Grim Peeper
Member
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2010
- Messages
- 317
Oh ok good to know. It’s definitely 06 by the ser# So does that mean there were no receiver failures for the 1906 rifles? The chart doesn’t go back to 1906. Looks like 1918 was a bad year. Lol
Is this 1903 safe to shoot?
- Thread starter Grim Peeper
- Start date
- Status
saiga308
Member
humm
Ball
In the U.S. the Ball round was originally loaded with a 150-grain cupronickel jacketed bullet referred to as the "M1906" bullet, for obvious reasons. WWI made the military rethink this as the use of machine guns at relatively long range required a heavier bullet. Towards the end of WWI and for several years after, the U.S. experimented with different heavier bullets.
[/QUOTE]
http://cartridgecollectors.org/?page=introduction-to-30-06-cartridges
Ball
In the U.S. the Ball round was originally loaded with a 150-grain cupronickel jacketed bullet referred to as the "M1906" bullet, for obvious reasons. WWI made the military rethink this as the use of machine guns at relatively long range required a heavier bullet. Towards the end of WWI and for several years after, the U.S. experimented with different heavier bullets.
[/QUOTE]
http://cartridgecollectors.org/?page=introduction-to-30-06-cartridges
saiga308
Member
so far i cant see any issues with a 1906 production numbers i think your out of the woods
but thats my story ..so dont trust it dont use 1918 /19
ammo
Grim Peeper
Member
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2010
- Messages
- 317
Yeah looks like a lot of those failures in 1918 must have been due to that ammo experientation. This is very interesting to me! Thanks for all the great info!
saiga308
Member
yours was rebuilt in 11-1919? i see it stamped, this one was rebult to 9-44 1944
video time 6:08
saiga308
Member
i think your safe start low at 32 grains IMR 4895 loads and work up but not to top loads keep checking for any stress to the bolt and groves in the receiver
yours 1906‑28001‑75000 should be ok
this one below was a 1913 production
1913‑217802‑234830
Grim Peeper
Member
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2010
- Messages
- 317
Thanks. Is there any ammo on store shelves that is safe. I don’t reload 30-06. I have a pouch filled with 30-06 bullets but I think they are 150 grain or higher Remington core lokt.
Last edited:
saiga308
Member
your barrel was replace in 11-1919 by the way
this guy rifle was stamp in 18
this guy rifle was stamp in 18
saiga308
Member
so i bet its even stronger
mustanger98
Member
IIRC, one of the major American ammo manufacturers offers a "reduced recoil" load, which means it don't kick as hard. However, recoil is ft.lbs. generated bullet weight and speed. The times I've read about it, chamber pressures weren't measured and were treated as unrelated.
Deltaboy1984
Member
Build some reduced handloads the targets or Deer will know and difference!
saiga308
Member
whoa! you should start your limmited to 125 lite grain store boughts for a work up
https://www.midwayusa.com/product/1...ion-30-06-springfield-125-grain-sst-box-of-20
saiga308
Member
his rifle has been sporterized and barrel was replace in 1919 see stock foregrip so i bet some ones been shooting full loads already threw it in the past so it been already tested
saiga308
Member
mustanger98
Member
1- I saw where this part was already discussed.
2- While the stock is a customized sporter job, the barrel and sight are govt issue.
3- Reread the question I was responding to.
His rifle has survived so far. This has also been covered.
Remington made(haven't seen if they still do) a reduced recoil load. I'm pretty sure others do as well. For some interested in shooting a gun like this with factory ammo I would contact Remington, or whom ever else you find that makes a reduced load, and see if they will tell you what pressures their loads are supposed to spec.
Like I said I have a buddy, with one of these low serial 1903s and he does shoot it with factory spec ammo.
I don't let him shoot it next to me......
saiga308
Member
i see nothing in 1906So just to be clear your saying since there are no record incidents of 1906 manufactured rifles exploding, it's safe to shoot modern factory spec rounds from the rifle?
saiga308
Member
ah? records have a paper trail of showing that year is looking good, for old type of m1906 ammo used back then
https://alchetron.com/Improved-Military-Rifle
Last edited:
Ok just checking, I wasn't clear on what you meant.ah? records have a paper trail of showing that year is looking good, for old type of m1906 ammo used back then
View attachment 802931
Again I'd still avoid using even ammo spec'd to original. Even if the 05 and 06s ARE ok, it's still more risk than I like.
But again thats up to each shooter to decide for themselves.
