Early Rock Island 1903 Springfield questions

E

Eaglelord17

CGN Ultra frequent flyer
Rating - 100%
64   0   0
Location
Sault Ste. Marie
Hi,
Recently I was checking out a local gun store and they had a early Rock Island 1903 Springfield with a tag on it for 500$ which also said not safe to fire. Looking on the Internet I found out that early made 1903's are not recommended to be shot because they could have been heat treated improperly. My questions are is that a reasonable amount for a full stock early 1903 and also would the rifle safe to shoot with light loads? Basically the way I am looking at it right now though (could be very wrong though) is these rifles have all been fired at one point or another so would all the bad ones not have exploded by this point (a good 100 years in the future) or is it just good as a collector paperweight type item? I feel it would be a cool rifle to own but I won't buy it if I am unable to shoot it. I have no experience with 1903 Springfields though and any thoughts on the matter are appreciated. I didn't even look down the bore as the not safe to fire tag kind of through me off.
 
Many of the early 1903 Springfield rifles built at both Springfield Armory and Rock Island Armory were not heat-treated correctly at the time (metallurgy wasn't as well known then as it is today) and even an authority such as Major General Julian Hatcher (author of Hatcher's Notebook) recommends against firing rifles with serial numbers under 800,000 (from Springfield Armory). I can't recall off the top of my head at what serial number Rock Island Armory changed the heat treatment and I don't have access to my copy of Hatcher's Notebook right now (it's in storage).

IIRC the heat treatment process used on the early 1903's made the receiver brittle. There are some photos in Hatcher's Notebook that show the damage that was done when the receiver was clamped in a vise and struck with a hammer. It's not a pretty sight.

If a rifle in a gun store has a "Not safe to fire" tag on it, I doubt I'd buy it except as a wall hanger. I'm sure one of the Milsurp gurus here will chime in whether I'm right or wrong.
 
The magic number for RIA 1903s is 285507. That's the first serial number of the new double heat treatment process. That being said according to CS Ferris's book on the RIA 1903 there were 16000 receivers between the serial numbers of 269506 and 285506 which were either not heat treated properly or weren't heat treated yet. Of those 5846 were destroyed and the rest tested for chemical composition and hardness after double heat treating. Those above or below a certain hardness range were not used and the rest ( most of those tested ) assembled into complete rifles.

There are those who say the receiver failures were caused by poor quality ammunition used during WW1. The US Army went on a purge of low numbered receivers when the rifles were overhauled until things got tight in the Second World War and then they would have been stored for emergency use only. The USMC never removed any receivers with a low serial number unless they were rendered non-serviceable. They drilled "Hatcher Holes" in the left side of the receiver and enlarged the gas escape hole in the bolts to dissipate a pressure release form a ruptured cartridge as they came in for overhaul and re-issued them to the field.

Some people still shoot their low numbered rifles but most probably don't. All of my 1903s are high numbered ones so if I did get a low numbered one it would be just to have. From what I've read the pre-WW1 1903s have a much better fit and finish as compared to the later ones. Maybe what Smellie often suggests for the Enfield - using a small charge of a certain powder with a cast bullet would be a way around it but that's the individuals call.

Dave
 
I recently did an extensive Google Fu read on this subject. I suggest you do the same, tons of info out there.

There is no absolute answer. Nobody can assure you that that rifle is safe to fire. There is no way to test it.

Many knowledgeable people would not shoot it under any circumstances.

And the gun shop selling it is being ethical in putting that sign on it.

The thing is, it might have shot 10,000 rounds safely and the next one is the one that will make the brittle receiver shatter...do you want to risk your health and life to save some $?
 
I respect the gun store for putting it on there. I am also impressed that they knew about this information (how many of us would have just gone oh a Springfield and placed on the shelf). I wouldn't mind a early 1903 Springfield in my collection it's just figuring out if it is a wall hanger or not. It's not even about the money I just like being able to shoot the guns I own (even if its just a little). I was looking on google as well and there is a fair bit of knowledge out there. The problem is that the heat treatment process was substandard (no way to verify if it was alright or not) and the WWI era brass quality was also a factor. From what I understand no one has actually been killed by a 1903 Springfield receiver shattering (some people have certainly been injured though).
 
The US Army decided to take the low number/single heat treat receivers out of service for a reason. That said, there are still many in circulation and some people do shoot them, although conventional wisdom is not to do so.

Its' a bit of a crap shoot as has been pointed out. A person needs to ask themselves if they want to risk this with a 50,000 PSI pressure bloom happening a few inches in front of your face on firing. I've owned quite a few M1903s, incl a couple of low number ones. I never shot them, but did use them as parts donors to rebuild rifles with high number receivers. I bought my last low number at the big Syracuse NY gun show for $100 about 22 yrs ago. It had an as new 1942 SA barrel, a stone mint 03A3 stock and many other nice parts which found a good home on other M1903s. The barrel shoots very well on a high number Rock Island rifle.
 
There is always a risk when shooting an old rifle, with many past owners. Who knows what some of them did to these, and what kind of abuse/misuse occurred. There is likely a greater risk with an early Springfield but you'd probably have a better chance of being hurt on your drive to the shooting range then shooting it. I'd shoot it. But I would also pay a few hundred more to get one outside those serial number ranges. It will sell for more, and will be easier to sell too.
 
During WW2 large numbers of low number 03s were rebarelled and issued. Hatcher in his notebook says that the 30-06 proof pressure was increased to weed out bad receivers.
The problem was poor heat treat control which burned the steel on some receivers.
The list of failures shows that they were caused by bad ammo, the entire production of one contractor was recalled, and things like shooting a rifle with a barrel full of cosmoline or using 7.9 Mauser ammo.
 
FWIW both low and high numbered M1903s were sold by the NRA to it's members post-WW2. The NRA had a long standing policy that it would replace a low number receiver with a high number one on request, as long as stocks of high number receivers remained. When the Greek surplus M1903s were sold thru the CMP some years ago all rifles, whether high or low number, were given a functional check prior to sale, although low numbered rifles were cheaper. Interestingly, a number of the Greek rifles were found with new barrels installed which had not been finish reamed to proper headspace.

The low number/high number discussion is an old chestnut which has been re-roasted many times over the years in various gun magazines, publications and online shooting forums. The consensus always seems to be to err on the side of caution and not to shoot the low numbers as a safety precaution, although some choose to do so. It all boils down to a personal decision decision by the individual owner.

Interestingly, the only cracked M1903 receiver that I've owned was a high number Remington which was made of high quality alloy steel. Descriptions of failed low number receivers mostly report that they shatter into several pieces due to excessive brittleness. As a side note, people should be careful with M1903-A3 civilian made receivers which are stamped with "Santa-Fe" or "National Ordnance" on the receiver ring. These are made from variable quality castings and have been reported to shatter on firing. I bought one of these a few yrs ago and found that it had excessive headspace and set back lug seats in the receiver, although barrel gauging showed that it had not been fired that much. All parts, other than the cast receiver, were USGI and have since been used on other rifles. One of these days I'm going to put the receiver in a vice and whack it with a 2 lb hammer.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom