1903 Springfield with a low serial number, 460,***

Status
Not open for further replies.
S

sfed

Member
Joined
May 16, 2012
Messages
158
Location
n fl
I bought a 1903 Springfield about 4 months ago. It had been Sporterized by someone before I bought it. I was in the process of restoring it with the correct stock and handguard with hardware that was used but in good shape when I learned that shooting any Springfield made with a serial number prior to 800,000 was dangerous and not recommended. I bought the book titled"For Collectors Only" "The Springfield Rifle and Its Variations" by Joe Poyer. While waiting on the parts and pieces to arrive I read this book and compared with my rifle the marks and stamps on the under side of the action/receiver. I have to admit I am somewhat confused on some of the statements in the book. It says there were some lower numbered receivers with punch marks approving them for continued use. Also confusing is the serial number range makes the receiver a 1914 and the barrel is stamped 10-15 on the top side of the muzzle. I assume it was rebarreled in 1915, the barrel has 4 lands and grooves and is in very good shape inside. The rifle also has the ladder type sight with markings up to 27. The book goes into great detail on the proper use of the ladder type sight. Now to my question!! Would it be irresponsible to fire this rifle with a lighter bullet around 130 grains and a lighter powder charge in the range of 60% of the maximum charge for the 130 grain bullet? In my opinion the rifle is in excellent mechanical shape and is back to original as far as the scant stock and handguard. The barrel is straight bright bore with no pitting rust or anything. I would be grateful for any advice regarding this rifle. It is a Springfield Armory made rifle.
 
Last edited:
During the time they were in use, several blew up using very low power, reduced load indoor galley ammo.

Were it me?
I would not shoot it.

It will ruin your day if it lets go at some point in the future.

BTW: There is a good discussion on them in this months American Rifleman magazine from the NRA.

They gave the same recommendation.

rc
 
There is a lot of information both pro and con about shooting a low number Springfield. Many of these rifles have survived one or two wars shooting lots of GI-ammo without blowing up. There is some evidence that many if not most of the "Ka-booms" suffered many years ago were because of bad ammo, not the fault of the gun. I have a low number Springfield which I regularly shoot but with low-pressure cast bullet loads. I treat this rifle like I do my 1898 Springfield/Krag. No point putting a lot of stress on an antique when I have modern guns in which to shoot the hot stuff. Have it checked out by a competent gunsmith who knows mil-surp rifles just to be sure.
 
Thanks for the reply rc model

I was almost convinced to just do what I had originally planned on doing and hang it over the mantle. The restore job came out really nice in my opinion. It is awfully hard to look at a rifle this nice and not be able to use it. I will respect your opinion and hang it over the mantle for a novelty and leave it at that. Thanks sfed
 
Thanks for the reply Curator, I am going to heed rc model`s reply and hang it over the mantle. A lot of history behind these rifles and I want to keep it all in one piece.
 
I had picked up and read some of this months American Rifleman magazine and did not get that far into it, I just read the article you referred to and again I am convinced to hang it up as a historic relic. Thanks again rc model.
 
I have one very similar to the OP. I've read the articles, understand the risks, and I still take it out and shoot it from time to time. However I will not let anyone else shoot it. I also use only good quality standard velocity factory ammo, no fancy hi-power stuff. IIRC the number of failed rifles was in the sub 20 range. What was that serial cutoff again? 800,000 for SA? After two world wars and thousands of rounds fired I feel pretty comforable with my rifle. That's just me, everyone has to make their own choices.
 
The Hatcher information that I read years ago left me with the distinct impression that the real danger with low-number 03s only came from lower case failures, like casehead separations.

Situations that suddenly dump a HUGE amount of pressure into the breech area can cause the "burned-steel" receivers that were improperly heated, in rare instances, to fail catastrophically.
 
