Yep... Here's the link for before & after pics: http://www.canadiangunnutz.com/forum/showthread.php?t=227385 Sometimes they have to be built...
springfield 1903
- Thread starter mini14guy
- Start date
It was mine. Figured out I was a shooter not a collector. I tore the rifle down and did a detailed cleaning. No sandpaper or cold blue was involved. Straight BLO finish on the stock. She was an authentic arsenal rebuild. The bolt had a nasty habit of sticking.####, as requested.
Beautiful rifle ROO5t3r. How did that get past me? Please don't tell me that was on the EE...
Uh yeah, it was.
Last year. It seemed to take while for someone to cough up a grand for it
Uh yeah, it was.
Hi Lorenz,
I have to say that wrt accuracy, the '03s I have are the most accurate milsurp rifles that I have shot so far.
As much as I like LE, M1917 and M1s, the '03s have beaten them all.
Maybe I have been lucky with great specimens, but this is my personal experience.
As left hand shooter, they are not my first pick, but they get the job done.
I am shooting a '03, a '03A1 cloned like a 1941 USMC Unertl, and a genuine '03A4.
Light and classy, still up to the task, with irons or scope.
BB
Low-numbered Springfields.
Thinking on these, we have to consider a number of things. The receivers were so darned hard on SOME of them (not all) that NUTHIN' would wear them out..... but they would shatter with a sudden blow.
The ammo they were using developed 2700 ft/sec with a 150. We can get that now, very easily. In fact, it's considered a mild loading. We can do it at less than 40,000 PSI with modern, progressive powders.
They were using PYRO DG, which is more than just a tad volent in its action and ran at 52,000 PSI. It is very abrupt in its burn.
Verily, it meseemeth that one could construct a viable handload for suchlyken gonnes, mayken use the whyle of ye most modernest techowhackies....... just a load that is a tad on the mild side, running at, say, 37,000 PSI and very progressive. IMR 4350 or something of that ilk might do the job. Reduce the SHOCK from an instant BLOW and substitute a more progressive PUSH.
Seems to me that this would increase the safety factor when using the low-numbered Springfield by a considerable amount.
Or am I all wet?
I don't really LIKE Springfields, but they are much too nice just to hang on the wall.
Thinking on these, we have to consider a number of things. The receivers were so darned hard on SOME of them (not all) that NUTHIN' would wear them out..... but they would shatter with a sudden blow.
The ammo they were using developed 2700 ft/sec with a 150. We can get that now, very easily. In fact, it's considered a mild loading. We can do it at less than 40,000 PSI with modern, progressive powders.
They were using PYRO DG, which is more than just a tad volent in its action and ran at 52,000 PSI. It is very abrupt in its burn.
Verily, it meseemeth that one could construct a viable handload for suchlyken gonnes, mayken use the whyle of ye most modernest techowhackies....... just a load that is a tad on the mild side, running at, say, 37,000 PSI and very progressive. IMR 4350 or something of that ilk might do the job. Reduce the SHOCK from an instant BLOW and substitute a more progressive PUSH.
Seems to me that this would increase the safety factor when using the low-numbered Springfield by a considerable amount.
Or am I all wet?
I don't really LIKE Springfields, but they are much too nice just to hang on the wall.
Julian Hatcher wound up chief of the US Army's ordnance department and may be presumed to know his subject. His Hatcher's Notebook devotes what amounts to an entire chapter about the low-number, overly-hard Springfield receivers - with graphic pictures of the pieces. Below a certain serial number (Hatcher says 800,000), the receivers were not properly heat-treated and are likely to fail (translation - explode, dramatically) with normal pressure rounds, especially if the headspace is too large or the ammo has a head rather too soft.
One quote from his work that might bear on your light load proposal:
On the other hand, Springfields are very handsome on the wall.
One quote from his work that might bear on your light load proposal:
Another fact what will bear noting is that two of the receiver failures recorder were caused by firing the guard cartridge, which is supposed to be loaded to extremely low pressure and velocity These Guard cartridges used the regular 150 grain bullet with 9.1 grains. of Bullseye Powder, to give a muzzle velocity of 1200 feet per second. The failures may have been caused by the fact that while the pressure of this small charge of Bullseye is very low, still, this is an extremely quick powder, and the unusually sudden application of the shock may have been too much for the glass-hard metal. Of course, on the other hand, a double or triple load might have occurred by some accident. This would of course give a very high pressure. However, I am inclined to lay the cause of the trouble to the sudden character of the powder rather than to high pressure...
