Safe to fire Low S/N Springfield 1903??

[rklessdriver]

I picked up a nice Springfield 03. Serial number is in the 447XXX range well under the Army's "safe shoot" million mark. The rifle was rebarreled in 1-42 and from the looks of it was a USMC rifle (marrow partridge ft site, low s/n rebuilt for and used in WWII).

Obviously its well documented that the USMC didn't think much of the Armys recomendation for scrapping low s/n 03's after they were used up once due to precived heat treat problems. My rifles reciever dates to 1910 and none from 1909-11 have ever been documented to fail.

I've magunfluxed the reciever for cracks (NONE found) and checked the headspace (safe with GO/NO GO gauges). Being a former Marine I feel pretty safe taking it and a few rounds of HPX to the range occasionally.

I'm wondering how many of you actually have a low S/N Springfield and shoot it (or don't/won't).
thanks
Will

 

[buttrap]

Had one a few years ago that was made in 1904. It survived the original 30-03 barrel,I would guess a 30-06 pre WW-1 barrel and had a fairly worn post WW-1 barrel on it when I got it.

 

[Jeremy2171]

Hard to stop shooting mine (1911 w/44 bbl) when it doesn't like to shoot outside of the 10-ring......

 

[garyhan]

Shooting low number Springfields has been controversial for about 80 years now. An internet search would reveal it continues to be a subject of debate with the consensus being don't take the chance. I have taken the chance with aborrowed rifle, but hedged my bets by using lower pressure managed recoil loads, and would suggest similar caution by anyone else who can't resist the temptation.

gary

 

[Hutch]

Bought a low number Springfield by mistake one time. Figuratively, I traded it for a bottle of cheap gin and then broke the bottle. I was a-scairt of it. But that's just me...

 

[bcp]

A long time ago a common recommendation was to fit a later model bolt (swept back handle instead of straight down) and go shooting.

Original military loads had lower performance than modern commercial loads. Maybe the original were lower pressure or maybe powder improvements allowed better modern performance with the same pressures. Anyway, using modern powder loaded to original performance makes me feel better.

Have you read this?
http://m1903.com/03rcvrfail/

Bruce

 

[rcmodel]

Read Hatcher's Notebook sometime, and then make the decision based on fact, not Internet rumor & openion.

It actually has nothing at all to do with the bolt, and changing bolts won't make it safe.

rcmodel

 

[Mongrel]

I am of the mind that my face is too precious to disfigure for absolutely NO JUSTIFIABLE REASON and my eyes are a non-negotiable item. Not even for lasik by the best in the world if it were free.

Those low-number Springfields really do look great on the wall (with their firing pins removed).

Your mileage may vary...

 

[Library Guy]

Multiple choice... Which statement is most accurate?

1) This rifle can't blow up.
2) This rifle is unlikely to blow up.
3) This rifle will blow up.
4) All I know is this rifle hasn't blown up.

If your rifle blows up you will say:

1) Man that was worth my eyesight! A chance to shoot a piece of history! What a ride!
2) Dang, I wish I hadn't done that.
3) I'm suing Springfield Armory out of existence!

Ammo you will use:

1) Milsurp, like God intended
2) Light handload with cast bullets
3) Magno-Buckstoppers and let my brother in law sight it in.

 

[rcmodel]

Some of them actually blew up in service with light galley-practice loads.

Even though low pressure loads, the sudden impact of the fast pistol type power caused the glass hard receivers to shatter.

rcmodel

 

[Larry E]

Nice pictures in Hatcher's Notebook of low number '03 receivers broken like a glass bottle when given a whack with a hammer. Not a recommended method of suitability for shooting since it's likely to mar the finish in a good action.

It's sort of like petting the dog behind the fence with the sign that says, "beware of dog". If you do and don't get bit fine, but I won't and don't.

