Springfield model 1903

Just because a 150 gr bullet is loaded in '06 ammo does not necessarily mean that it is milder or lower pressure, factory or hand load.
 
The actual number of receivers that failed is miniscule compared to the numbers produced. The fact that the Marine Corps used their low number Springfields until they were replaced with Garands in WWII should tell us that there was a low risk of one failing.
Click to expand...

Examining failure rates against total population leads to misleading probabilities and is something commonly done by fans of low number receivers.

Fan boys create probabilities of failure based on Hatcher’s Notebook which is not an all inclusive list of all 03 failures. Hatcher’s list starts 1917 and ends 1929. There are known failures after, and I have no doubt, known failures before.

Percentages are based on the total number of rifles built, not the rifles in use. There were about one million of these rifles built, but post WW1, there were never one million at service at any time. By the time you get to 1922 Congress authorized only 136,000 Officer’s and enlisted in the Regular Army. I could guess how many rifles were in service with an Army that small, and it sure would not be one million. Lets say, as a ridiculous example, that their were four rifles in use and the remaining one million in storage. Let also say that one of the four blew up. The fan boy’s analysis would give you the risk as one in a million. But for those rifles in use, it would be 25%.

Times have changed and the risks we are willing to accept have changed. In the period these rifles were made society accepted death and dismemberment as normal workplace hazards. Today we don’t.

As an example of period attitudes, I got some data from a Titantic program. In 1912 the death rate at Harlaam and Wolff was 1 worker death per 10,000 tonnes of ship. Basically one dead worker per small ship. Eight died building the Titanic, their ages 15-43. Of the four mentioned in the program, 3 died due to falls and one was crushed during launch. The average cash benefit given to the families was 100 pounds sterling.

I heard at the time the Golden Gate Bridge was built the accepted death rate on construction projects was one death per $1,000,000 of construction.

Industry, Military, Government are very callous towards the lives of their employees, and back then were able to get away with it. Their decisions reflect that, they traded workers lives for profit. I don’t agree, nor do I accept profit as valid justification for adding risk on their workforce.

Still, a properly made low number receiver is going to be about as strong as any of those early actions, (not much) which does not mean it will be safe to be behind in an accident. It is sort of driving without your safety belt on. As long as you don’t have an accident everything will be fine.
 
That's not true at all. The Marines and Army used some low number not because they were safe, they used them because we were un-prepared for war and had nothing else to arm them with.

They were replaced just as fast as the production of 1903a3s & Garands could be produced.
Click to expand...
answered a not true with another not true, EPIC FAIL!
the marine corps refused the M1 initially leaving the army to take all of the M1s. it wasn't until Guadalcanal that the marines were forced to pilfer army stores that they realized the advantage of a semi auto and commanders began asking to be outfitted with other options. if the marines were outfitted due to a complete lack of other resources then why wouldn't they have been given the much more plentiful M1917s?

the marines already had the 1903 and were too proud of them to consider replacing them with some newfangled semi auto Garand. in the end the low serial rifles in the pacific performed amicably despite horrible conditions and even with all the humidity, rain, mud, crappy ammo and nothing to clean them with these guns kept running right up to the day that they were replaced with M1s and M1 carbines.
 
That is a Lyman 48 sight on that gun and its worth something around $250 to 300 alone.

Other parts are worth a fair amount (trigger, floor plate etc)

And as those become more in demand you will see people shrug off receiver taping. Give it another 5 years. Values are going through the roof.

Bolt is worth at least 50 and maybe more dependong on pedigree.

Taking the barrel off and selling it is wroth $150 (4 grove) to somewhat less for a 2 grove.

Shooting It: Going to the grocery store is far more of a risk. You don't think twice about that. Sheese.

Lets see, at least one barrel was shot out on that gun.

It takes something around 5,000 rounds minimum to shoot out a barrel to the point it needs replacing.

No I would not load to a maximum hot load, but anything in the 2600-2700 fps area would be fine for 150s and adjust according to other bullets.

I would not even worry about the usual sight it and and hunt with it for typical hunting loads with it with factory ammo

I would not target shoot with those loads, but then I only do that with hand-loads anyway and tone them down as I have no need to max that out.
 
Bolt is swept back so its not an OEM to that date receiver.

No surprise, very often that happened. Still worth 50-100, maybe more depending on who made it.
 
That's not true at all. The Marines and Army used some low number not because they were safe, they used them because we were un-prepared for war and had nothing else to arm them with.
Click to expand...

I never said they were safe, I said that they used them, Whether they are safe or not, could be construed as a subjective point. That they were still in use as late as the start of the second world war is a fact and is not debatable.

