RIA 1903 find with Question.

[Sapper771]

I found a Rock Island Armory 1903 rifle at a pawn shop. Serial number is 248XXX, which puts it in the low serial number class (brittle receivers). The barrel date was RA over the flaming bomb with 4-44. The barrel appeared to be a two groove barrel in good condition. "NS" stamped on bolt handle. Pistol gripped stock (scant?)that appears to be a replacement. Chewed up serrated butt plate. Price was $500.

I dont know much about 1903's but the low serial number with a 1944 barrel puzzled me. Could this be a non-military rebarrel ? Or did the military continue issuing the rifles even after they discovered the brittle receiver issue?

 

[desidog]

Could this be a non-military rebarrel ?

Probably; new surplus barrels used to be a dime a dozen.

I'm interested to read what others have to say on this....

 

[Sapper771]

I am wanting a 1903 style rifle to go with my 03-A3, but dont want to get burned again. This one has my interest, but my gut is saying this isnt the one. I have been wrong before though.

 

[Slamfire]

Federal Ordnance rebarreled a bunch of low and high number 03's with the parts they got out of the Philippines.

 

[AlexanderA]

It's a gun put together from miscellaneous parts. $500 is way too high for such a parts gun.

 

[wrench]

It is a military barrel, but who installed it, is unknown. The military did continue to use the 'low number' receivers during WWII. I guess they figured there was a war going on, and the risk was worth it.
That said, too much money for a low number parts gun.
Not really a collectors item as a rebuilt mixmaster, and not a shooter due to the low number receiver.
There are lots nicer 1903/03a3 rifles out there.

 

[madcratebuilder]

I dont know much about 1903's but the low serial number with a 1944 barrel puzzled me.

Low number '03's were not removed from service. They continued in service through war2. Most all went through at least one clean&repair and possible received a new barrel. Look for the re-arsenal stamp on left side of the stock. The "NS" (nickle steel) bolt is a desirable item.

The 'brittle' receiver only effects some early rifles and there is no real way to tell 100% if the rifle in question is a brittle receiver.

Good info here.

http://www.vishooter.net/m1903.html

 

[Sapper771]

Thank You all for the info.

Madcratebuilder,

Thanks for the link. Wish I had found that site a few years ago.

So it is possible that the lock and barrel are legitimate. The bolt is a RIA bolt ("NS" circa 1918) and the serial number puts the gun manufactured around 1917/1918.

The only thing left is the butt plate, stock, and trigger guard assembly.

 

[highpower]

The stock is a WWII replacement scant stock and the butt plate is from a Remington '03-A3. Really the only value it has is as a display piece.

The Marine Corps still used their low numbered Springfield's up through the beginning of WWII and retired them only when they were superseded by the M1 Garand.

While there are many that do chose to shoot the low number receivers, most are handloaders and use lower powered ammo. The problems with the low numbered rifles is not that they will just self destruct for no particular reason, it is the fact that when they fail, the receiver shatters like a piece of glass. It is really not worth taking the risk when you can still find late '03's and '03-A3's that, while they may be a bit more expensive, are still capable of giving you years of service

 

[Pete D.]

Low numbers

While there are many that do chose to shoot the low number receivers, most are handloaders and use lower powered ammo. The problems with the low numbered rifles is not that they will just self destruct for no particular reason, it is the fact that when they fail, the receiver shatters like a piece of glass. It is really not worth taking the risk when you can still find late '03's and '03-A3's that, while they may be a bit more expensive, are still capable of giving you years of service

At the risk of turning this into the standard, long running argument, the comment above.....no disrespect intended, please understand that.....gives the impression that many of these suspect receivers have self destructed for no particular reason. That is not so. Out of more than one million rifles that were classified as "suspect", how many failures have there actually been? I realize that the exact answer is unknowable at this point but the general answer is "not very many". Like many things, whether or not to use a low numbered 1903 comes down to each individual's willingness to accept risk, understanding that most of those million receivers were not burned. Probably.
My first Centerfire rifle was a very low numbered 1903 (made in 1905). I shot it for years before I ever even heard about "low numbered" guns and it had been well used before it came to me. It was part of a lot of receivers made at SA for which there have been no recorded failures. Is it a bad gun? No way to tell for sure but probably not. Risk assessment.
Pete