How do you know this? I will bet that you assume that Hatcher's data base is accurate, comprehensive and that every low number that blew up is recorded there. How do you know this to be true? By absence of records? I am going to say, that Hatcher's data base is not complete or exhaustive. Prove me wrong.
I am going to claim that after 1927 (ish) that maintaining a database of low number failures was moot Around and about 1927 an Army board examined the problem of low number receivers, determined that 33% would fail in over pressure conditions, and then recommended that all low number receiver rifles be removed from service and scrapped. The Army made the decision to keep these defective rifles in service until they wore out, or blew up in front of someone's face. It takes time and money to create and track failures so why spend time and money on something of no value? What's the point of maintaining a failure database after that?
People just assume information is out there and available. Just where is that searchable database on Pedophile Priests? Just where is that searchable database on Medical Doctors who have had their license pulled by medical boards? Just where is that searchable database on all the patients who have died due to medical malpractice?. Where is that searchable database on Cop shootings.? Now there are people creating limited Pedophile Priest databases, and Cop Shooting databases, but I am going to claim, before the creation of these databases, there were no pedophile priests, no Medical Doctors ever had their licenses pulled, no patient every died of medical malpractice, and Cops never shot anyone. Absence of evidence is absence of incidents. Right? (the following is an attempt at sarcasm) If a tree falls in the forest and there is no one around to hear it, does it make a noise? Of course not, sound can only be generated in the presence of a person. Physical laws are dependent on humans being around and recording the event. Similarly, without a record of a failure, nothing failures.
What's the serial number of this rifle? Has to be in Hatcher's Database, because Hatcher's database is accurate and comprehensive. It if is not in Hatcher's Database, it does not exist. It must be a fraud, or it never existed in the first place.
Last edited:
someguy2800
Member
You are giving very reckless and ill informed advice
saiga308
Member
oGrim Peeper
Member
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2010
- Messages
- 317
Man this is tough call! I think I’ll have to go to the range at least once with some lower grain ammo. The chances of failure seem pretty low. I must say all this info has my brain spinning. All the you tube vids I’ve seen are of people enjoying and shooting their low numbered 1903 without a care. However I would be that one unlucky schmuck to get blasted in the face with a blown receiver. Lol
Slamfire and someguy2800 mostly covered what I would have said. Both are experienced riflemen and Slamfire in particular probably has written a book's worth of postings on the metallurgy, issued ammunition, safe firing, handloading, and shooting of military surplus rifles. Take that for what it is worth.
This is an old dispute between those that regularly shoot their low number 1903's and thus conclude their safety is proven by their own personal experiences versus those that note an unknown number of these rifles can be unsafe. It comes up regularly on every gun board forum eventually.
Nevertheless, no one that has to bear potential liability in court is willing to say that shooting a low number 1903 is "safe". The Army, the CMP, retailers such as Sarco, etc. decline to accept a legal duty to ensure safety of these rifles. For those of you that have such rifles and claim they are safe, would you be willing to accept liability in selling that rifle if in in the future that rifle blows up in the buyer's hands even 5-10 years later? Would you let your twelve year old child or grandchild shoot it because it is probably safe?
For the O/P, FYI
The low number Springfield 1903's heat treatment had documented problems and there were possibly metallurgy problems during the hurried ramp up after U.S. went into WWI (see the Watertown report for this). Barrel problems, ammunition problems, steel problems, unskilled workmen problems, a lot was swept under the rug to excuse America's lack of preparation for WWI and the hurried emergency atmosphere that was necessary to equip a huge army. Without a doubt, soldiers lives (and workers through arsenal explosions-Eddystone for example) were sacrificed to some degree to put something in the soldiers' hands to shoot (the Chauchat for example). A lot of this information came out during the 1919-1939 period when WWII promptly swept it off the nation's memory leaving only moldy government reports and faded news articles that few read or even knew existed.
Old THR thread on the 1903 https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/springfiield-1903-rifle.612283/
This is only one example of this conversation with the posters changing a bit but the arguments still being the same.