I also mentioned that they were replaced, so obviously there was a better alternative as soon as there were enough M1's to go around.

Examining failure rates against total population leads to misleading probabilities and is something commonly done by fans of low number receivers.
Click to expand...

Well first off let me state that I am not specifically a "fan" of low number receivers. I mentioned that if I chose to shoot mine, I use specially prepared low pressure loads. While there is a risk of receiver failure, I have made the risk assessment that I mentioned in my first post, and have concluded that since I believe that there is a low risk of being injured while shooting my particular rifle , I will occasionally take that risk.

Just because a 150 gr bullet is loaded in '06 ammo does not necessarily mean that it is milder or lower pressure, factory or hand load.
Click to expand...

I didn't make myself clear and for that I apologize. Of course the weight of the bullet will not necessarily determine the pressure that a cartridge is loaded to. But it is easier to overcome the inertia of a lighter bullet and so would produce less pressure to achieve a given velocity than would be generated with a heavier bullet.


That is a Lyman 48 sight on that gun and its worth something around $250 to 300 alone.
Click to expand...

I typically see those Lyman sights go for between $100~150. If you would be willing to give me a couple of three C notes for one, I have a few in my parts stash. I assigned a relatively low value to the parts because since I saw that the barrel looks to be reblued, I assumed that the trigger guard assembly was reblued also. While they may have some value, for me at least, once the original finish has been removed, the value is cut by quite a bit. Things are only original once.

See, I told you I was going to step in a hornets nest.
 
Last edited:
Slamfire,

Has there been a modern effort to grade the low number receivers?
Everybody says the burnt ones can't be identified and can't be fixed.
I'll give them the second part, but surely there is a way to tell the difference between a burnt one and one properly heat treated by the standards of the day, and usable with normal ammunition in good brass.
I mean, of course, nondestructively. It doesn't matter if you hit it with a hammer and a bad one breaks but a good one bends.

As I understand it, they have good tensile strength for the grade of steel, just that they are brittle and will fragment if stressed beyond it.

OK, what would happen if you ground a divot halfway through in an unobvious location and actually measured the core hardness? Hard in the core = brittle and not safe. Soft in the core = as intended, serviceable.
 
Supposedly, they tried to find a method to re heat treat the receivers at Springfield Armory, but were unable to successfully salvage them. I really don't think that there is a economically feasible way to do this and so, for the foreseeable future, the low number rifles will remain conversation pieces rather than range toys.

The problem with those low number receivers that aren't "burnt" is that they are the same hardness all the way through. When they fail, they shatter like a piece of glass. When the Armory went to the double heat treat process for receivers and bolts in 1918 they were heat treated to give a hard outer surface for durability, and a softer, more malleable interior. These receivers might still be subject to failure under the right circumstances, but they won't shatter.

Later, very high numbered Springfield receivers and all Remington and Smith-Corona receivers are made from nickel steel and are the strongest type.
 
Its a little scary. I might just take it to the local gun shop and see what they will give or trade for it since they will know about it and their gunsmith can check it out.

That way I don't need to worry. Its a little sad I really did like this rifle. I was going to buy a box of ammo before I read all these later posts lol
 
Slamfire,

Has there been a modern effort to grade the low number receivers?
Everybody says the burnt ones can't be identified and can't be fixed.
I'll give them the second part, but surely there is a way to tell the difference between a burnt one and one properly heat treated by the standards of the day, and usable with normal ammunition in good brass.
I mean, of course, nondestructively. It doesn't matter if you hit it with a hammer and a bad one breaks but a good one bends.

As I understand it, they have good tensile strength for the grade of steel, just that they are brittle and will fragment if stressed beyond it.

OK, what would happen if you ground a divot halfway through in an unobvious location and actually measured the core hardness? Hard in the core = brittle and not safe. Soft in the core = as intended, serviceable.
Click to expand...

The materials that I examined, at a local technical library, about burnt steel, dated from the WWII period. The book that discussed burnt steel showed a pictures of the crystalline structure of a burnt section of steel, and what it looked like after long anneals. Very little changed. These pictures were optical in nature.

Unfortunately, I do not know enough about current non destructive inspection techniques to know if state of the art would be able to tell the difference. I would think that because the metal crystals are different, your should be able to see differences in electromagnetic fields, current capability, or something. But then, you would have to start out with a perfect single heat treat receiver to make comparisons from. Also, if you review Hatcher’s Notebook, there are comments in there about the material variability of these early receivers. Evidentially these were not controlled to the level that a uniform reheat treatment process could later be established. The steel was not uniform from lot to lot, or year to year.

