Is this 1903 safe to shoot?

[NIGHTLORD40K]

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.

You're probably thinking of Remington Managed Recoil or Hornady Custom Lite. I have shot the 125 grain Remington's successfully in my '11 production Springfield, but they were unavailable for awhile, not sure about now.

Not recommending you do, just saying I have.......

 

[boom boom]

One of the reported kabooms in the Hatcher database was using a reduced gallery load. The problem is the brittle steel and in the gunboards link--the guy was hitting those receivers with a plastic hammer. Brittle steel cannot deform very much so an impact beyond its strength causes it to shatter--like a hammer or perhaps a bolt lug impacting on the receiver's lug recesses etc.

The only real test for safety in this case is destructive and makes the receiver totally worthless even if it passes.

Here is an example-http://www.materials.unsw.edu.au/tutorials/online-tutorials/1-brittle-fracture-surface
Here is a list of embrittlement types and causes https://www.tec-eurolab.com/eu-en/embrittlement-of-steels.aspx
Lecture notes on heat treatment effects on carbon steel. http://eng.sut.ac.th/metal/images/stories/pdf/14_Brittle_fracture_and_impact_testing-8-20.pdf

It is the same reason that people are leery of welds on a receiver or a firearm that has been through a fire--the effects can be unpredictable as the metal's properties have been changed.

 

[Whiterook808]

If I remember my Hatcher correctly, this problem turned up with defective ammo produced by one supplier. The cartridge cases failed which caused the receiver to shatter. I have a low number RI and I will not fire it, even with reduced loads. I have had people tell me that with good ammo (well made) they will not fail, but it is just not worth the risk. This rifle stays in my safe as a collectible only. Maybe you should consider the $250 a lesson learned and don't pass it on to someone without their knowing of the issue. You were wise to post on this forum, but the next guy may not be so smart. I am sorry if I got up on my soap box there, but I just don't want to see you or anyone else harmed.

 

[saiga308]

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

but thiers always a bright side or flash right before the pain!

 

[LoonWulf]

but thiers always a bright side or flash right before the pain!

Morbid.... funny, but morbid

 

[Slamfire]

You know the thing is, no one here can prove your rifle is safe or unsafe. Lyonites will try to persuade you that the thing is safe, by referring to a bogus study. I could spend more time mud slinging at Dr Lyon's paper study, but it won't change their minds. Several people here have shown reasons why these things are a risk. Even if the risk of a blowup is small, the consequences are huge. I have found a reference to a person who was killed by a SHT. A very early article tells of a shooter having half a face blown off. Maybe nothing will happen. But, you want a hook for a hand, want to be known as "Hooky" by your friends, or "Glassy" for the glass eye? All those characters egging you on, they won't lose a body part. You lose a body part, it does not come back after the commercials. How much risk, and how much damage are you willing to accept, to fire some $500.00 rifle. What if it was a $250.00 rifle?

You just have to have one hospital visit to find that one day in the surgery ward is tens of thousands of dollars. Sometimes closer to $100K . You have insurance that covers everything except, $10,000 in deductibles?

The Army decided it was just cheaper to issue these defective rifles and injure their Soldiers. But, you can refuse to fire the thing if you want. I would take the barrel off, a WW1 barrel is hard to find, and sell the parts, and set the receiver aside.

 

[fpgt72]

This comes up from time to time, have we never seen any other gun of any kind blow up?

Have we never seen commercial ammo be screwed up that caused a blow up, or not go off at all. I had one round in a box with no primer, and powder all over the place.

IMHO, and it is just that one idiot on the internet safe behind his keyboard, is shoot it, I hand load for mine, and shoot the same loads out of it that I shoot out of my garand....no difference I really think it is no more likely to go kaboom at this stage then any other rifle of like age.....well I will not count vetterli in 6.5....those are a bad idea 100 years ago and it is only worse now....if converted to smokeless I would only view those as wall hangers, now the smokey versions no issue to me.

 

[someguy2800]

Man this is tough call! I think I’ll have to go to the range at least once with some lower grain ammo.

