1903 Springfield rebuild

[tark]

This is an old question, but perhaps some new revelations have come to light. I bought on old 1903 Springfield that has been rebuilt at San Antonio Arsenal. The "SAA" stamp, in rectangle, is present. The Barrel is dated 1944. The gun is the expected mix of various parts and the bolt has the swept back handle, so it is a later one. The stock has two re-enforcing bolts so it is also late. The entire gun has been freshly phosphated. (The smelly, green WW2 stuff) The bolt is blued. The entire gun is in rebuilt as issued military condition. It has obviously had a lot of rounds put through it. And it is a low numbered Springfield armory receiver. # 286063.

Here we go again. This is my question; Has one of these things ever shattered while shooting 30-40 level loads? I want to shoot it......but.....

OK, ill admit that I did put two rounds through it, Federal M-1 ammo marked on the box as a 150 gr bullet at 2700. I must admit that the fired cases look like they hadn't even been fired! There was no stretching and less than .001 expansion of the case . The gun has a chamber worthy of a NM gun.

So back to my question, are these guns safe to shoot with reduced loads?

For 350 bucks I figure I stole it, whatever the outcome.

 

[threoh8]

I don't know about .30-40 level loads specifically, but HERE's some statistical info about the failures from an epidemiologist.

 

[tark]

Ive read that study. Very interesting and the risk seems to be very low. One must remember we fought WW1 with low numbered guns. And every one of them passed a 70,000PSI proof load. I think I will fire it with reduced loads. I'm curious as to how accurate it might be. The fired cases of the two rounds I DID shoot look better than any fired cases I have ever seen from ANY 30-06 rifle.

I have discovered that the Army DID rebuild low numbered guns during the war, but held them in reserve. These guns WERE proof tested again before being put into storage!

So go figure. Here is a low numbered gun that passed proof twice in its life, thirty some years apart!

 

[WardenWolf]

Shoot lighter-pressure loads and check your headspace periodically, and you should be good. I recommend Garand-safe loads because those will have a more period-correct pressure curve closer to what these rifles were designed to handle.

Since the gun has been rebarreled, that will also help alleviate a large amount of the receiver's weakness. Because while the old receiver may not have heat treating that is up to par, the barrel, and its shank, certainly do. It should be perfectly fine to shoot.

 

[NIGHTLORD40K]

One of my '03's is in the low 100,000s serial range and I was lucky enough to find a stash of Remington Managed Recoil rounds for it before the Great Obama Ammunition Drought.... These are designed for women and kids, but I was surprised how much low-stress fun they are in the old battle rifles (when you compensate for the lower velocity and point of aim.) Unfortunately, although many of the websites still list it, its always out of stock and I'm not sure if they still make it......

 

[rcmodel]

Bear with me here.
It's been a while since I read Hatchers Notebook that had detailed reports of all the serious low-number blow-ups that injured people.

But I was struck by how many of them were National Guardsmen, firing reduced load indoor practice 'gallery loads'.

Perhaps the sudden shock of the fast burning powder used in the reduced Gallery loads were more likely to shatter a too hard receiver then full power military loads using slower burning rifle powder??

Or perhaps some of the 'gallery loads' were double charged reloads the guardsmen produced in the armory??

Something to ponder?

rc

 

[az_imuth]

I doubt you'll see any signs of stretching on your cases. The receiver will likely hold and wear just like any other until it doesn't. Then, unlike the good receivers, it will simply fly apart, much like a grenade.

 

[tark]

RC I remember reading the same thing in The Notebook. I also remember reading that many of the blowups were blamed on the ammo. The barrel as I have mentioned, looks new, as does the rest of the metal. This would tend to validate the notion that these low numbered guns were rebuilt and then put away as substitute standard guns that would only be issued if things got desperate. There is no doubt the gun was re-proofed, there is the correct P in a square stamped in the stock.

I'll be making some Krag level loads as soon as my knee heals up and I can go downstairs again.

 

[Garrobo]

First, I suspect

that any of the .03's that would have had a tendency to explode on firing have already done so. So I wouldn't worry too much about that. The other is that the .30-40 cartridge probably had a psi rating of around 40,000 or a little more which should be OK for this rifle since it didn't pose a problem in the Krag which was much weaker that the .03. I would suggest that you wear shooting glasses though.

 

[Bexar]

CMP's opinion:

http://thecmp.org/cmp_sales/rifle_sales/m1903-m1903a3/

Ibid. M1903 rifles made before February 1918 utilized receivers and bolts which were single heat-treated by a method that rendered some of them brittle and liable to fracture when fired, exposing the shooter to a risk of serious injury. It proved impossible to determine, without destructive testing, which receivers and bolts were so affected and therefore potentially dangerous.

To solve this problem, the Ordnance Department commenced double heat treatment of receivers and bolts. This was commenced at Springfield Armory at approximately serial number 800,000 and at Rock Island Arsenal at exactly serial number 285,507. All Springfields made after this change are commonly called “high number” rifles. Those Springfields made before this change are commonly called “low-number” rifles


The bolts are discussed also.

 

[boom boom]

Like others, I have read the reports of 1903 receiver failures in the appendix of Hatcher's Notebook. First, the receivers could be so brittle as to shatter with a sudden impulse such as a hammer blow, second, there was almost always some kind of additional proximate cause that revealed the fault--soft case heads, greased ammunition, burnt steel barrels, overcharged ammo, bad bolts, etc. The remarkable thing was how few people were seriously injured in those reports.

Like rc said, a number of the failures were reported by guardsmen--the impulse and pressure spikes from fast pistol powders might be harder on those receivers than something like IMR 4895. It could also be that guardsmen got the leftovers including improperly stored and old ammunition and beaten up old rifles.

I have seen a few low numbered 1903 receivers on brokegun and the like--been tempted but haven't bid yet. Don't really want a wall hanger.

Good luck and be safe. I would certainly wear protective gear such a full goggles, hat, gloves, longsleeve shirt or even jacket etc. when firing.

 

[tark]

Good advice, all, and appreciated. I will shoot the gun sparingly with 30-40 pressure loads. I plan on just enough shooting to get some groups at 100 yards. I am intensely curious to see how well the gun shoots. I will use 4895 powder and 150 grain bullets. Probably around 43 grains. Before each round, I will point the muzzle skyward and slowly lower it to the bag, so the positioning of the powder in the case is consistent. And lots of protective clothing!!!

 

[tark]

Just checked Lyman's 49th. 46 gr of 4895 will give me almost 2700 FPS, with 36,900 PSI. That should do it.

 

[Bexar]

Would magna-fluxing show any pending failures?

 

[rcmodel]

No.

They hopefully aren't cracked, so Magna flux would have nothing to find.

They may be glass hard and snapper, but it wouldn't be able to tell that.

There are no reliable tests for them.

rc

 

[Jim K]

The problem is not pressure as such, it is a sharp blow dealt to a brittle receiver. One blew when fired with a round ball and 9 grains of Bullseye, the owner's "rat shooting load".

The way ammunition comes into it was that some WWI era ammo, for whatever reason, failed, releasing gas into the action. That was the "sharp blow" needed to break those receivers apart. No receiver could handle that kind of gas escape without damage; the difference is that a good receiver would stretch or even be torn apart, but not shatter as the brittle receivers did. It is the difference between hammering on a tin can and hammering on a glass bottle.

Jim