 

[madcratebuilder]

At the risk of turning this into the standard, long running argument, the comment above.....no disrespect intended, please understand that.....gives the impression that many of these suspect receivers have self destructed for no particular reason. That is not so. Out of more than one million rifles that were classified as "suspect", how many failures have there actually been? I realize that the exact answer is unknowable at this point but the general answer is "not very many". Like many things, whether or not to use a low numbered 1903 comes down to each individual's willingness to accept risk, understanding that most of those million receivers were not burned. Probably.
My first Centerfire rifle was a very low numbered 1903 (made in 1905). I shot it for years before I ever even heard about "low numbered" guns and it had been well used before it came to me. It was part of a lot of receivers made at SA for which there have been no recorded failures. Is it a bad gun? No way to tell for sure but probably not. Risk assessment.
Pete

+1

Try and find any documented cases of the low number rifles failing due to the receiver hardness. How many do you find? IMHO this is a case of internet hysteria. A little common sense goes a long ways with remaining safe while shooting these.

Any low number that was re-barreled was proof fired and survived.

 

[Pete D.]

Yep

Yes....good old common sense.
A note, though....

Try and find any documented cases of the low number rifles failing due to the receiver hardness. How many do you find? IMHO this is a case of internet hysteria. A little common sense goes a long ways with remaining safe while shooting these.

The criticism of the low numbered/single heat treat/burned receivers is not so much that they can fail - any receiver can be made to fail. It is how they fail....the shattering thing as opposed to bending and distorting.
That being said....we all have seen more than one picture of a handgun or rifle that kaboomed and ended up in many pieces. Little difference there and no do not shoot rule.
Pete

 

[rcmodel]

Try and find any documented cases of the low number rifles failing due to the receiver hardness.

You might read Hatchers Notebook by Maj. Gen. Julian S. Hatcher sometime.

In it, he documents 137 accidents between 1917 and 1929 involving low-number Springfields in military service.

68 were a burst receiver.
23 were a "blow-Back" of the bolt.
21 were burst barrels due to an obstruction.
13 were a burst barrel due to "seamy" metal.
10 were a burst barrel due to "burnt" steel.
1 was a hangfire while opening the bolt.
1 was not documented as to the cause.

rc

 

[highpower]

As I said, there is probably little risk that one will fail for no particular reason, it is what happens if it does fail that could turn out bad. I have a low number Springfield (207003) that was made either in 1905 or '06 that I shoot occasionally with low power loads, but I would never presume to tell anyone that their particular low number receiver is safe to shoot. I know the risk and am willing to take it.

I know that the internet has hyped the danger involved in shooting a low number '03, but I have heard about it being a potential problem since I started shooting when I was a teenager. That was back in 1966 when I bought an '03 to sporterize into a deer rifle and was told at my local gun shop that they were unsafe.

Since we have no way to measure someones common sense, It just seems to make more sense not to tempt fate by telling someone that it's OK to shoot the low numbered rifles.

 

[dprice3844444]

if it was actually an arsenal rebuild,thay did a proof test before reissue with the new bbl.i would personally avoid it myself.there are plenty out there for the same prices that would be in the safe range.if you want to shoot in any competition,they would not allow the gun. you could get a replacement receiver from [email protected] who hangs out in the cmp forum.

 

[Pete D.]

68 were a burst receiver.

Yes, that is the number that I am familiar with. Sixty-eight out of more than a million. As interesting is Hatcher's analysis of the causes of the failure, at least some of which can be traced back to use of the wrong ammo, as well as poor quality control in wartime ammo production.
Again, that doesn't change the way the receivers failed. But....there sure weren't many of them.
Pete
Pete

 

[rcmodel]

One would be enough for me if it was my face behind it.

rc

 

[tahunua001]

I'm not familiar with NS on the bolt but RA is remington Armory and they did just about all of the post WWII refits.

4-44 means that your rifle was rebarreled towards the end of WWII, probably came from a marine division tat had finally been updated with M1s and got to retire the 1903s. it is not unusual to find rifles rebarreled before they were put into storage. I have a low serial springfield that was rebarreled by springfield after WWI and given a new bolt by remington after WWII.