You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
1903 springfield
- Thread starter drg917
- Start date
- Status
-
Not open for further replies.
Mossyrock
Member
Like everything else, it depends.....
The bolts from the early, case hardened '03s were straight (similar to a Krag bolt). When they went to double heat treat, a slight rearward curve was added. You will occasionally find an early bolt in a later rifle. In fact, I just bought a nickle steel '03 with an early bolt. My first official act was to replace the bolt with a later WWII replacement bolt. I have read a couple of different places that you shouldn't fire an '03 with an early, straight bolt, regardless of the serial number of the action. Why risk it? The are plenty of replacement bolts out there.
The bolts from the early, case hardened '03s were straight (similar to a Krag bolt). When they went to double heat treat, a slight rearward curve was added. You will occasionally find an early bolt in a later rifle. In fact, I just bought a nickle steel '03 with an early bolt. My first official act was to replace the bolt with a later WWII replacement bolt. I have read a couple of different places that you shouldn't fire an '03 with an early, straight bolt, regardless of the serial number of the action. Why risk it? The are plenty of replacement bolts out there.
Here's some information dealing with 1903 receivers I copied and saved from a forum (this one?) a couple of years ago.:
"(Low numbered receivers are those with serial numbers below 800,000 made at Springfield Armory, and below 286,506 made at Rock Island Arsenal.) Some have stated emphatically no rifle with a low numbered receiver should ever be fired under any circumstance because of the risk of serious injury or death, but that high numbered receivers are perfectly safe."?
I haven't heard of a problem with the bolts.
"(Low numbered receivers are those with serial numbers below 800,000 made at Springfield Armory, and below 286,506 made at Rock Island Arsenal.) Some have stated emphatically no rifle with a low numbered receiver should ever be fired under any circumstance because of the risk of serious injury or death, but that high numbered receivers are perfectly safe."?
I haven't heard of a problem with the bolts.
Vern Humphrey
Member
There's a lot of research on the subject. It can be summarized as:
1. Early heat treating was by eye, at an out-doors forge. Ambient light conditions (overcast, versus bright sunlight) affected the craftsman's judgement about the right temperature.
2. Some Springfields had brittle ("burnt" or overheated receivers.)
3. Some Springfields blew up -- but not many. We have no idea how many Mausers or Lee Enfields blew up, so we can't compare. One epidemiologist analysed the data and concluded that the risk of firing a "Low number" Springfield to wear-out is about equal to smoking 14 cigarettes.
4. Blowups were never conclusively proven to be due to heat treatment -- other factors included tin-plated bullets (which chemically soldered themselves to the case) and troops "lubricating" bullets by dipping them in cosmoline to reduce fouling.
5. All three possible factors were corrected. Heat treating was changed at serial number 800,000 for Springfield, and 286,506 for Rock Island. The tin-plated ammo was withdrawn, and troops were cautioned not to lubricate the bullets before firing.
6. The low number Springfields were never withdrawn from service. In the Army, they remained in service until they needed an armory overhaul. At that point, the unit would be issued a replacement, and the overhauled low-number rifle would be placed in War Storage. The Marines kept theirs in service without replacements. Many a low-number Springfield landed on Guadalcanal.
Given the record, the odds are very good that any Springfield that was weak has long ago failed. Rifles that were used until a rebuild was necessary are safe, regardless of serial number.
There was never an issue with Springfield BOLTS. Some FIRING PINS broke, and the metalurgy was changed to prevent that.
1. Early heat treating was by eye, at an out-doors forge. Ambient light conditions (overcast, versus bright sunlight) affected the craftsman's judgement about the right temperature.
2. Some Springfields had brittle ("burnt" or overheated receivers.)
3. Some Springfields blew up -- but not many. We have no idea how many Mausers or Lee Enfields blew up, so we can't compare. One epidemiologist analysed the data and concluded that the risk of firing a "Low number" Springfield to wear-out is about equal to smoking 14 cigarettes.
4. Blowups were never conclusively proven to be due to heat treatment -- other factors included tin-plated bullets (which chemically soldered themselves to the case) and troops "lubricating" bullets by dipping them in cosmoline to reduce fouling.
5. All three possible factors were corrected. Heat treating was changed at serial number 800,000 for Springfield, and 286,506 for Rock Island. The tin-plated ammo was withdrawn, and troops were cautioned not to lubricate the bullets before firing.
6. The low number Springfields were never withdrawn from service. In the Army, they remained in service until they needed an armory overhaul. At that point, the unit would be issued a replacement, and the overhauled low-number rifle would be placed in War Storage. The Marines kept theirs in service without replacements. Many a low-number Springfield landed on Guadalcanal.
Given the record, the odds are very good that any Springfield that was weak has long ago failed. Rifles that were used until a rebuild was necessary are safe, regardless of serial number.
There was never an issue with Springfield BOLTS. Some FIRING PINS broke, and the metalurgy was changed to prevent that.
- Status
-
Not open for further replies.