If someone could make money examining low number receivers and declaring them "safe" or "unsafe" I am certain a smarter person than myself would be in the business.

The problem with those low number receivers that aren't "burnt" is that they are the same hardness all the way through. When they fail, they shatter like a piece of glass.
Click to expand...


Let me add to this. I have a WW2 era metallurgy book that calls these plain carbon steels "shallow hardening" steels. There is a picture in the book showing many circular cross sections of a plain carbon steel that were all the same steel and had all been heat treated in the same furnace under controlled conditions. All of the coupons showed various levels of hardening, some clear to the center, some only at the edge. The whole conclusion of that section was that these plain carbon steels heat treat in a random, erratic manner. That is why today, no one would use a plain carbon steel in such an application that involved so much cost, and is so safety critical. Alloy steels harden evenly, more consistently, and have higher yield values for the same carbon content.

Those double heat treat receivers are not perfect, despite of all the trumpeting of Hatcher on the perfection of the things, there are records of broken double heat treat receivers. I am of the opinion that Springfield Armory only partially improved their process controls and given the erratic nature of plain carbon steel, they still had receivers come out that were too brittle.

This is an example of why I have little faith in early receivers. This is a double heat treat receiver. The original owner had a case separation that he could not get out. So he poured Cerrosafe in the chamber and let it harden around the case. He put a cleaning rod up the barrel, put a brass drift against the receiver lug, hit the drift and sheared the receiver lug.

This lug is thin, but that sure tells me that even double heat treat receivers have their brittle sections.

Rearlugfragmentoff.jpg
 
Last edited:
The barrel was shot out and replaced. The receiver stood up to it and obviously has not failed. All that ammo was higher performing stuff.

If you are still afraid of the gun after having that much proof its safe, then you should indeed sell it.
 
Well its a little scary everything that has been said in here.. as far as the barrel change goes from what was said in the first page it was changed to be sporterized not because it was shot out. It was changed because its a better barrel that was on it. I assume the barrel was changed with the stock....

Maybe it was shot out. I have no idea. And I guess it could be shot but I don't know if I trust the gun after what was said here................. you do? Enough to risk your face on it? I could get a face shield or something. I am going to go to the store and see if I cant get some lower power loads as reccomended since I do not have a loader. And we will go from there.
 
The barrel was not changed out to sportize it, it was sub par and someone put a new barrel on it (maybe the Marine corps!).

Someone put a sporter stock on it. Not necessarily at the same time.

It is a stock RA barrel with the OEM front sight.

If it was sportorized it would be shorter and you would not be able to read the data on it, they would be cut off or partially cut off (cut off because it makes not sens to shorten it half an inch.

I was just looking at one in the surplus store. 777XXX date. $299. No indication it is not right. Its been shot a lot per the appearance.

I am shooting a gun with a questionable heat treated bolt. I am not the least bit worried.

I have almost been killed by clowns at the range, on the scale of risk this is a .000000000000000001.

Again if you are afraid, sell it. If I needed an 06 I would buy it in a heart beat and take advantage of your fear and jack you down to $50. If I was close to you I would buy it anyway. Lots of good parts if nothing else.
 
The barrel was not changed out to sportize it, it was sub par and someone put a new barrel on it (maybe the Marine corps!).
Click to expand...
the marines would not have replaced an 1903 barrel with a 1903A3 barrel. the 1903 barrl had a sleeve that slipped over it and housed the rear sight where-as the 1903A3 had a receiver mounted rear sight. as the A3 barrel does not have the necessary cutouts to allow the rear sight to attach it would have been a pointless rebarrel for the defense dept since a rifle with one sight is almost as worthless as a rifle with none.
Someone put a sporter stock on it. Not necessarily at the same time.
Click to expand...
not necessarily at the same time but more than likely all part of the same process
It is a stock RA barrel with the OEM front sight.

If it was sportorized it would be shorter and you would not be able to read the data on it, they would be cut off or partially cut off (cut off because it makes not sens to shorten it half an inch.
Click to expand...
also not necessarily true as many sporterising jobs did not focus on overall length but instead focused on updating sights/mounting scopes and cutting down on weight by losing the handguard and cutting the stock down.
 
I believe it is a rifle that someone built up from parts. That A3 barrel and 03 receiver were never together in the military because there is no rear sight.

The bolt is WW2, the trigger guard might be, (fuzzy picture) the barrel too.

I think someone found a cheap receiver and built a rifle around it.
 
also not necessarily true as many sporterising jobs did not focus on overall length but instead focused on updating sights/mounting scopes and cutting down on weight by losing the handguard and cutting the stock down.
Click to expand...

