The 1903 Springfield

[mcpherson284]

So, here is the back ground on this piece. About 7 years ago I picked up this beautiful 1903 Springfield made at Springfield Armory in mid 1908 that was re-barreled in September of 1918. The stock is in beautiful shape and boy did I ever enjoy shooting it. Then, 4 years ago, I picked up Joe Poyer's book on the 1903 Springfield which is loaded with data (which I will get into a bit later). I did some reading here and there through out the book, covering relatively few of the points in the book, but all in all, just enough to learn that majority of the parts on the rifle are very much original to the 1907-1910 period with a few small parts being correct to 1917-1918.

There are two major exceptions (by my count). While little things like the Wnidage Knobe and the Slide Binding Screw (elevation locking screw) are for the most part generally over looked and few pay attention to thing like that I can tell you that both the knob and screw are correct to 1917-1918. Ehhh ok, I would like to have them original.... but ok. Well, in the pictures bellow, there are two different front and rear sights for the Springfield, Rock Island, and Early Remington Produced 1903s. The sights listed as "B" is the standard rear sight found on 99% of 1903's.

Then there is the 1% out there, like mine that have the sights listed as "A". When I first saw pictures of original 1903s with the rear sight that had the little triangle opening and the 1/4 round front sight, and compared it to mine, I felt cheated and I swore I would one day track down the proper front and rear sights and put my 1903 back to original. But, after getting Poyer's book on the Springfield, I found out 2 interesting facts about the front and rear sight on my rifle,

"In1919, the U.S. Marine Corps adopted a new "No. 10" front sight blade, that was twice as wide at 0.10, and the "No. 10" Drift slide with a 0.10 aperture. the combination of the No. 10 front sight and drift slide provided a 250 yard battle sight. These were used primarily om 1903 and 1903A1 rifles rebuilt for use during World War 2"

Well, currently, I am in contact with a few guys down south that are going through the information that they have access to, and it is looking very much like this old rifle might have some real horrors that is saw in not one but possible two world wars.

I have enjoy putting many rounds down range with this piece, as this is still one of my favorite rifles (My H&R M1, and M1C and MC1 along with my 1903A4 still get attention) but sadly due to uncertainties dealing with early production Springfield and Rock Island 1903s, I will be either moth balling this one or using sub Caliber inserts for either .32 ACP, 7.63 Mauser, or .30 M-1 Carbine. But hey, if you were 105 years old, I bet you wouldn't look as good as this piece does!

 

[Claven2]

Meh, if it were mine, I'd reduce my loads 10% and continue to enjoy it

 

[mcpherson284]

Meh, if it were mine, I'd reduce my loads 10% and continue to enjoy it

Springfield and Rock Island Armory says that won't even help, it has to do with some receivers being under hardened and some being over hardened. Some have bulged without warning, and others have shattered.

 

[purple]

Finding a rifle with the USMC sights is a very lucky score. The bolt appears to be the pre-1918 type w/o the swept back handle.
Most people choose not to shoot a low numbered M1903, but you have obviously proven this one to be sound. Low numbered receivers were scrapped by the US Army during arsenal overhauls as a matter of safety policy post-WW1, but many escaped and were used again during the press of early WW2 needs. USMC M1903s were re- built within USMC channels where the low number receiver condemnation/replacement policy wasn't followed as rigorously, if at all.

I wouldn't rely solely on Poyer's book for info on the M1903. It is quite comprehensive, but does contain numerous errors and he isn't shy on speculation where he feels it necessary. This is also evident in his book on the Garand. Some other good references on the M1903 include books by Campbell, Brophy, and Canfield.

 

[Claven2]

Poyer had no idea what he was talking about where the M1903 is concerned. I like some of his books, but it's like he's in it for the money and to crank out basic milsurp books with little depth or substance. In the case of the 1903, the source data from SA and Aberdeen is readily available and mostly reproduced in Hatcher's Notebook, a primary source. What Hatcher missed is in Brophy, another primary source.

The gist of it is that SOME receivers were "burnt" in the hardening furnace and ended up being too hard, so much so that they could shatter if exposed to catastrophic shock.

Out of the over 2 million rifles produced before 1918, less than 200 blew up, mostly during a war where they saw hard use. MANY of the failures are attributed to 7.92 ammo being fired in them.

It is documented that the USMC did not remove ANY Single Heat Treat (SHT) receivers from service. None. They saw no failures after about 1920 or so that were documented in any way. As I recall, throughout the US Army - no failures were documented after WW1 manufactured ammunition stocks were exhausted.