I want to make an important distinction here. The pressure generated in a cartridge is not dependent on the grains of the bullet. The pressure and resulting bolt thrust are determined also by the powder burn rate and the powder load. This means that you can have a 110 grain bullet or a 220 grain bullet in a 30-06 develop the same 60,000 psi max pressure, you just need to use a faster burning powder to get that pressure. Lighter bullet does not mean safer. Also do not assume that reduced recoil loads are necessarily low pressure. People often make reduced recoil loads using small charges of fast pistol powders in rifle cases, and although this can be done perfectly safely, they can generate just as much pressure as a full power load because of the fast burn speed of the powder. Likewise do not assume that the factory availible reduced recoil ammo is also of reduced pressure. I do not know what they are using to load the stuff but its more likely a smaller charge of a faster powder.

If you want an actual low pressure loading with real life pressure tested data rather than internet guesswork I recommend you consult the Lyman reloading manual. They have actual pressure tested loads down in the teens for pressure. Here is an exert of the 30-06 cast bullet page of the manual.



As Slamfire explained very well nobody can tell you what load is safe in your rifle. Its possible it could go a lifetime of shooting modern factory ammo oblivious to the risks, or it could blow up in your hands with the next gallery load. If it were mine I would probably load up some cast bullets in the 20,000 psi range maximum using the above data, shoot it infrequently, and put it away with the bolt stored separately wrapped in a note saying the rifle is not safe to fire factory ammo. At that pressure level even if the receiver were to crack it would basically turn it into a 45 acp blowback action and the risk of a case head failure which would generate shrapnel is greatly reduced. Always a good idea to where safety glasses with older military rifles that don't have good gas venting.

saiga308, study the above pressure data and note that powder weight or velocity has no bearing whatsoever on pressure. Note that for the bullet on the upper left that 14 grains of 700x generates 11,000 psi more pressure than 32 grains of 5744. It is important to understand why.

 

[Whiterook808]

I have also heard of issues with the single heat treated bolts made during the same period being brittle. I once bought a 1928 '03 and it had an older bolt in it. I bought a DHT Or NS (I can't recall now) bolt, just to be safe. Yes, I have headspace gauges. The new bolts are marked and the older SHT ones are not, if I recall correctly. Sorry this is all from memory, but my reference books are all boxed up and in storage.

 

[Slamfire]

As Slamfire explained very well nobody can tell you what load is safe in your rifle. Its possible it could go a lifetime of shooting modern factory ammo oblivious to the risks, or it could blow up in your hands with the next gallery load.

So true. The picture of the blown rifle and the shooter's face is an example. If anyone wanted to follow up, that rifle came from Micheal Petrov. If my memory is correct it was sold before Petrov died. I read the Obituary, all the education I could find was that Petrov had a GED, had not worked Quality Control, did not have a metallurgical background. Petrov was a star crossed lover of 03's, Townsend Whelen, and a stout Lyonite. I had commented into threads of his, he did conduct a test of SHT where he put a 8mm Mauser cartridge in two SHT receiver rifles then claimed they did not blow up. He removed the pictures before I saw them, but that is a remarkable test. It does not prove anything about the quality of the entire production, nor the quality of the material used. That's the problem, inconsistent materials and poor process controls. Even the Army was unable to re heat treat or do anything with the inventory in stock, because the metallurgical characteristics varied so much, and burnt steel cannot be re heat treated back to good. I used to argue against his advocacy for shooting SHT rifles on Culver's, he did what he wanted to do. The pictured rifle in post eight was one that Petrov had personally fired with 150 or 168 grain bullets and 45 grs IMR 4895, pressures for which should have been in the 30,000 psia range. It would have been poetic justice had the rifle blown up in Petrov's face, he died first, but Petrov convinced the buyer of his rifle of the structural integrity of the thing.


I have talked second hand to two individuals who knew of bolts blowing out of two modern rifles. At one match, the guy who had a rifle bolt blow through his upper arm, including the bone, was up at the big end of the range, and I did not visit. The injured party worked for Speer (I think) and the rifle he was testing on the bench, had a locking insert, which rotated, so when the cartridge was fired, the bolt was not locked. I heard of an accident at Oak Ridge from an eye witness where the shooter had a similar failure, an insert rotated, the bolt went through the guy's jaw, then shoulder, and was picked up 100 yards behind the firing pin. There will never be any detailed reports of these things on the web, but you know, it could have been worse.

There are risk takers, and you know, just do what you want. How about BASE jumping? This is the sport for thrill seekers, and a very high probability of dying. Check out the list, and the short summaries. I am certain many of the BASE jumpers on the list knew individuals who preceded them, and it made no difference to their attitude or their activities.