 

[Jim Watson]

P.O. Ackley was of the opinion that a nickel steel bolt at proper headspace in a low number '03 was acceptable to shoot with standard loads. Henry Stebbins showed one that had worn out three barrels and considered that enough testing.

Hatcher documented 138 demolished rifles out of over a million made. Some of the wrecked ones were blown up by sheer stupidity like cramming an 8mm into a .30-06 or shooting greased ammunition. Some were split barrels. Some were even high numbers although they do not blow as hard as a low number.

The only one I ever shot was brilliantly accurate until its neglected barrel fouled out.

But with all that, I am still not entirely comfortable with it and would not buy a low number gun to shoot. I saw what Hatcher and Dave leGate did just whacking them with a hammer. What the military did with a war coming on is a different matter.

 

[Slamfire]

The materials of the pre 1920’s were greatly inferior to the same steel made today. Process technology is critical to a quality product. What I have read, here and there, just leads me to conclude that the steels of that era were highly variable, had slag, all things indicating primitive process controls. This was not evil: they were just at the start of the development of steel technology. It was not that far back when they were flame hardening Krag bolts. Sophisticated steels and standardized steel tests, such as shock tests, were still in development.

For example, dates in the rapid evolution of metal technology.

Manganese Steel licensed to use in US in 1890

Silicon Steel patented in 1886

Nickel Steel Armor adopted in by US Navy1891,

1910 Monnartz patented Stainless Steel

For those old enough to remember the semiconductor revolution, the big changes that went on from 1980 to 2000, you can recall just how primitive the early 80’s stuff was in comparison to the late 90’s stuff.

I believe this is a fair analogy to steel technology around 1900. But this is true for all WWI era weapons. The machine work may be fantastic, but below the surface, things may not be so beatiful. So shooting those period rifles is a greater risk than later rifles. I have even heard reports, but no detail, about double heat treat receivers breaking. And I would not doubt it, because carbon steel is erratic in hardening behavior. Never mind the process controls. It seems around 1930 that steel technology and industry practices became mature enough to have confidence in the quality of the end product.

So, should you shoot your single heat treat receiver? I believe the risk is low if it is a receiver that had gone through several barrels. If your rifle has the "Hatcher" hole, then it is probably a USMC rifle. Just because it has a WWII barrel does not mean it was a USMC rifle. Federal Ordnance got a boat load of 03 rifles from the Philippines. They made up rifles from parts, and I saw lots of WWII barrels (mostly Sedeley barrels) on their rifles. Some low number, some high number.

Service rifle ammo was actually low pressure stuff compared to today's 30-06. Keep your loads to a 150 grain bullet at 2700 fps. Do not rebarrel to something like a 35 Whelen, that round will just increase the bolt thrust. Always use good brass. One busted case head could lead to a busted receiver ring.

It is unfortunate, but there is no non destructive test to sort out the good receivers from the bad receivers.

Incidentally, the single heat treat bolts were not a risk. Those bolts did not shed lugs in blowups.

 

[cracked butt]

From my understanding is that some rifles at Springfield and Rock Island were found to be heat treated incorrectly, but they had no idea which ones or how many so they determined that any rifle before a certain serial number range was questionable.

There are a couple of ways of looking at this and I'll try my best not to be biased either way:
1. All of the rifles were used for military service at one time or another and its likely that all or most of the defective receivers would have failed by now.

2. Any one fo the receivers might be a ticking timb bomb.

 

[mejeepnut]

Its my understanding that the problem started when a night shift was added for the guys doing the heat treating.Heat treating was done by the color of the steel as it was heated and the colors did not apear the same at night under the lighting thay had as they did during the day so the heat treating was not done to the same hardness.I found a site that narrowed down the # range a few years ago,I will see if I can find it again.

Very few of these recievers have ever failed

Here it is http://m1903.com/03rcvrfail/

 

[Slamfire]

Its my understanding that the problem started when a night shift was added for the guys doing the heat treating.Heat treating was done by the color of the steel as it was heated and the colors did not apear the same at night under the lighting thay had as they did during the day so the heat treating was not done to the same hardness.I found a site that narrowed down the # range a few years ago,I will see if I can find it again.