In the book I bought written by Joe Poyer, he has rounded up all sorts of history about the 1903 Springfield made by Springfield Armory, Rock Island Arsenal, Remington, and a few others. He goes into great detail about all the variations and rebuilds, rebarrels and refits. I have decided the best thing to do is to just display it and enjoy it hanging on the wall. I could not see risking injury to myself or others trying to shoot it. It is a testament to the era of the United States and England (they built a version of the 1903 also) ramping up production prior to WW1 and it came back into use in WW2 then it was returned to service in Korea and in Viet Nam! I will proudly hang my 1903 on the wall as a reminder of what can be built in a time of need in the very beginning or I should say the end of the 19th century and beginning of the 20th century.
 
Some thoughts or options.

First, is it possible to have a metallurgist test the metal for strength? I admit I have no idea. It may cost more than its worth.

Also, if it's unsafe to shoot, perhaps tag it to prevent someone accidently using it.
 
You know, the Marines rebarreled a lot of low numbered 1903's and used them just prior to their adopting the M1 Garand, so they weren't too concerned. The original issue was with some rifles manufacturered during WW1 when they put on additional help to put more rifles out the door. But, rather than put out a warning for from a beginning serial # to an ending serial #, they just said all serial #'s prior to adopting the new heat treat method that was instituted.

Don
 
I also have a low number (479,xxx) '03. It was one of the "NRA Sales" gun from 1912, and is in near mint condition. The barrel, though, shows evidence that it has been fairly well shot over the years. I only shoot my own handloads through it, and those are light bullets over starting load pressures. It doesn't bother me at all to shoot it, as the chamber has been ported, and it hasn't catastrophically failed in the first 100 years. They are wonderful rifles. Admittedly, though, I am browsing for an A3 to be my regular shooter; mostly to preserve the pristine state of this rifle.

If there's anything about it that makes you uncomfortable, though, sfed, you probably shouldn't shoot yours.
 
carbine85 said:
Just to clarify, your rifle is made by Springfield? It's not a Rock Island or another maker?

This might help http://m1903.com/03rcvrfail/
Click to expand...

Springfield and Rock Island receivers are the only ones in question.

WWII production of 1903 rifles are not included.

Interesting article.

Fortunately, my 1903 Springfield is higher than the limit for them so I do not have a concern. I was lucky when I got it not having heard about the limitation before.

Having said that, I probably would not shoot a <800,000 serial number 1903. I would be disappointed though.
 
In order to test the action it's necessary to destroy the action during testing, so that's out.
Doing a Rockwell test won't tell you what you need to know.
Again, read this month's American Rifleman, it has a nice write up on why the early 1903's are dangerous and why any shooting with anything just isn't safe.

As for the Army and Marines continuing to use the rifles, there was a bloody war on, we didn't have nearly enough rifles to go around, and it was simply a cost-benefit analysis that said that having rifles were they were desperately needed outweighed a few soldiers or marines being seriously injured or even killed.

So, that decision was made FOR them and if a few people hit the unlucky number, well, that's war.
We can make the choice for ourselves, but if you shoot one, be a gentleman and make sure no one is near by to get hurt.

The idea that the rifle has been fired thousands of times over 100 years and is hasn't blown yet, so it's safe is also a non-starter.
It may let go the 10th shot or the 5,000th shot or it may let go the NEXT shot. There's no way to know, which is why these early 1903's are literally playing Russian Roulette.

As I've explained it in the past, take a large caliber revolver.
Load one round in the cylinder, spin it and close the cylinder.
Put it to your head and pull the trigger.

Now take an early 1903.
Load into the chamber the most powerful Service Rifle cartridge ever used.
Put your face RIGHT behind the receiver and pull the trigger.

Notice how similar the two experiments are?
 
Last edited:
Springfield and Rock Island receivers are the only ones in question.
Click to expand...
It makes a difference in the serial number range as to which is effected. Some people also refer to the 1903 as a "Springfield" so I just wanted to clarify the manufacturer.
 
So, that decision was made FOR them and if a few people hit the unlucky number, well, that's war.
Click to expand...

