1903 springfield
- Thread starter 22to45
- Start date
NO! Some early versions, I'm not sure of the ser # range right now, are reported to be not safe even in the issue calibre. The mushy two piece firing pin is problem waiting to happen. You are way better off with a K-98 to work with.
Remember, the British build battle rifles, the Americans build target rifles and the Germans build hunting rifles!
That is as true today as it was in WW 1
Scott
Remember, the British build battle rifles, the Americans build target rifles and the Germans build hunting rifles!
That is as true today as it was in WW 1
Scott
The story goes Springfields with serial numbers bellow 800,000 & Rock Island Arsenals serial numbers below 286,506 are dangerous to shoot due to the heat treatment used on the receivers. That said many custom rifles are built on Mauser (k98 & k96) actions as they are more readly available & are (some may argue) superior actions. I would think that finding an 03 action and sporterizing it a sin. Why not build an "original" 03? Hard as hens teeth to find, & if not too bubba'd I'd even be interested in relieveing you of your burden.
Thousands of 1903's have been 'sporterized'(bubba'd) Stateside. Lots of 'em have been rebarreled to .270. It'd work just fine. However, a safe to shoot 1903(high S/N M1903 or 1903A3) in full military configuration is far too valuable to do anything with. Either model rifle, in decent condition, is worth in the neighbourhood of $700 to $1,000Cdn. Rebarrel it and its value will drop to about $300 to $350. No matter how much you spend to have it done.
The serial number issue m39a2 speaks of applies to Springfield Armoury made S/N's under 800,000 and Rock Island's under 285,507. This does not apply to any 1903A3.
If your '03 has already been bubba'd, go nuts. It'll be fine. You'll have to find a barrel though. $125.95US from Gunparts, chambered in .270 with a short chamber. You'd need the U.S. export permit to get it. Otherwise, you're looking at a custom barrel as there aren't many '03 .270 barrels(or any other calibre) up here. 1903 and '03A3 parts and/or rifles aren't easy to come by up here.
"...The mushy two piece firing pin is problem waiting to happen..." Nonsense. The rifle worked just fine though both world wars and multiple American adventure wars.
The serial number issue m39a2 speaks of applies to Springfield Armoury made S/N's under 800,000 and Rock Island's under 285,507. This does not apply to any 1903A3.
If your '03 has already been bubba'd, go nuts. It'll be fine. You'll have to find a barrel though. $125.95US from Gunparts, chambered in .270 with a short chamber. You'd need the U.S. export permit to get it. Otherwise, you're looking at a custom barrel as there aren't many '03 .270 barrels(or any other calibre) up here. 1903 and '03A3 parts and/or rifles aren't easy to come by up here.
"...The mushy two piece firing pin is problem waiting to happen..." Nonsense. The rifle worked just fine though both world wars and multiple American adventure wars.
If you guys are interested I once read a paper off the net, written by Joseph L. Lyon. He was an M.D./M.P.H. . He actually puts the risks of using these low number receivers in to perspective. I think I found it on m1903.com. I thought it made for a pretty good read, draw your own conclusions.
"...the risks of using these low number receivers..." There are lots of arguments about it. Suffice to say that the U.S. Army, after using 700,000 of them for 14 years, found that a hard whack would shatter the receiver of some rifles. They determined they weren't safe to use after intensive study. Not some guy on the internet with an opinion.
The heat treating was NOT done properly. The steel actually got burned in the process due to the heat being determined by eye. When pyrometers where installed, The steel on a bright sunny day was found to be 300 degrees hotter than on a cloudy day when the old experienced heat treat guys said the temperature was right.
It's not when a receiver will blow, it's if. And there's no way of telling, short of a metallurgy lab, if a particular receiver will blow or not.
Nobody wants to spend a couple hundred or more only to find they bought an unsafe rifle that looks just fine. They'll try anything to be able to shoot it. Especially one of our American cousins wanting to shoot a classic W.W. I vintage rifle their grandpa or great grandpa used.
