combination of all three. There are no records of how many newly built rifles broke in the factory, but it was not until WW1 and one of these proofed receivers failing in a commercial ammunition plant which would not accept the blame, that sunlight began to shine on the production mess that had been allowed to go on at these two Arsenals. I find scapegoating the workers in the forging shop an act of misdirection by Army management.

If you look at all the failures recorded by Hatcher, and remember the list is only covers the years 1917 to 1929, it is evident that a lot of weak receivers made it past the proof test. Receivers that passed the proof test could and did shatter under over pressure events. The one that failed at the ammunition plant failed under normal pressures.

The Army could never figure out a non destructive way to sort the receivers, good from bad. The materials were so variable on these things that attempts to re heat treat low number receivers were a failure.

These old receivers are a risk. You can’t tell good from bad until it breaks.

 

[Mayor Al]

Same Issue, Model 1903A3 Low Number

OK, I have read all the info in this thread and have had a local 'Smith tell me that he had to give the 'Low-Number Warning' as a liability thing for him , but that he would be willing to take my rifle (details in a minute) out back and run a thousand rounds thru it.

Now the details. I bought a Springfield Armory 1903A3, sporterized as many were a generation ago. Serial # 273727, Barrel shortened to 22", Jeweled Bolt, Weaver 3x9 mounted, Barrel condition good, but in 'well-shot' condition. The barrel and stock are married well, with some epoxy used to 'set' the barrel many years ago. Since the barrel has NO caliber indicator, or markings of any kind, I will assume it is a replacement barrel, but well-used. The ID and Serial # are in the usual location on the receiver.

I bought the gun at an estate auction in N. Idaho in 1986. The family was selling 'PaPa's guns' after he passed away at age 250 or so... They had photos of the old guy with dead critters he had shot from the cabin door etcetc. My point being that he had used the gun a lot at some time before his demise, and the demise was obviously not as a result of this rifle.

I fired about 20 rounds of '06 military ball thru it back in the 80's with no ill efects, and hung it up as I had no chance to use it for it's primary purpose for several years. I gave it to one of my sons 5 years ago and he kept it bagged until I recently brought it back to possibly use as a Hog-Shooter this Spring.

I have cleaned it completly looking for any signs of defects or stress anywhere. Except for the worn rifling I cannot find any visible evidence. I know, based on the info in this thread that the 'danger' is not a visible thing and am considering that in my decision to use or not use. The final comment made above about the bolt-replacement (swept-back bolt handle) tells me I have the 'safer' bolt, as mine has a definite sweep towards the rear on it.

Given it's history, and the bolt indicator I am leaning towards using the gun on our hog hunt, after a box of bench-mounted test firings using Winchester 180 gr. factory loads here on the home-range.

Additions opinions or comments are encouraged. I need all the info I can get both Pro and Con.

AL

 

[Slamfire]

I have cleaned it completly looking for any signs of defects or stress anywhere. Except for the worn rifling I cannot find any visible evidence. I know, based on the info in this thread that the 'danger' is not a visible thing and am considering that in my decision to use or not use. The final comment made above about the bolt-replacement (swept-back bolt handle) tells me I have the 'safer' bolt, as mine has a definite sweep towards the rear on it.

Yours is a M1903 as all A3’s were made during WWII.

It is entirely possible that you have one of the good ones. There were more “good” ones than “bad” ones made out of the 1,000,000 of the things made.

And good is a relative term. These are old receivers built out of inferior materials with little to no safety features. They don’t handle gas well and were known to frag in overpressure conditions. They have no margin of safety in an accident.

And I mean no margin of safety, based on examination of Hatcher’s Notebook, P.O Ackley’s Vol II handbook and the Oct 1945 Dope Bag in American Rifleman.

I highly recommend reading both P.O. Ackley’s discussion and the Oct 1945 Dope. The sense I get out of both is that quality of SHT receivers varies. In P.O Ackley’s blowup tests, the SHT receiver ring completely blew off (not unexpected) but it held up better than expected. “ It might be observed that the old hard Springfield actions approached the strength of the new actions more closely than had been supposed. The main difference being that when they do let go, the are more apt to blow apart completely…” It took 3 grains more of powder to destroy a Nickel Steel 03 receiver. And that one blew the cocking piece out with such force P.O. said it would have killed someone.

What is clear from the old references, was that enough SHT receivers had failed in civilian hands, even those reheated by Sedgeley, that by Oct 1945 SHT receivers were receiving bad press.