BASE Fatality List https://www.blincmagazine.com/forum/wiki_index.php?title=BASE_Fatality_List

 

[fguffey]

Wow. Read the information. Seems like even if it passes the proof load, over a period of time the metal can eventually “give”. Looked at the pictures and I could see where someone could easily be killed when the lugs go and the bolt comes straight back into the shooters face

I made the mistake of listing bolts I have that have sheared and or cracked lugs and I even went so far as to say it was impossible for the bolt to exit the rear of the receiver. All of the cracked and or sheared bolts were Mauser. I know; Springfield never saw a 98 Mauser, the 03 had two lugs in front and one in the rear. I know it was just a coincidence the Maiser had three lugs as in two in front and one in the rear; there was a difference. The Mauser rear lug was on the bottom when the bolt was closed.

Back to the bolt hitting the shooter in the face when the lugs sheared; the bolt exiting the rear on an 03 is impossible because the third lug is a safety lug.

I was impressed with Springfield because the third lug on the 03 is visible, I thought that was a stroke of genius; and then I was told Springfield did not have a plan for it. Anyhow; I used the lug to determine case clearance between the shoulder of the case and shoulder of the chamber.

F. Guffey

 

[Merle1]

You know the thing is, no one here can prove your rifle is safe or unsafe. Lyonites will try to persuade you that the thing is safe, by referring to a bogus study. I could spend more time mud slinging at Dr Lyon's paper study, but it won't change their minds. Several people here have shown reasons why these things are a risk. Even if the risk of a blowup is small, the consequences are huge. I have found a reference to a person who was killed by a SHT. A very early article tells of a shooter having half a face blown off. Maybe nothing will happen. But, you want a hook for a hand, want to be known as "Hooky" by your friends, or "Glassy" for the glass eye? All those characters egging you on, they won't lose a body part. You lose a body part, it does not come back after the commercials. How much risk, and how much damage are you willing to accept, to fire some $500.00 rifle. What if it was a $250.00 rifle?

You just have to have one hospital visit to find that one day in the surgery ward is tens of thousands of dollars. Sometimes closer to $100K . You have insurance that covers everything except, $10,000 in deductibles?

The Army decided it was just cheaper to issue these defective rifles and injure their Soldiers. But, you can refuse to fire the thing if you want. I would take the barrel off, a WW1 barrel is hard to find, and sell the parts, and set the receiver aside.

Read this very carefully, and consider the aftermath if you are the unlucky one.

 

[saiga308]

If it were mine I would probably load up some cast bullets in the 20,000 psi range maximum using the above data, shoot it infrequently, and put it away with the bolt stored separately wrapped in a note saying the rifle is not safe to fire factory ammo. At that pressure level even if the receiver were to crack it would basically turn it into a 45 acp blowback action and the risk of a case head failure which would generate shrapnel is greatly reduced. Always a good idea to where safety glasses with older military rifles that don't have good gas venting.

saiga308, study the above pressure data and note that powder weight or velocity has no bearing whatsoever on muzzle velocity. Note that for the bullet on the upper left that 14 grains of 700x generates 11,000 psi more pressure than 32 grains of 5744. It is important to understand why.

i see those cast loads are really safe in pressure campaired to even undercharged loads

I made the mistake of listing bolts I have that have sheared and or cracked lugs and I even went so far as to say it was impossible for the bolt to exit the rear of the receiver. All of the cracked and or sheared bolts were Mauser. I know; Springfield never saw a 98 Mauser, the 03 had two lugs in front and one in the rear. I know it was just a coincidence the Maiser had three lugs as in two in front and one in the rear; there was a difference. The Mauser rear lug was on the bottom when the bolt was closed.

Back to the bolt hitting the shooter in the face when the lugs sheared; the bolt exiting the rear on an 03 is impossible because the third lug is a safety lug.

I was impressed with Springfield because the third lug on the 03 is visible, I thought that was a stroke of genius; and then I was told Springfield did not have a plan for it. Anyhow; I used the lug to determine case clearance between the shoulder of the case and shoulder of the chamber.

F. Guffey

i don have a saftey lug in my k11 308, only two HUGE ONES but i am partly crazy so its ok for me to shoot it anyway

 

[Whiterook808]

I found this on the CMP website, just in case any of you want to check your bolts:


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.

