Thoughts on my sporterized Springfield M1903?

MM83: If a hardness test was done there would be some evidence of it. My take is that if its survived this long as well as a barrel change its ok. At issue with the process they used, not only was it a by eyeball thing, you could have varying degrees of that through the receiver.

If it was my gun I would be very sure to shoot new brass and if reloads, minimal shoulder bump back and no more than 5 cycles of it.

That said the Marines kept their RIA until Guadalcanal and then stole (er traded) for as many M1 as they could get and then they got issued them. Nothing like an M1 in the hands of someone who could shoot (and had to deal with Banzai charges)

Hopefully I can shed some light and not turn it into a debate.

The 1917s were made by a different process and material than the 1903 and were not heat treated (at least as the mfg point). 1903s were virtually hand made guns, all the work was done in house. Thats why the 1917 came into such major use, there was no way to get the 1903 up to speed for fast mfg. 1917s were already there (1914s) and just needed a bit of modification to 30-06.

Some did indeed have cracks, but that was a result of much latter barrel removal without having the right tools to do so (Bubba came to visit).

The reason Eddystone got the rap, there were over twice as many of those made as R or Ws, ergo, it was the most common one to see Sportorized and often upgraded. Lot of them, strong action as well as better metal.

What is funny is I had one that had been turned around again and had a different barrel put on by an gunsmith of some persuasion (pipe wrench marks on the barrel)

A lot were converted to magnums

Regardless, these guns have unsupported case heads and a gas escape as a result of a ruptured case can be really bad.

Ergo, the need to watch the brass and not push it.

The Model 70 I saw the Remanent of was a control feed , still blew up (hand loads were suspected but again why is ??? damage yes but blow up?)

Came across one other report of a Model 70, not sure what to make of that.
 
They were also made out of nickle steel, much more flexible than the previous 1903 steels (and what they went to at some point)
Click to expand...


Let us differentiate between material properties and process controls. Sure, the nickel steel of the M1917 would have had superior material properties to the plain carbon steels of the era, but, only if the metal was originally of good quality and the steel was not burnt during production. Neither of these is particularly true for M1917’s.

Howe’s book “The Modern Gunsmith” has a whole chapter on steels. In that chapter is a warning not to chamber M1917 barrels to magnum calibers.
If the caliber 300 Magnum cartridge is chambered in the U.S. Model 1917 Enfield rifle, meant for the caliber 30-06 cartridge, the change is very apt to make a bad gun barrel blow open, particularly if the metal should contain any small pipes, segregations, or abnormal changes in the structure of the metal form the surface to the bore near the breech. Those making such changes may not know that the steel produced at the end of the First World War was not so carefully selected as gun-barrel steels are today

Firstly, no one should expect that war materials were built under any incentive system than get them out the door. Then, the manufacturing technology of WW1 was a pre vacuum tube technology, and it is likely perverse incentives were in place. I read somewhere a post by someone who knew a forge shop worker at Eddystone. The workers in the forge shop were paid piece rate. If they cranked up the forge furnace temperatures, they could stamp out parts faster. Yes they produced bad parts, but they got paid more money doing that. Incidentally, I was told Springfield Armory forge shop workers were also paid piece rate.

While the material selection for the M1917 was better than the Mauser, the M1903, even Lee Enfields, it does not mean much if the nickel steels had a lot of slag and inclusions and was burnt in the factory.

My understanding-based on my reading of Hatcher-is that there were a few bad production runs long before WWI. Changing the steel and using pyrometers solved that problem. We are of course going to debate this until the Crack of Doom.
Click to expand...

Hatcher is about as dismissive of Army Ordnance Problems as a Tobacco Executive is about nicotine addiction and lung cancer. Hatcher knew for his post Army career to be successful, at the NRA, he could not antagonize the Army. I doubt he wanted to anyway, you have to understand Hatcher was "a Company man", always rationalizing Army behavior and decisions in his writings. He was during WW2, the Head of the Ordnance Department! I will say, he did a great job, we did win that war.

Hatcher did make it to the top position at the NRA, he was running that operation after WW2 to the 1960's. And his salary would have been about the same as today, adjusted for inflation, which is around $600,000 to $800,000 a year. Plus free parking in Washington DC, that is worth about $30,000 a year! And it all depended on keeping his buddies at the Army happy. If he had done the Snowden thing, the NRA would have thrown him into the Potomac wearing concrete shoes.
 
I see a lot of unsupported information in regards to mfg.

Springfield armory was US Army (as was RIA) they did not go by piece work output

Barrels seldom blow up, its the receiver and a gas release that cause the blow ups.

too much I have read someone who knew someone who knew someone that said such and such.

Keep in mind military proof firings were done with over pressure and then max cartridges.

So while shucking guns out the door was an mfg desire, they also had to adhere to and meet the specs laid down by the US military and it was not worth their while to put out inferior products as they paid for it.

Read up on the bayonet recall in WWII, seriously, something you stick into someone that is also likely to get severely bent and broken up in action and you are worried it did not quite meet the spec?