And what does the barrel have to do with any of that?

You can cut the sight sleeve off a barrel without removing it. Scope mounts to the receiver. Ergo barrel change has nothing to do with sporterizing it. If it was done it was done because of a shot out barrel.

The front sight is the same and any changes needed to accommodate a rear sight would be done with existing sight.

You would only replace the barrel if there was an issue and as any question is the receiver here, then the barrel as obviously in poor enough shape to need it.
 
And what does the barrel have to do with any of that?

You can cut the sight sleeve off a barrel without removing it. Scope mounts to the receiver. Ergo barrel change has nothing to do with sporterizing it. If it was done it was done because of a shot out barrel.

The front sight is the same and any changes needed to accommodate a rear sight would be done with existing sight.

You would only replace the barrel if there was an issue and as any question is the receiver here, then the barrel as obviously in poor enough shape to need it.
Click to expand...
removal of the sight sleeve is irrelevant because this barrel never had it, there are slits cut lengthwise in the barrels of 1903s to lock the sight sleeve in place, A3 barrels do not have the slits and therefore would not have been placed on an 03 receiver by an arsenal. they also would not mount a rear sight as the A3 sights have a dovetail cutout and would rest too low on the receiver to be of use, not that it would have been possible to mount them without welding anyway.

also shot out barrel is not the case for all rebarrels. the 1903A3(especially remington barrels) has a much greater reputation for accuracy and if a person wanted a tack driver sometimes rebarrels were the way to go. accurizing is also a form of sporterizing. as it was pointed out 1903s were cranked out on obsolete equipment and but by the time 1903A3s came out there was much better QC especially considering that this is a wartime production rifle. it could have also been bent or otherwise damaged.

I do agree that these guns were fired a great deal and have definitely been thoroughly tested to MY standards enough to warrant firing my low serial springfield.
The front sight is the same and any changes needed to accommodate a rear sight would be done with existing sight.
Click to expand...
front sights on 03s and A3s are very different, not the same sight. similar styles on the blades but both elevation and method of mounting to the barrel are different. the sights on the A3 rest nearly an entire inch higher than on an 03. there is no way to make the necessary changes to accommodate that much change in rear sight elevation.
 
Last edited:
You miss the point on the barrel.

If someone merely wanted to get rid of the OEM Springfield barrel sight and make sporter out of this of which this rifle obviously came equipped, you would simply cut it off. None of this has anything to do with contours.

Ergo, the barrel would have had to have an issue for anyone to go to the trouble to remove the OEM one, install the new one and do the chamber reaming. That’s neither cheap nor a slam dunk on a 1903.

Something was wrong with the original barrel to require it being changed. And due to the date, it had the original barrel or more than one.

Again for this rifle to wind up where it did, either it was taken out of circulation and kept there for 80 years or it was a Marine Corp issue (it seems far more likely the latter as they got serious about removing the early receiver from circulation in the Army and they were not being surplused out at the time).

If it was an army arsenal they would have taken it out of service.

So either it was Marine Corp or a private gunsmith. No company would have put a new barrel on a receiver of that serial range.

You are wrong on the accuracy of the Remington barrels.

By 1942, production as rushed, they had gone to the two grove and the admonition by the experts was that if you are going to do that you need to maintain the tight tolerances.

Those then went out the window with am official prevision that loosened up the tolerances as well by .005.

The Springfield barrels were all made by experienced workers and craftsman with long standing familiaririty with the machinery and the barrels were all far better accuracy than required.

The Remington barrels were being cranked out to meet a standby need on machinery that the Remington personal did not know (Rock Island shipped to them). And then they change to the two grove.

I am not saying that ALL Remington barrels were poor, but as a group they did not meet the exacting standards previously required and you get a much wider variation in accuracy. Still acceptable for what they were intended, but not the tack drivers previously (and some indeed are good but not consistently as an overall group. )

If someone was going to put a barrel on a gun for accuracy purposes, it would not be a two grove Remington.

If someone was going to put a barrel on an old action for a sporter they would indeed have no issue with taking that barrel as it would be acceptable for hunting purposes.
 
Thanks for the info still, to everyone involved.

I bought some Federal Power-shok in 150 grain to shoot Monday. I am going to do a little overkill and go in the woods and not at the range at first, wear a face shield, leather gloves and maybe even my welding jacket just because I do not know the gun yet or feel comfortable with it.

who knows it may be a sweet shooter. I will have range pictures when I do shoot it :cool:
 
a firearm isn't the same if you haven't put a couple rounds thru it. You could do that and then have it at the ready(on the wall) or 'retire' it. I wouldn't bring it down and trade it in.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top