In view of the safety risk the Ordnance Department withdrew from active service all “low-number” Springfields. During WWII, however, the urgent need for rifles resulted in the rebuilding and reissuing of many “low-number” as well as “high-number” Springfields. The bolts from such rifles were often mixed during rebuilding, and did not necessarily remain with the original receiver.

Generally speaking, “low number” bolts can be distinguished from “high-number” bolts by the angle at which the bolt handle is bent down. All “low number” bolts have the bolt handle bent straight down, perpendicular to the axis of the bolt body. High number bolts have “swept-back” (or slightly rearward curved) bolt handles.

A few straight-bent bolts are of the double heat-treat type, but these are not easily identified, and until positively proved otherwise ANY straight-bent bolt should be assumed to be “low number”. All original swept-back bolts are definitely “high number”. In addition, any bolt marked “N.S.” (for nickel steel) can be safely regarded as “high number” if obtained directly from CMP (beware of re-marked fakes).

CMP DOES NOT RECOMMEND FIRING ANY SPRINGFIELD RIFLE WITH A ”LOW NUMBER” RECEIVER. SUCH RIFLES SHOULD BE REGARDED AS COLLECTOR’S ITEMS, NOT “SHOOTERS”.
CMP ALSO DOES NOT RECOMMEND FIRING ANY SPRINGFIELD RIFLE, REGARDLESS OF SERIAL NUMBER, WITH A SINGLE HEAT-TREATED “LOW NUMBER” BOLT. SUCH BOLTS, WHILE HISTORICALLY CORRECT FOR DISPLAY WITH A RIFLE OF WWI OR EARLIER VINTAGE, MAY BE DANGEROUS TO USE FOR SHOOTING.
THE UNITED STATES ARMY GENERALLY DID NOT SERIALIZE BOLTS. DO NOT RELY ON ANY SERIAL NUMBER APPEARING ON A BOLT TO DETERMINE WHETHER SUCH BOLT IS “HIGH NUMBER” OR “LOW NUMBER”.

 

[Slamfire]

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.

I would like to say that the heat treat is more or less a misdirection from the real problem: lack of temperature gages and a chaotic factory process control. There is a 1917 report of a rifle that made it out the door, without the receiver being heat treated!. The single heat treat was a simple heat and quench, not the best, could have been better, but if the receivers and bolts were all heated by eye in the forge room, then heated by eye in the heat treat, it really does not matter what type of heat treat is being used, parts are going to burn. Springfield Armory was shut down in a shooting war, this would have been hugely embarrassing had the information gotten out in the public. If an adult had been in charge, M1903 production would have ended right there. If you can shut down production of the M1903 and not affect the war effort, I don't see any reason to spend lots of money to put the rifle back into production.The Doughboys had all the M1917's they needed, and that should have become the future service rifle. But, Ordnance Officers were protecting their buddies and billets.

If you read the Annual Reports, what is evident is a complete management and process restructure occurred during that time period. Ten full time, professional staff are hired for the new Metallurgical Department. Articles written in the 1920's show that the Metallurgical Department is testing and checking the quality of parts throughout production, that there are finally pyrometers in place, none of this existed before 1918. Based on what I have read, the Army was not checking the steel quality in the SHT period, so the smart low bid vendor would send the crappest steel to the Arsenals, because Arsenal management did not know better. Let me say, ignorance is not a strength, if you don't know better, don't be surprised that your vendors figure out that out, and will make lots of profit, off your ignorance. They are in it for the profit, and profit now.

In print, the Army never admitted to having an antique factory floor, never put numbers out in the public domain on just how dangerous the SHT receivers could be. The Army's double heat treat hoopla is sort of like advertising copy for Improved Sudso Detergent: It's just more wonderful!. In my opinion the double heat treat was a bad idea, the double heat treat has to have been twice as expensive, but the base metals stayed Class A and Class C steels. Steels so low grade that today they are used in rail road ties and cheap grades of rebar. Basically junk steel with an expensive heat treat. Springfield Armory should have gone over to alloy steel, such as Rock Island did. Incidentally, the heat treatment for Nickel steel receivers, is a SHT. Based on talks with a guy who has researched this, I don't believe Springfield Arsenal dumped any of its SHT steel reserves, they kept the stuff til they ran out in the late 1920's. On Culver's a poster wrote he had been creating a list of reports M1903 failures, and that he had a documented list of 128 double heat treat failures. The double heat treat did not turn plain carbon steels into Adamantium.