Aberdeen hypothesized that poor quality brass used during WW1 was a contributing factor. Another interesting factoid is that despite the failure mode, the failure incidence was about a statistical tie with any other make of military firearm. The difference being the consequence and potential injury to the shooter.

The failure mode, when it happened with decent ammo of the proper caliber resulted when a case failed. The USMC, to mitigate potential SHT failures, invented and added the "Hatcher Hole" to the left side of the receiver so that a case failure had sufficient gas vent escape routes in the event of failure. I don't know of any documented SHT receiver failures where a hatcher hole was added. Note also that for a hatcher hole to be effective, you also need a modified bolt with the corresponding hole on the lug.

I do not advocate what anyone else does, but I have fired lots of SHT 1903's with 10% reduced loads and felt my odds were longer of having a problem than of winning the 649 this Friday. YMMV.

 

[Buckmastr]

Great read up. Thanks for posting.
I have a 1898 Krag dated 1903 with an era 1901 type sight that appears identical to the one found on your 1903. These sights are near 110 years old. Wow!

 

[purple]

The target shooters won when designing the sights for the Krag which were then carried forward to the M1903. The aperture in the rear sight leaf is capable of excellent shooting under range conditions, but it is a miserable set up for use in the field; tough to find a target under marginal light conditions and quite flimsy. WW1 experience with the much more durable and combat suitable sighting system on the Model 1917 Enfield almost convinced the US Army to adopt the M1917 in favor of the M1903 after WW1, but again the target shooters won out. The US Army did investigate a receiver sight for the M1903 after WW1, but this was never pursued until the WW2 Model 03A3 was adopted with an adjustable rear aperture sighting system as was used on both the M1 Garand and M1 Carbine.

 

[mcpherson284]

Poyer had no idea what he was talking about where the M1903 is concerned. I like some of his books, but it's like he's in it for the money and to crank out basic milsurp books with little depth or substance. In the case of the 1903, the source data from SA and Aberdeen is readily available and mostly reproduced in Hatcher's Notebook, a primary source. What Hatcher missed is in Brophy, another primary source.

The gist of it is that SOME receivers were "burnt" in the hardening furnace and ended up being too hard, so much so that they could shatter if exposed to catastrophic shock.

Out of the over 2 million rifles produced before 1918, less than 200 blew up, mostly during a war where they saw hard use. MANY of the failures are attributed to 7.92 ammo being fired in them.

It is documented that the USMC did not remove ANY Single Heat Treat (SHT) receivers from service. None. They saw no failures after about 1920 or so that were documented in any way. As I recall, throughout the US Army - no failures were documented after WW1 manufactured ammunition stocks were exhausted.

Aberdeen hypothesized that poor quality brass used during WW1 was a contributing factor. Another interesting factoid is that despite the failure mode, the failure incidence was about a statistical tie with any other make of military firearm. The difference being the consequence and potential injury to the shooter.

The failure mode, when it happened with decent ammo of the proper caliber resulted when a case failed. The USMC, to mitigate potential SHT failures, invented and added the "Hatcher Hole" to the left side of the receiver so that a case failure had sufficient gas vent escape routes in the event of failure. I don't know of any documented SHT receiver failures where a hatcher hole was added. Note also that for a hatcher hole to be effective, you also need a modified bolt with the corresponding hole on the lug.

I do not advocate what anyone else does, but I have fired lots of SHT 1903's with 10% reduced loads and felt my odds were longer of having a problem than of winning the 649 this Friday. YMMV.

I know what you are getting at with the 10% reduced loads, but, if this is in fact a USMC rifle used in WW2, I'd rather a complete wall hanger that I could shot but choose not to as compared to a buggered rifle because I chanced it. And Yes, Poyer's book is not the best out there, but his parts list and manufacture dates are first rate. I have see other books out there with more mistakes (a lot more) than Poyer's book.

 

[mcpherson284]

As for the problems with the heat treating on low serial number rifles, here is the best in depth report I have seen so far.

http://m1903.com/03rcvrfail/

 

[purple]

This is a useful summary of the receiver failure issue. I recommend a copy of Hatcher's Notebook for the serious MILSURP wanker as it is chockablock with a lot of facts on a variety of military small arms topics, incl the M1903 receiver and barrel failure issues.

I've owned a couple of dozen M1903s over the yrs incl a few low numbers which I chose not to shoot. They did serve as excellent parts donors to overhaul a number of high number receivers though. I would endorse the idea of using reduced loads when shooting a low number M1903 with the added precaution of verifying headspace towards the minimum end. I've found a reduced load using a 150gr Hornady FMJ over 23gr SR4759 using no case filler to be a very mild and accurate load in an M1903.