From what I have read, including some very informed sources that pulled original documents, workmen at Springfield prided themselves on judging temperature of the receivers by color. For example, "It was determined that the workers responsible for heat treating the receivers had used an "eyeball" method that relied on the color of the heated metal to determine if the steel had been heated to the correct temperature. Unfortunately, according to General Hatcher, the officer in charge of the investigation, "... it was quickly found that the ‘right heat’ as judged by the skillful eye of the old timers was up to 300 degrees hotter on a bright sunny day than it was on a dark cloudy one" (See Hatcher, Julian Hatcher’s Notebook , Third Edition, Stackpole Books, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, 1966, page 215). Heating to the higher temperatures led to crystallization of trace elements within the steel, making it too hard, and rather than deforming under high pressure, the receiver shattered, often permitting the bolt to exit the receiver, causing injury to the shooter. (as quoted in http://m1903.com/03rcvrfail/)
Regardless of the exact mechanism causing the problem, the result was in creating a deceptively strong form of high carbon steel (above the specs) but with the side effect of creating a potentially very brittle receiver that could shatter and cause injury. A classic example of this are knife blades that can hold an edge well but shatter if dropped or tool faces that can chip when using (reason for safety glasses). This problem has also been documented on bolts from that era which has been less commented upon.
Some gunsmiths of the era mention using a hammer to test receivers for brittleness prior to using them. Others mention dropping a receiver on a concrete floor and it shattering into pieces. None of these are accounted for in the govt. database. Furthermore, if you note the last year of the series coincided with the onset of the Great Depression, money became very scarce for the military and the focus became keeping as much manpower for cadre purposes rather than focus on new ammunition, new equipment etc. Since the later production of 1903 Springfields was more than sufficient for cadre purposes and little money existed for new production, the Army simply dropped the recommended bulk scrapping of old single heat treated receivers and left them in war reserves. At that point, I doubt that the military was much interested in documenting further incidences of bad receivers as they felt that they had better uses for the money and personnel elsewhere.
A few selected sources that you might consider worthy,
Here is what the CMP (Civilian Marksmanship Program) has to say about it-who sold countless numbers of 1903's along with the predecessor DCM organization. http://thecmp.org/cmp_sales/rifle_sales/m1903-m1903a3/
Sarco has a few low number receivers for sale but will only sell them to someone who agrees not to build them into rifles to be fired.
"SPRINGFIELD 1903 ‘LOW NUMBER’ RECEIVERS (For ‘Early 03’ Collectors Only )
Deep in the recesses of the warehouse from a batch of receivers purchased over 25 years ago, we have found a few ‘Early Serial Number’ receivers. These are sold only to make ‘collector low # guns’, and although made under government contract a century ago, you should consider these unsafe to fire because of metallurgy issues at the time of manufacture. Generally, they are regarded as a ‘single heat treat’ receiver used throughout WWI. We will only sell these with the condition that they are not to be fired if built into complete guns."
http://www.e-sarcoinc.com/springfield-1903-low-number-receiver.aspx
Lt. Col. Brophy, who used original ordnance documents to write his book, The Springfield 1903 Rifle, has this to say--. . .(I) do appeal to the '03 owner not to risk a blown-up rifle and serious injury. All of the early '03s are collector's items and should not be considered "shooters" (Brophy 1985, p. 558). He discusses both the original heat treatment of the 1903 on page 543 and the low number receiver issue on pages 557-558.
Here are some pictures of failed 1903 receivers that are not included in Hatcher's data and related discussion on gunboards.com
https://forums.gunboards.com/showthread.php?362000-1903-Springfield-Low-Number-1st-Shoot
Now, I've said my piece--and btw I have such a low number rifle and I even have the original era bolt in it. I will not shoot it--ever--I have a disabled firing pin with no tip in it and thinking about some way to ensure no future owner attempts to fire the thing unawares without doing something horrible like welding a plug in the chamber.
O/P, you get to make the call.
This is an old dispute between those that regularly shoot their low number 1903's and thus conclude their safety is proven by their own personal experiences versus those that note an unknown number of these rifles can be unsafe. It comes up regularly on every gun board forum eventually.
Nevertheless, no one that has to bear potential liability in court is willing to say that shooting a low number 1903 is "safe". The Army, the CMP, retailers such as Sarco, etc. decline to accept a legal duty to ensure safety of these rifles. For those of you that have such rifles and claim they are safe, would you be willing to accept liability in selling that rifle if in in the future that rifle blows up in the buyer's hands even 5-10 years later? Would you let your twelve year old child or grandchild shoot it because it is probably safe?