The heat treating was NOT done properly. The steel actually got burned in the process due to the heat being determined by eye. When pyrometers where installed, The steel on a bright sunny day was found to be 300 degrees hotter than on a cloudy day when the old experienced heat treat guys said the temperature was right.
It's not when a receiver will blow, it's if. And there's no way of telling, short of a metallurgy lab, if a particular receiver will blow or not.
Nobody wants to spend a couple hundred or more only to find they bought an unsafe rifle that looks just fine. They'll try anything to be able to shoot it. Especially one of our American cousins wanting to shoot a classic W.W. I vintage rifle their grandpa or great grandpa used.
Hey, no doubt about it the heat treatment was way off for the first million or so rifles between the two arsenals. And I am not endorsing anyone saying its ok to shoot these rifles. What I did find interesting was that due to the major problems recalling a 1,000,000 rifles from service. The ones that were in service remained there untill they were unservicable. The others would remain as reserve and would not be reissued. The Marines (due to limited budget) left all their low s/n rifles in service until they were replaced by the Garrand. The other statement in this paper, I thought interesting was the mention of manufacturing of questionable ammunition. After all it was the early 1900's. The U.S. Government of the time were the ones who did the original risk assessment, albeit one made with a fiscal budget in mind. This is the "risk in perspective" that I refer to in this paper.
To repeat it again: I HAVE NO DOUBT THAT THE HEAT TREATING PROCESS OF THE EARLY PRODUCTION RECEIVERS WAS DONE INCORRECTLY. But I do wonder if it was the only contributing factor to there failures.
To repeat it again: I HAVE NO DOUBT THAT THE HEAT TREATING PROCESS OF THE EARLY PRODUCTION RECEIVERS WAS DONE INCORRECTLY. But I do wonder if it was the only contributing factor to there failures.
Last edited:
During WW2, numbers of low numbered rifles were rebolted with current production bolts and proof tested. None failed.
Obviously, not all low numbered rifles failed. There were problems with some, resulting from variation in manufacture. Apparently 1917 was not a good year; more bad ones from that year than any other. Probably related to demand for increased production. There were also rifles which failed early in production, ca 1910. Ammunition may have been the problem. Post WW1, there were some problems with a particular batch of NM ammuntion, which resulted in damaged rifles. Keep in mind that when the Mauser action was transmogrified nto the Springfield, Mauser's excellent breeching system was compromised, and a cartridge case failure in a Springfirld is more likely to do harm than in a '98 Mauser.
Was it heating during heat treating that caused the burnt receivers, or heating prior to forging? Like Mausers of the period, the receivers were carburized mild steel; fairly hard to overheat and burn the steel when it is sealed in the carbon pack.
As mentionned, an unaltered Springfield rifle of any vintage is too valuable as a collector's item to alter. If one has been bubba'd past restoration, it could certainly be used to make up a sprorting rifle, although I would tend to avoid using a low number receiver. Rebarrelling a Springfield is not unlike rebarrelling any other rifle with a coned breech and square threads.
The US were not entirely happy with the rather silly 2 piece firing pin, and did work up one piece systems; these tended to be used on NM and sporting rifles.
Obviously, not all low numbered rifles failed. There were problems with some, resulting from variation in manufacture. Apparently 1917 was not a good year; more bad ones from that year than any other. Probably related to demand for increased production. There were also rifles which failed early in production, ca 1910. Ammunition may have been the problem. Post WW1, there were some problems with a particular batch of NM ammuntion, which resulted in damaged rifles. Keep in mind that when the Mauser action was transmogrified nto the Springfield, Mauser's excellent breeching system was compromised, and a cartridge case failure in a Springfirld is more likely to do harm than in a '98 Mauser.
Was it heating during heat treating that caused the burnt receivers, or heating prior to forging? Like Mausers of the period, the receivers were carburized mild steel; fairly hard to overheat and burn the steel when it is sealed in the carbon pack.