Interestingly the only cracked M1903 receiver that I have encountered was a 1942 vintage Remington which was made of very strong alloy steel. I've read accounts of low number receivers, which are strong, but brittle due to their heat treatment, being shattered when stuck by a hammer. If I ever get another one I might like to put it in a vice and give it a couple of whacks to see the result.

 

[mcpherson284]

This is a useful summary of the receiver failure issue. I recommend a copy of Hatcher's Notebook for the serious MILSURP wanker as it is chockablock with a lot of facts on a variety of military small arms topics, incl the M1903 receiver and barrel failure issues.

I've owned a couple of dozen M1903s over the yrs incl a few low numbers which I chose not to shoot. They did serve as excellent parts donors to overhaul a number of high number receivers though. I would endorse the idea of using reduced loads when shooting a low number M1903 with the added precaution of verifying headspace towards the minimum end. I've found a reduced load using a 150gr Hornady FMJ over 23gr SR4759 using no case filler to be a very mild and accurate load in an M1903.

Interestingly the only cracked M1903 receiver that I have encountered was a 1942 vintage Remington which was made of very strong alloy steel. I've read accounts of low number receivers, which are strong, but brittle due to their heat treatment, being shattered when stuck by a hammer. If I ever get another one I might like to put it in a vice and give it a couple of whacks to see the result.

If you hit an 03 with a hammer just to test that out, you are a cruel, cruel man!

 

[purple]

If you hit an 03 with a hammer just to test that out, you are a cruel, cruel man!

Not cruel, but curious. Note that I said "might", altho if I got hold of a very grotty and pitted one I might put it to the hammer test.

I have to admit to having a real soft spot for Springfields, having started playing with my father's M1903 in the early 1950s. That one had a history. He got it from our hired man, a WW1 US Army veteran who brought it with him from the US in the early 1920s. My dad hunted deer with it in stock condition with surplus ball ammo and used it to shoot the first whitetail anyone had seen in our corner of SK in the early 1930s. Our native deer were mulies and were wiped out by year round subsistence hunting, so a whitetail was quite a novelty at that time. When I started hunting all there was was whitetails, and lots of them. I last hunted our part of the country about 12 years ago and saw that mulies were making a comeback, and even saw a nice mulie buck on our old family homestead, a result of less hunting pressure and the country being denuded of people. Sadly my dad sold his M1903 when he stopped hunting and moved off the farm a long time ago. I'd love to locate his old Springfield again. I didn't know a low number from a high number or a Rock Island from a Remington back then, but I'd bet money that it was a low number.

I've made up for that loss by owning just about every variant of the M1903 since then and have never been disappointed by them on the range or when hunting. I find them very tough to pass up and have rebuilt and/or re-barrelled quite a few of them over the years. This winter I located 2 new M1903 barrels, a 1944 Springfield and a 1944 High Standard, both still in cosmoline wrap, and will install them on 1918 vintage double heat treated Springfield and 1942 made Remington receivers which I re-parkerized last summer. Other than wanting to locate and spruce up a couple of Model 03A3s, I've vowed that these will be my last M1903 projects.

 

[Mike Webb]

The whole "brittle" receiver 03 flap is pretty well documented as Claven stated. Incidents of failure were VERY uncommon but a few have occurred. Look how horror stories about the Ross rifle have been spread and repeated for years. If I owned one in original trim I wouldn't shoot it any more than I would shoot a Nazi K98k, all matching rifle. There are plenty of higher number rifles around to shoot. That being said, my cousin hunts with a Rock Island 03 sporter with a serial in the 265,000 range. I mentioned to him that he should retire it and why, he said, "Are you nuts! That thing is deadly and the best moose rifle I ever had." I expect if it hasn't let go by now with factory loads it will probably continue to knock moose over for him.

 

[mcpherson284]

Trust me, i know what you are saying, but I know of an M1A that let go on the firing line. Realistically, there was no reason for it to happen, as it was well mantained and using new factory Fed. Gold Medal Match. But it turned out that after Fulton Armory did an examination of the rifle, that between the heat treating that was done wrong on that receiver, old barrel, in use since about 1967....... it just let go. Like I said, I have a near perfect rifle, and would rather not chance it. Yes, it will probably be just fine (98% sure) BUT, I would hate to loose it.

 

[Mike Webb]

Personally mcpherson, I'm with you. It is a slim chance but if you want to shoot an 03, there are a fair number of mixmasters around.

 

[purple]

In addition to the receiver issue folks need to pay very close attention to barrel condition when looking at a M1903. The majority of bores tend to be well worn and/or pitted as a result of extensive firing of corrosive primed ammo. A new GI M1903 replacement barrel costs about $400 nowadays, then there are installation costs.