Yep, the 1917s were held back by having got meet the interchange of parts issue.

While it was pre vacuum tube, that does not mean they did not know how to make guns
 
T. O'Heir said:
Kind of suspect that despite the heat treat issue, if it was going to blow it would have already. The ammo makes no difference either. However, it's a maybe 'when' thing not an 'if'.
Click to expand...

Without taking a side on this either way, I would say that this is not a safe qualifier.

When I was in school for gunsmithing, we covered this topic (official recommendation not to even touch a low number gun or receiver) so I got curious and did some reading. I seem to remember reading, either through a US Army report or a second hand account of such report, that failure rates on these rifles were very low - somewhere around 10 catastrophic failures out of thousands of rifles.

The problem was not that they wouldn't hold up over time, but that a "normal" failure such as an over-pressure round or a case head separation would cause a shock to the receiver that it was unable to handle. It didn't appear to be a case of "when" the receiver will fail but not knowing "if" it will fail. This is especially problematic because sport shooters might get a factory box of ammo with bad brass that separates, or a hand loader might have a failure in loading which a modern, strong rifle might survive.

That's just my take on it.
 
I think that is fair and balanced.

I also think that has to be put into context of risk and or risk management (I rode motorcycles for many years, a great many of the risks were under my control, some were not)

We lack good data, and I agree Hatcher tends to hold a bias though his information is also good and I have read his book.

One part of the issue was that there was a cartridge issue which is not a surprise in those early days and quality control tended to be a did it fail process.

Now I want to keep this in context, few people shoot at risk rifles though a great many rifles shot do have unsupported case heads.

So no where near all trips are with at risk guns.

What is the risk of driving to the gun range?

Its not insignificant, it can lead to considerable economic loss as most cars can't be replaced for the insured value (totaled you have to buy a new car and get a few thousand for a very good vehicle that is "depreciated"

Add in the risk of injury or death.

Then add in the risk of getting shot at the range (or by someone who blows up a gun for other reasons)

Somewhere in there is a balance we all have to decide on though many don't think about the other risks at all as the risk has been normalized and its not considered a risk.
 
If you think low number Springfields are safe, go buy one and shoot it.

I am of the opinion that 99.99999% of those arguing that low number Springfields are safe, were always safe, will always be safe to shoot, don't have a low number Springfield, and therefore don't practice what they preach.

For those who do have a low number Springfield, shoot them regularly, good for you. At least you practice your convictions.
 
I do not have a low number Springfield. I have two O3A3's and a MK1. That is a pretty sporter and it sounds like it shoots great. MY O3A3'S are tack drivers a pretty though I rarely shoot them anymore.

I looked into a National ordinance once that had been rebarreled to .35 Whelen. I just could not do it with the suspect cast receiver. I have seen a Karl Gustav 6.5 Sweden let go at the receiver. Not pretty at all. The old man shooting it was lucky and had some minor cuts and burns. He m gave me the hand loads he blew the gun with. Powder charges were fine. He had crimped all those rounds so much that I could barely pull them with a Hornady collet puller.

Have fun and be safe out there.
 
Sadly the closest I have been able to come is a heat treated issue bolt.

If I find one like the OP and I will!
 
That is a beauty but its not exactly complete, though the blueing is admirable. I have one that was my grandfathers when he was in the service during the korean war. All parts are original except he replaced the stock with one he made from maple. It was made at the RIA plant in 1910, was issued during ww1 and ww2 .. It shoots quite well but i dont like putting full power loads through it as its 117 years old and saw a lot of abuse training recruits too. The bolt handle is curled just like yours and it has the wide blade type front sightpost. I bought a used savage 116 06 this year so i could finally let the old gal rest.
 
That is a beauty but its not exactly complete
Click to expand...

It looks pretty complete to me, at least I don't see anything missing unless you're referring to all that military hardware. I like it. If it was mine I'd shoot it. Yeah it's a risk but a small one. A lot less of a risk than using a cell phone while driving. Come to think of it it's less of a risk than driving period.
 
I meant the hardware isnt all original. To me it seemed like the barrel was replaced and the shroud that goes over the exterior of the throat/ breech area isnt there but i could be mistaken ill have to look again
 
If you're at all concerned about the condition of your '03's receiver, check the the forward receiver guard screw seat (where the forward tang screw is threaded into the receiver). On low numbered '03's with brittle receivers, that seat portion of the receiver is sometimes cracked or may even have a piece broken out. This tip is from Capt. E.C. Crossman's book about the 1903 Sprinfield, "Book of the Springfield".

I had a low numbered Rock Island for many years that I shot with handloads and cast bullets to give it a greater safety margin. It was a superbly accurate rifle and would easily hold the x-ring on the 200 yd rapid fire target. The barrel, BTW, was original to the receiver...but all the metal parts were a dark green/black parkerize finish, indicating that it had been refinished probably during WWll.

You've got a beautiful Springfield sporter...be careful and don't push the pressure limits with it...JMHA. Rod
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top