As mentionned, an unaltered Springfield rifle of any vintage is too valuable as a collector's item to alter. If one has been bubba'd past restoration, it could certainly be used to make up a sprorting rifle, although I would tend to avoid using a low number receiver. Rebarrelling a Springfield is not unlike rebarrelling any other rifle with a coned breech and square threads.
The US were not entirely happy with the rather silly 2 piece firing pin, and did work up one piece systems; these tended to be used on NM and sporting rifles.
"...Was it heating during heat treating..." During. The heat treat guys, prior to W.W. I, were very experienced and thought they could tell the temperature by eye. According to Hatcher, who was in charge of the investigation, just a different natural light level could and did cause their temperature guesses to be wrong. The high temperatures before quenching caused crystallization of the receiver steel.
From The Book of the Springfield, by E. C. Crossman, first edition of 1932...
The process consisted of "Forging receiver under a hammer, hot-trimming and straightened while hot. The receiver was next put in charcoal and allowed to cool very slowly. It was then pickled to remove scale and cold-dropped to bring it to size. After the final machining operations the receivers were heated in bone, four of them to a pot, to 1500 degrees F., this heat maintained in a muzzle type of oil furnace. The receivers were then quenched in oil."
He points out that if carburized too deeply, there is the risk of the object being brittle. He also mentions that as of the period when he wrote this book that the rate of receiver failure among early receivers was no greater than among later ones. In the event of a catastrophic case failure, a Springfield is inferior to a Mauser, and a low numbered receiver would be inferior to a high numbered one. Broken receivers were reported. While he suggests that low numbered receivers can be servicable, he recommends against overstressing them. You makes your choices and you takes your chances.
Incidentally, anyone interested in shooting during this period would find "The Book of the Springfield" and its companion book "Military and Sporting Rifle Shooting" to be excellent, informative reading.
The process consisted of "Forging receiver under a hammer, hot-trimming and straightened while hot. The receiver was next put in charcoal and allowed to cool very slowly. It was then pickled to remove scale and cold-dropped to bring it to size. After the final machining operations the receivers were heated in bone, four of them to a pot, to 1500 degrees F., this heat maintained in a muzzle type of oil furnace. The receivers were then quenched in oil."
He points out that if carburized too deeply, there is the risk of the object being brittle. He also mentions that as of the period when he wrote this book that the rate of receiver failure among early receivers was no greater than among later ones. In the event of a catastrophic case failure, a Springfield is inferior to a Mauser, and a low numbered receiver would be inferior to a high numbered one. Broken receivers were reported. While he suggests that low numbered receivers can be servicable, he recommends against overstressing them. You makes your choices and you takes your chances.
Incidentally, anyone interested in shooting during this period would find "The Book of the Springfield" and its companion book "Military and Sporting Rifle Shooting" to be excellent, informative reading.
Thanks for the info on the books tiriaq. I will check them out. I do argree with sunray with respect to there being alot of debate about the 03's. But just from my own experience in aviation, there is always more than one contributing factor for catasrofic failure to occur. Medigating circumstances may have well indeed led to the failure of these improperly 'heat treated' lower serial numbered receivers. ie Bolt head spacing or lockup, inferior ammo of the time. And lets not forget the possiblity that a couple of these Doughboys in the heat of battle may have contributed to their own misfortune in some way. From what I have read some of these rifles let go because 8mm mauser ammunition was used. I personaly know an older gentlemen who inadvertently did the samething in a Garrand Rifle. He was very lucky, as he caused very little damage to himself (was bleeding like a stuck pig) but no hospital time required. The rifle chambered the round & was destroyed, but I'd be lying if I said for sure that the bolt seperated breech. Honestly can't remember what he told me about that. The reason 8mm got into the rifle: Grabbing milsurp ammo quickly from the can & not checking headstamping. On the battlefield picking up ammo off the ground, I would speculate, happened quite often.