Now there are fan boys of the single heat treat receivers, you will find Mr. Michael Petrov on Jouster.com , he is one of these. Mr Petrov took two single heat treat receivers, fired 8mm Mauser cartridges in them, apparently the receivers survived. Mr. Petrov removed the pictures (darn him) so there is nothing to examine. All he really proved were that he had two good receivers, but in proving them good, I sure as heck would not use them again.

So, do you drive without a safety belt. Do you run a bench grinder without safety glasses? What is your tolerance for risk? If something goes wrong, and I mean seriously wrong, would it bother you to be permanently injured?

Using these things is more an aspect of your risk tolerance. The biscuit could be good, or it could be poisonous. Won’t find out till you bite.

There was a discussion on jouster about this blown 03 sold on gunbroker. The description from the auction is below, the jouster reference below that.

When these things blow, they blow bad.

http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.aspx?Item=190985391

This item is a Springfield Armory model 1903 rifle that is a good wall hanger. Its been hanging on the wall of the shop for about 22 years. It is that bad a shape it has been blown up. This is a low ser # of 236162, I had this hanging on the wall to show people what would happen if they shot one of the old low ser # rifles with modern ammo. Look at the pictures to see that this is NOT a shoot able rifle. The guy that shot this rifle spend 4 days in the hospital getting metal out of his eye & metal out of his arms. No FFL required. I will send out a email at the close of the bidding, please copy & send back with payment. I’m selling out a gun shop that was in business for over 30 years. More parts & pieces to come. The shop did a lot of general repair & that’s why all the different parts. This and a bunch more that will be coming up for sale were in 4 other old gun shop’s that I’ve bought out over the last 31 year’s.http://www.jouster.com/forums/showthread.php?14045-Blown-03-Receiver-From-GB

 

[Mayor Al]

Thanks for clearing up another question '03 vs 03A3 ! What I must have is a replacement stock as well as the other replacement parts on the gun.

Can anyone give me the brand and 'load' info and source for the lightest factory 30-06 ammo they know of. I think I want to test a lighter load than the 180 gr Winchester I have here at home now. I am not a handloader so I need to get some factory loads on the 'light side' for bench testing.

 

[kraigwy]

Can anyone give me the brand and 'load' info and source for the lightest factory 30-06 ammo they know of.

Hornady makes match ammo for use in the M1 Garand for CMP GSM Vintage Rifle Matches. That's the mildest factory -06 that I know of.

 

[Mayor Al]

Thanks Kraig,
While you were posting I looked up the Federal Low Recoil 3006 ammo reviews. The energy and veocity data show roughly 50% lower than the standard loads... Does this mean the pressures would be corresponding low?

What i am thinking of is bettering the odds, while I can't eliminate all mistrust yet. The history of my particular gun says it is safe...but the warnings aren't 'fake' !!

aL
SP/5 E-5 (ASA all the way !)
Expert on the M-2 Carbine (1962) Bien Hoa
Barely qualified on the M1 Garand (1960) Ft Ord BCT
Proof that motivation changes with the environment !
(but that's a whole 'nother story! )

 

[mrbro]

IMHO Slamfire's point is the real take-away on this issue. Some 03's were burnt, some were underheated and are soft, and some are just right. Even at their best, the steel in an 03 is not up to the quality of steel used today. Factor in the poor gas handling in the event of a case failure and I see nothing to be gained by firing one. For me anyway, but YMMV.

 

[Slamfire]

Let me add pictures of the blown rifle mentioned in thread 24. The original pictures are missing from the originating sites.


http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.aspx?Item=190985391

This item is a Springfield Armory model 1903 rifle that is a good wall hanger. Its been hanging on the wall of the shop for about 22 years. It is that bad a shape it has been blown up. This is a low ser # of 236162, I had this hanging on the wall to show people what would happen if they shot one of the old low ser # rifles with modern ammo. Look at the pictures to see that this is NOT a shoot able rifle. The guy that shot this rifle spend 4 days in the hospital getting metal out of his eye & metal out of his arms. No FFL required. I will send out a email at the close of the bidding, please copy & send back with payment. I’m selling out a gun shop that was in business for over 30 years. More parts & pieces to come. The shop did a lot of general repair & that’s why all the different parts. This and a bunch more that will be coming up for sale were in 4 other old gun shop’s that I’ve bought out over the last 31 year’s.

 

[Slamfire]

Now I am going to add pictures the buyer took.

The buyer removed the barrel from the action and showed how many parts had fractured.

It is my opinion that the blown case head is due to an over pressure round.

http://www.jouster.com/forums/showthread.php?14045-Blown-03-Receiver-From-GB

1. Blown '03 Receiver From GB
For those of you just coming in, I got this off of GB more than a month ago - http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/Vie...Item=190985391

Removing the bolt first was a hopeless cause. I have only removed a few barrels beforehand, and this one was really stuck. Removing it ended up breaking the "ramp" around the chamber. Please excuse my elementary terminology.