So... You might be right. A low-pressure load with a slow-burning propellant might be safe. You would certainly have a certain authority behind the theory.On the other hand, Springfields are very handsome on the wall.
Who can really say what might happen with an individual receiver. Some may well be OK, but there were enough documented failures of the low numbered receivers to cause US Ordnance to withdraw them from service after WW1. Some folks report receivers shattering if whacked by a hammer. Never tried it myself as I just don't have the heart to do that to any gun.
I once bought a low numbered Rock Island down in Syracuse, NY for $80. It had been re-barreled with a 1942 dated Springfield replacement barrel, by all appearances an arsenal job. It had obviously been fired very little as the barrel gauged as new. The woodwork was excellent too. My solution was to remove the barrel and swap it onto a high number Rock Island nickle steel receiver which had a boogered barrel on it.
BTW there is a caveat on '03 bolts as well. The older ones, as distinguished by a straight (not swept back bolt handle), were also made with questionable heat treatment, so it is best to avoid these as well. A good fix here is to install any later bolt with a swept back bolt handle, check and adjust headspace as necessary, and keep on shooting (assuming of course that you have a high numbered receiver). All in all when dealing with a 50,000 PSI pressure bloom a few inches in front of my face I want to do everything possible to be on the safe side.
I once bought a low numbered Rock Island down in Syracuse, NY for $80. It had been re-barreled with a 1942 dated Springfield replacement barrel, by all appearances an arsenal job. It had obviously been fired very little as the barrel gauged as new. The woodwork was excellent too. My solution was to remove the barrel and swap it onto a high number Rock Island nickle steel receiver which had a boogered barrel on it.
BTW there is a caveat on '03 bolts as well. The older ones, as distinguished by a straight (not swept back bolt handle), were also made with questionable heat treatment, so it is best to avoid these as well. A good fix here is to install any later bolt with a swept back bolt handle, check and adjust headspace as necessary, and keep on shooting (assuming of course that you have a high numbered receiver). All in all when dealing with a 50,000 PSI pressure bloom a few inches in front of my face I want to do everything possible to be on the safe side.
- Location
- Tucson, Arizona
No worse than ZULU where the officers were using revolvers that were not made until 1915, and the guys in the background in the redoubt were using Long Lee's
How about the "Blue Max" where the Irish Army ONLY changed their helmets to play the germans?
Oh by the way, the U.S. fought WW1 with low number springfields
How about the "Blue Max" where the Irish Army ONLY changed their helmets to play the germans?
Oh by the way, the U.S. fought WW1 with low number springfields
M1903 serial #1 was actually found on issue to a US soldier in France in WW1. He was a bit PO'd when his highers had it turned in so they could return it to a museum in the US.
There were actually more M1917 Enfields in use by US troops than there were M1903s. There was a big difference in quantities available after the 3 US commercial plants ramped up M1917 production in 1917.
There were actually more M1917 Enfields in use by US troops than there were M1903s. There was a big difference in quantities available after the 3 US commercial plants ramped up M1917 production in 1917.
What "history" tends to forget is the (very) large amount of $$ the USA had to give to Paul Mauser for copying both the case and the (pre-98) rifle(s)... And that the "advance" of the '06 ammunition was forced by the adoption of the 8X57IS by the Germans...
Kukri blade
Regular
- Location
- Lower Mainland
I would pay a lot for a springfield, even if it were a sporterized one. They just aren't common up here.
The 1903s would always be my first pick for an accurate MILSURP. They make a dandy sporter too. Some yrs ago I built one on a bit pitted, but sound, Remington receiver. Used a new 03A3 bbl, Redfield Jr mount, Burris 6x scope, Beuhler safety, and a Michaels trigger guard with hinged floorplate. It shoots MOA or better with several handloads and has gotten me some nice deer.
They are getting tough to find, especially one with a good barrel. I'm looking for an 03A3 receiver to build up another one in as-issue configuration.
They are getting tough to find, especially one with a good barrel. I'm looking for an 03A3 receiver to build up another one in as-issue configuration.
The old-style single heat-treatment left things glass-hard but somewhat brittle. I have seen several that have had the receiver rail shattered by a blow. I have no idea how much force was used, but the guy who showed them to me (in Spokane) also had this idea that Eddystone P-'14 and M-1917 receivers were junk and was destroying every one that came his way..... and it takes a LOT to wreck one of those. Some would only twist, but he scrapped 'em anyway.