For the O/P, FYI
The low number Springfield 1903's heat treatment had documented problems and there were possibly metallurgy problems during the hurried ramp up after U.S. went into WWI (see the Watertown report for this). Barrel problems, ammunition problems, steel problems, unskilled workmen problems, a lot was swept under the rug to excuse America's lack of preparation for WWI and the hurried emergency atmosphere that was necessary to equip a huge army. Without a doubt, soldiers lives (and workers through arsenal explosions-Eddystone for example) were sacrificed to some degree to put something in the soldiers' hands to shoot (the Chauchat for example). A lot of this information came out during the 1919-1939 period when WWII promptly swept it off the nation's memory leaving only moldy government reports and faded news articles that few read or even knew existed.
Old THR thread on the 1903 https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/springfiield-1903-rifle.612283/
This is only one example of this conversation with the posters changing a bit but the arguments still being the same.
From what I have read, including some very informed sources that pulled original documents, workmen at Springfield prided themselves on judging temperature of the receivers by color. For example, "It was determined that the workers responsible for heat treating the receivers had used an "eyeball" method that relied on the color of the heated metal to determine if the steel had been heated to the correct temperature. Unfortunately, according to General Hatcher, the officer in charge of the investigation, "... it was quickly found that the ‘right heat’ as judged by the skillful eye of the old timers was up to 300 degrees hotter on a bright sunny day than it was on a dark cloudy one" (See Hatcher, Julian Hatcher’s Notebook , Third Edition, Stackpole Books, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, 1966, page 215). Heating to the higher temperatures led to crystallization of trace elements within the steel, making it too hard, and rather than deforming under high pressure, the receiver shattered, often permitting the bolt to exit the receiver, causing injury to the shooter. (as quoted in http://m1903.com/03rcvrfail/)
Regardless of the exact mechanism causing the problem, the result was in creating a deceptively strong form of high carbon steel (above the specs) but with the side effect of creating a potentially very brittle receiver that could shatter and cause injury. A classic example of this are knife blades that can hold an edge well but shatter if dropped or tool faces that can chip when using (reason for safety glasses). This problem has also been documented on bolts from that era which has been less commented upon.
Some gunsmiths of the era mention using a hammer to test receivers for brittleness prior to using them. Others mention dropping a receiver on a concrete floor and it shattering into pieces. None of these are accounted for in the govt. database. Furthermore, if you note the last year of the series coincided with the onset of the Great Depression, money became very scarce for the military and the focus became keeping as much manpower for cadre purposes rather than focus on new ammunition, new equipment etc. Since the later production of 1903 Springfields was more than sufficient for cadre purposes and little money existed for new production, the Army simply dropped the recommended bulk scrapping of old single heat treated receivers and left them in war reserves. At that point, I doubt that the military was much interested in documenting further incidences of bad receivers as they felt that they had better uses for the money and personnel elsewhere.
A few selected sources that you might consider worthy,
Here is what the CMP (Civilian Marksmanship Program) has to say about it-who sold countless numbers of 1903's along with the predecessor DCM organization. http://thecmp.org/cmp_sales/rifle_sales/m1903-m1903a3/
Sarco has a few low number receivers for sale but will only sell them to someone who agrees not to build them into rifles to be fired.
"SPRINGFIELD 1903 ‘LOW NUMBER’ RECEIVERS (For ‘Early 03’ Collectors Only )
Deep in the recesses of the warehouse from a batch of receivers purchased over 25 years ago, we have found a few ‘Early Serial Number’ receivers. These are sold only to make ‘collector low # guns’, and although made under government contract a century ago, you should consider these unsafe to fire because of metallurgy issues at the time of manufacture. Generally, they are regarded as a ‘single heat treat’ receiver used throughout WWI. We will only sell these with the condition that they are not to be fired if built into complete guns."
http://www.e-sarcoinc.com/springfield-1903-low-number-receiver.aspx
Lt. Col. Brophy, who used original ordnance documents to write his book, The Springfield 1903 Rifle, has this to say--. . .(I) do appeal to the '03 owner not to risk a blown-up rifle and serious injury. All of the early '03s are collector's items and should not be considered "shooters" (Brophy 1985, p. 558). He discusses both the original heat treatment of the 1903 on page 543 and the low number receiver issue on pages 557-558.
Here are some pictures of failed 1903 receivers that are not included in Hatcher's data and related discussion on gunboards.com
https://forums.gunboards.com/showthread.php?362000-1903-Springfield-Low-Number-1st-Shoot
Now, I've said my piece--and btw I have such a low number rifle and I even have the original era bolt in it. I will not shoot it--ever--I have a disabled firing pin with no tip in it and thinking about some way to ensure no future owner attempts to fire the thing unawares without doing something horrible like welding a plug in the chamber.
O/P, you get to make the call.
- Status