The rim around the face of the bolt was also blown off. I'll show pics of all this in time, but here are some of the cartridge case next to that of fired .30-06. To me, it looks like the failed case has a "belt", like that of a magnum. The rest of the case seems to be about the same size as a normal -06.

The area around the primer seems "deep" to me, but all of this maybe the result of the excessive pressure, I don't know.

I just shoot recreationally, so hopefully some of you more serious shooters can figure this out.

Mike P: There's a chunk of the rear receiver ring missing. Not something you normally see with high numbered rifles though the front ring appears to be intact. I don't think the design allows for shed bolt handles either.

Notice that escaping gas blew the flanges from the front of the bolt face and the deep indentation within the receiver ring.

I am limited to six pictures to each post, so I have to add another post.

 

[Slamfire]

I believe this rifle shows several characteristics of the 03 rifle. The first is that it does not handle gas well. Notice the bolt handle is blown off, wood chunks removed from the sides of the stock. Paul Mauser put design features in the M98 to protect the shooter, in the 03 gas goes straight down the firing pin and out the back. In this incident the bolt handle was blown off due to the brittle plain carbon steels used. Gas escapes down the left side of the action, and it appears the cutoff was blown off.

Barrel flanges to the cone breech were blown off, as you can see in the picture of the bad barrel and a good barrel.

So while the receiver ring is intact, escaping gas broke pieces of metal and wood off, injuring the unfortunate shooter.

Another characteristic are the brittle failures. Plain carbon steels, which are used in most of these pre WW2 era rifles, when they fail, they fragment. This incidentally includes the double heat receivers which are also made from plain carbon steels.

This is not just a condemnation of the material used in low number Springfields, this also applies to any of those early military bolt actions. All of these early rifles are made from plain carbon steels. Fine for carrying the design loads, but they break in a brittle fashion from overpressure events.

Alloy steels are stronger if properly heat treated and modern breeching designs protect the shooter much better in these catastrophic events.

The M98 was designed to protect the shooter from escaping gas, but earlier Mausers such as the M1892’s, M1894’s, M1896's are not so good. I do not have a Carcano, I do have Nagants, Krags, M1917’s, and I consider them all in the same poor gas handling class as the 03. I have never seen a blown Lee Enfield but that action handled pierced primers much better than an 03. I never got any gas in my eyes.

These old guns just have their own risks. Sort of in the same league as driving without a safety belt. If you never have an accident, you will be fine.

 

[Mayor Al]

Mr Slamfire,
Please don't take my continued pursuit of this action (no pun) as a debate with you about the results you are taking a lot of time to explain to me (and others). I do appreciate your efforts. The results do speak for them selves.

What I want to pose to you, and the others who have read or commented or both in this thread is this:
Based on a history of this particular low-number gun being used for hunting for many years in the 40's to 70's without incident.
AND
the apparent replacement bolt being used...
AND
my using the FEDERAL FUSION LITE RECOIL Ammo (170 grain, but m.v of 2000 and muzzle energy of 1500) which is roughly half of the normal factory performance.

All this taken in effect, Are the 'odds' a bit more in the favor of using with 'lite ammo' than they would be if this was more like the rifle in the photos.. which sure looks more like a military relic than a shooter, even to my unknowing-eye.

Again, No disrespect meant. I am a 68 yr old shotgun slug user, who would like to put a gun I purchased 30 years ago into temporay use. I am considering all the risks as evenly as I can.

 

[Malamute]

The history of use doesn't rule out a potential problem. I have heard of one low number gun used for hunting in Alaska for years that finally let go with injury to the shooter. There just doesnt seem to be a clear cut way to determine if or when they fail.

You have to determine your own personal limit of exposure to risk. No, it isnt likely it will fail, but it's possible. Nobody can say for shure if or when.

I have a low number action I bought as a complete gun. I stripped it for parts to build another gun. I keep thinking of some way to use it, but nothing so far has overcome a desire to have both eyes in good shape as long as reasonable, and other considerations such as that. A 22 conversion may be possible and reasonable safe, but certainly not financially practical.

You could find another action and swap out your parts. Sporterized '03's arent that hard to find, and are often pretty affordable. May be possible to find a sportered action that somebody wanted the other parts off of.



"Barrel flanges to the cone breech were blown off, as you can see in the picture of the bad barrel and a good barrel."

The note from the buyer said that he broke the barrel flange off removing the barrel with the bolt still in the action.