Hatcher was Director of Accidents between the Wars. If you wanted to have an accident, you had to get a permit from him..... or maybe it meant that the dead rifle was returned to him. I think likely the latter, as he details each and every documented incident of the rifle failure in his famous "HATCHER'S NOTEBOOK". A couple of hundred failures (or less) out of a couple of million rifles, over a period of 15 years or so, just isn't all that many. Hatcher was trying to be as safe as possible and he was risking nobody's life and limb recklessly. He was reasonably satisfied with the early rifles BUT, once production for World War One got underway, THAT is when things began to slide and the truly dangerous ones started to be made.
The late-type double heat-treated rifles were so FAR superior to the early type that they became the new standard and early rifles with the single heat-treatment became reserve. In stripping early receivers (between the wars, mind you) all that was being done was getting the complete inventory up to the new standard.
There have been a LOT of very-satisfactory rifles built on low-number receivers.
I think (in agreement with Hatcher, who knew a lot more than I ever will) that rate of burn had a good deal to do with straining the questionable receivers beyond their breaking points.
I know where there is a very minty Mark 1 Springfield sitting, right now. It is far beyond my means to purchase but, were I to own the thing, I don't think I could allow it to just sit and look pretty; it would HAVE to be shot. I think I would do this with soft-jacketed bullets (Hornady Spire Point 150s, to be precise) and then I would have to open up one of these tins of 4350 with which I have been blessed.
Knew a fellow once name of John Hall. He was a Canadian, sent by his folks to the USA for university about the time they were talking about a draft here. So he did a year of classes, then the US declared war. He finished out the term, went down and joined the US Marine Corps, went to France and through ALL the dirties. He used a Springfield and had no complaints or comments about them, apart from the fact that it was a good rifle.
I think it must be accepted that the Springfield was, essentially, a good rifle, but that wartime screw-ups with poor manufacturing practices and bad ammunition did a lot to harm its reputation. Sound familiar, Ross Rifle guys?
BTW, I have a couple of rounds of '06 made by National Brass and Copper Tube Co., 1918 (headstamp NC 18) and nothing would convince me that it's completely safe, evcen though a lot of their stuff went 'bang' without blowing up rifles......
Mebbe that's just me...
Hatcher was Director of Accidents between the Wars. If you wanted to have an accident, you had to get a permit from him..... or maybe it meant that the dead rifle was returned to him. I think likely the latter, as he details each and every documented incident of the rifle failure in his famous "HATCHER'S NOTEBOOK". A couple of hundred failures (or less) out of a couple of million rifles, over a period of 15 years or so, just isn't all that many. Hatcher was trying to be as safe as possible and he was risking nobody's life and limb recklessly. He was reasonably satisfied with the early rifles BUT, once production for World War One got underway, THAT is when things began to slide and the truly dangerous ones started to be made.
The late-type double heat-treated rifles were so FAR superior to the early type that they became the new standard and early rifles with the single heat-treatment became reserve. In stripping early receivers (between the wars, mind you) all that was being done was getting the complete inventory up to the new standard.
There have been a LOT of very-satisfactory rifles built on low-number receivers.
I think (in agreement with Hatcher, who knew a lot more than I ever will) that rate of burn had a good deal to do with straining the questionable receivers beyond their breaking points.
I know where there is a very minty Mark 1 Springfield sitting, right now. It is far beyond my means to purchase but, were I to own the thing, I don't think I could allow it to just sit and look pretty; it would HAVE to be shot. I think I would do this with soft-jacketed bullets (Hornady Spire Point 150s, to be precise) and then I would have to open up one of these tins of 4350 with which I have been blessed.
Knew a fellow once name of John Hall. He was a Canadian, sent by his folks to the USA for university about the time they were talking about a draft here. So he did a year of classes, then the US declared war. He finished out the term, went down and joined the US Marine Corps, went to France and through ALL the dirties. He used a Springfield and had no complaints or comments about them, apart from the fact that it was a good rifle.
I think it must be accepted that the Springfield was, essentially, a good rifle, but that wartime screw-ups with poor manufacturing practices and bad ammunition did a lot to harm its reputation. Sound familiar, Ross Rifle guys?
BTW, I have a couple of rounds of '06 made by National Brass and Copper Tube Co., 1918 (headstamp NC 18) and nothing would convince me that it's completely safe, evcen though a lot of their stuff went 'bang' without blowing up rifles......
Mebbe that's just me...