So, the question is, did any Marines draw an "unlucky number" with the rebarrelled low number Springfield's? There is no information that I know of that indicates that this ever took place. In addition, there was one other factor that played into this. The ammo used when these low numbered Springfields were still in use contained cupro-nickel bullets. In addition to causing excessive fouling, these bullets had a nasty habit of cold soldering to the case necks (imagine epoxying bullets when you load them), and we can only guess at what pressure levels were attained using some of this ammo. So, there is many things that should be considered with these rifles, and that is why I stated that I would have no problem using one as a cast bullet rifle.

Don
 
The affected "low" serials for the 2 companies Springfield is <800,000 and Rock Island Arsenal <285,506.
And now, my disclaimer -- I do have one of the low serial Springfields and a low serial Rock Island as well, I do shoot them occasionally with my lower end loads.
You keeping it as a wall hanger is a good idea as we each take the risks that we are comfortable with.
In my case, I read the article referenced in the link above back when I had first gotten the low serial Springfield and I wanted to learn about it. I made a decision to shoot them based on the information presented there.
One correction to a poster above -- it was more than 20 failures total. The article cites Hatcher's notebook and lists 58.
 
Everyone can do what they want to do with low-number Springfield's.

Myself?

Just thinking about the possible ramifications of a shattered receiver would have me shutting my eyes and gritting my teeth every shot!

Pretty sure the damage it would do to my rifle shooting ability would be far worse then any enjoyment I could possibly get out of shooting one regularly.

But, that's just me.

Call me a coward who wants to protect his shooting ability without flinching as long as I can!

rc
 
My guess is that a 1915 barrel on a 1914 receiver would not indicate that the gun had been rebarrelled. (It would not have been shot that much in one year, under peacetime conditions, to require a rebarrel.) More likely, it was originally assembled in 1915 with a receiver that had been in inventory.

This much I know for sure, though: a "scant" stock (that is, a partial pistol grip stock) is not correct for your gun. The scant stocks were a WWII economy measure, when they tried to emulate "C" style pistol grip stocks with too-small wood blanks. Scant stocks properly belong on late Remington-made M1903's, and on M1903A3's. In any case they look terrible. A straight-grip stock has much better aesthetics.

Never hang a gun that you care about over the fireplace. Wood smoke, and temperature variations, will eventually damage it.
 
With this, more Drama Queen than Coward.
Click to expand...
Thankya! Thankya!!

But have You ever had a gun blow up in your face??

I have.

It takes a long time to get over the flinch the next time, and the next time you shoot.

:rolleyes:

rc
 
Low#

During the time they were in use, several blew up using very low power, reduced load indoor galley ammo.
Click to expand...
That detail is news to me. I am not sure that it is correct.
There were 70 documented failures that were detailed by Hatcher. These occurred using wartime produced ammo - a few with the wrong ammo or with clogged bores.
Some production lots of Springfield produced rifles had no failures at all.....other lots had multiple failures.
Odds.....what was the percentage of failures? Numerically, based on known failures, about 0.00009%
What are the odds that one will fail? Pretty low.
And...y'know....a lot of the cautionary "you are gonna lose your eyesight" kinda stuff, while well intentioned, is based on a faulty premise. The premise is that every one of those 800,000 guns from SA is bad and given enough use will eventually blow up. That is just not true. The difficulty, of course, is not knowing exactly which and how many of the guns had brittle receivers.
The failure rate was low. Remember that the rifle went in to service in 1903. The recommendation not to fire was not made until 1929.
Pete
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

P
  • Locked
Springfield 03 low serial number ?
Replies
6
Views
605
Sunray
S
Y
  • Locked
Springfield 1903
Replies
3
Views
489
Tinpig
Tinpig
Sapper771
  • Locked
U.S. Springfield Armory Model of 1903....need info
Replies
19
Views
2K
billyhank1
B
C
  • Locked
1903 Safe to shoot?
2
Replies
26
Views
5K
buttrap
B
Palescarab
  • Locked
Low number M1903 Springfield
Replies
18
Views
2K
fpgt72
F
Back
Top