 

[saiga308]

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.

but the op springfield 1906 has his bolt and barrel retrofited in 11-19 so i bet the receiver was reheated along with it

 

[Slamfire]

but the op springfield 1906 has his bolt and barrel retrofited in 11-19 so i bet the receiver was reheated along with it

There is absolutely no evidence that the Army ever re heated any single heat treat receivers, especially after the 1927 board concluded that 33% of reheated SHT receivers still failed in overpressure situations. As an analogy, you can't re toast burnt bread back to new. What the Army did, was scrap the receiver, if the rifle wore out, and made it to depot. If it blew up before then, something else happened. The Marine Corp kept theirs in service, but someone wrote that the Marine Corp inspected their rifle receivers with a big hammer. If the receiver failed with a hammer hit, the receiver was obviously bad. I don't think passing the test proves the receiver is good, it might fatigue fail later. The Navy, heck if I know. It mattered more that the Marines had functional weapons, because the Marines were on the ships to shoot mutinous Swabbies. !

 

[saiga308]

any one have stats data on a rebarrel ones blowing up ?

 

[Slamfire]

any one have stats data on a rebarrel ones blowing up ?

About as comprehensive as the stats on Hillary Clinton's emails.

 

[saiga308]

There is absolutely no evidence that the Army ever re heated any single heat treat receivers, especially after the 1927 board concluded that 33% of reheated SHT receivers still failed in overpressure situations. As an analogy, you can't re toast burnt bread back to new. What the Army did, was scrap the receiver, if the rifle wore out, and made it to depot. If it blew up before then, something else happened. The Marine Corp kept theirs in service, but someone wrote that the Marine Corp inspected their rifle receivers with a big hammer. If the receiver failed with a hammer hit, the receiver was obviously bad. I don't think passing the test proves the receiver is good, it might fatigue fail later. The Navy, heck if I know. It mattered more that the Marines had function weapons, because the Marines were on the ships to shoot mutinous Swabbies. !

can a drill test like a drill and tap the top of the receiver be done to see it its hard as stone to drill then they would know its bad forge

 

[someguy2800]

but the op springfield 1906 has his bolt and barrel retrofited in 11-19 so i bet the receiver was reheated along with it

If you would take that bet then someone else would have your money.

 

[saiga308]

If you would take that bet then someone else would have your money.

what about the punch test done by thre marines?

You can also seen punch test marks that were found under the stock on the receiver for what looks like testing receiver strength

Regarding the punch marks on the receiver; those look like marks typical of hardness testing

socan a new punch test on the receiver bottom say by a gunsmith determand if its brittle

 

[saiga308]

its that a punch test on this one by the serial number to the left and under it

From Wikipedia:

"Hatcher was later instrumental in developing a solution to the vexing problem of brittle metal in early M1903 receivers built by Springfield and Rock Island Arsenals. His solution was to drill a hole in the receiver adjacent to breech. Dubbed the "Hatcher Hole", the modification was typically added to receivers at overhaul."

 

[saiga308]

i see the op has no punch marks or drill holes into the reciever??
wait it think i see it now look closer its hidden by the angel under the 66

check out these 06/1907 productions they have punch drill holes but the op doesnt?


http://www.jouster2.com/forums/showthread.php?50919-Two-very-early-Rock-Island-1903-s-rifles

 

[Kendal Black]

Is this 1903 safe to shoot?

I would hang it on a wall for the admiration of passers-by. If you have more than one rifle you do not need to shoot it. That is the simplest solution.

If you somehow happen upon an original military stock to put on it that would improve the wall display, but even without it, you have a fine piece of history there.

I was offered an all-original Rock Island in the dangerous heat-treat range of serial numbers, and I passed, but the next customer snapped it up. I am of the minority opinion that the 1903 Springfield project was screwed up from the start. The rifle was a Mauser clone when better ideas were available. It was not producible in sufficient quantity when it was needed and relevant in WWI, so the majority of doughboys got 1917's. Rock Island's cracking receivers are emblematic of a project that was mishandled at each stage, including a sitting US President interfering in the design.

I should have bought that Rock Island... for the history.