They are nice rifles, though I never understood why they went with a cone breach vice the Mauser collar and the gas handling could be better ala Mauser flange.
Like all cool movies, after Pacific fully airs, Arisakas and M1903's will cost 50% more - wait and see.
Like all cool movies, after Pacific fully airs, Arisakas and M1903's will cost 50% more - wait and see.
Jack O'Connor did not say too much good about the Springfields. He talked, too, about them losing the law suit to the Germans for patent infringment, but stated they didn't do the best of a job of copying. In particular, he didn't l ike the two piece firing pin and poor gas escape provisions, compared to the 98 Mauser.
One other thing to think about. When P.O. Ackley experimented with blowing up military actions, he made a startling statement, in summing things up. He stated that of all the actions he ruined by overloading, that none ever blew up, to the point of pieces flying. He said he considered that a person could have been shooting them from the shoulder position and in only two actions would the shooter have been injured.
Those two actions were the Springfield and the US Krag. In neither case did the action fly apart, but each had too large a hole for the firing pin and the gas escaped straight back, and would have injured a shooter.
One other thing to think about. When P.O. Ackley experimented with blowing up military actions, he made a startling statement, in summing things up. He stated that of all the actions he ruined by overloading, that none ever blew up, to the point of pieces flying. He said he considered that a person could have been shooting them from the shoulder position and in only two actions would the shooter have been injured.
Those two actions were the Springfield and the US Krag. In neither case did the action fly apart, but each had too large a hole for the firing pin and the gas escaped straight back, and would have injured a shooter.
H4831 - You have been the voice of common sense and mature wisdom here, so I would hate to argue with you. Yet Hatcher's Notebook, Hatcher breaks down Springfield failures into three broad types - burst receivers, blow backs (resulting from cartridge head failure) and burst barrels (generally from an obstructed barrel).
He does list a number of cases of lost eyes, which certainly with coincide with that you are saying.
He also however lists a number of other serious injuries, including a pierced lung. In one of these incidents, the rifle was described, "Receiver was picked in about three pieces. Many small pieces were never found. Receiver was entirely separated from the barrel."
It is worth of note that the accident reporting system seems to have been a little hit-and-miss compared to what we have today; many of the accidents simply have no mention of injuries (vice saying that there were none). Further, the nature of the injuries, minor or major, is rarely mentioned. A lot of detail is missing, in other words. Still, it seems clear that the older Springfields could, under some conditions, come apart violently, causing more than just eye injuries.
Incidentally, also worth of note is that fact that he lists one of the burst receiver incidents as happening at the, "Lindsay Arsenal, Canada." I used to spend a lot of time in the Peterborough region and this is the first I have heard of an ammo plant there. Bad day when you can't learn something.
He does list a number of cases of lost eyes, which certainly with coincide with that you are saying.
He also however lists a number of other serious injuries, including a pierced lung. In one of these incidents, the rifle was described, "Receiver was picked in about three pieces. Many small pieces were never found. Receiver was entirely separated from the barrel."
It is worth of note that the accident reporting system seems to have been a little hit-and-miss compared to what we have today; many of the accidents simply have no mention of injuries (vice saying that there were none). Further, the nature of the injuries, minor or major, is rarely mentioned. A lot of detail is missing, in other words. Still, it seems clear that the older Springfields could, under some conditions, come apart violently, causing more than just eye injuries.
Incidentally, also worth of note is that fact that he lists one of the burst receiver incidents as happening at the, "Lindsay Arsenal, Canada." I used to spend a lot of time in the Peterborough region and this is the first I have heard of an ammo plant there. Bad day when you can't learn something.
Canada discovered in the early part of the Great War that it needed another ammunition plant, so they built one at Lindsay..... which just happened to be in Sir Sam Highes' riding.
They made calibre .303" Ball Mark VII in 1917, 1918, 1919, also made .30-'06 on contract for the USA.
1917 headstamp was L/!\A, stamp for 1918 and 1919 was DAL.
There was supposed to be a very small batch turned out just to make sure the plant still was operational before it was sold off, I think 1921, but I have never seen a round.
They also made Chargers, Mark II.
They made calibre .303" Ball Mark VII in 1917, 1918, 1919, also made .30-'06 on contract for the USA.
1917 headstamp was L/!\A, stamp for 1918 and 1919 was DAL.
There was supposed to be a very small batch turned out just to make sure the plant still was operational before it was sold off, I think 1921, but I have never seen a round.
They also made Chargers, Mark II.