Hatcher's Notebook, which is the source for all of the discussion on single heat treat and double heat treat, so emphasized heat treatment, that folks get confused.

The brittleness of the receivers was not due to heat treatment. It was due to receiver blanks being overheated in the forging furnaces.

This then lead to an examination of the processes and controls at Springfield Armory.

I have never understood why they did not change to nickel steel. Instead they doubled the process cost, by doubling the heat treatment time. And the material was the same awful plain carbon steel they had been using since 1903.

Today the Class C steels they used for receivers and bolts, is used for rebar. Good enough to reinforce concrete, but not used for more stressing applications.

 

[dfariswheel]

Bottom line is: You have to ask yourself whether it's worth the risk to your health, anyone unfortunate who happens to be standing nearby, or ruining what is increasingly a valuable collector's rifle.

I explain it this way.
Do an experiment:

Take a Magnum double action revolver and insert one round in the cylinder.
Spin the cylinder and close it.
Put the muzzle against your head and pull the trigger.

Next, take a low number Springfield.
Insert the most powerful military cartridge ever used into the chamber and close the bolt.
Put your face RIGHT behind the receiver and pull the trigger.

Notice how similar the two experiments are.

Considering the plentiful numbers of good, shootable 1903 rifles that are available, you have to ask "Why shoot one that has even a question about it's safety"?
What do you gain by shooting it?

 

[mejeepnut]

I wonder if with a hardness tester(not sure if I am using the proper term) you could tell if there was a problem or not?

 

[marsche]

Why take the chance of losing your eyes. Hang it on the wall or sell it and buy a higher serial number.

 

[TCB in TN]

Killed my first deer with a 600,000 1903 and have shot it on many occasions since then. That said It is a historic pc, that I have put up for keeps, and while I am not afraid to shoot it, I have others that I use for that purpose!

 

[Sunray]

"...changing bolts won't make it safe..." That could and likely will give you headspace issues too.
"...night shift..." Nothing to do with it. The experienced guys were judging the temperature by eye. The amount of sun light did cause them to mis-judge the temperature by just looking at the colour. Actual pyrometer measurements showed they were 300 degrees hotter on a bright sunny day than on a cloudy day. Caused the steel to be burned.

 

[marktx]

Just to ask a silly question.... Would there be any possible harm in putting the rifle in a vise and firing a proof round through it? The thing is either gonna blow up in a controlled and safe environment or it won't and you will have the answer. I guess you would be out one rifle if the thing did blow but it at least you would have all your fingers and face intact. I don't know where one would go about locating proof rounds but it seems like something a competent gunsmith/reloader could work up and test for you.

 

[Slamfire]

I wonder if with a hardness tester(not sure if I am using the proper term) you could tell if there was a problem or not?

No. The Army was not able to figure out a non destructive test to sort these out, a hardness tester would only test the surface hardness. Not whether the metal was burnt.

Just to ask a silly question.... Would there be any possible harm in putting the rifle in a vise and firing a proof round through it?

The Army proof tested all of its rifles. The fact that some bad ones got out there shows that proof testing was not a reliable screening method. Proof testing puts a heck of a strain on an action. The problem receivers are brittle. The good receivers were not "brittle", but still the good ones are not ductile. The plain carbon materials used do not have a high yeild or ultimate. When they failed, they shattered. I would think that additional proof testing would increase the chance of a future fracture.

One guy on www.jouster.com, did some blowup tests on low number Springfields. He stuck an 8mm Mauser in one of the rifles. He deleted the pics, but the text reads as though the actions held.

I emailed him asking for the pics, but he ignored me.

So, in my opinion, it really is pot luck. If the receiver went through several barrels, and you are not shooting hot loads, and the case head never lets go, then your risk is about what you have in shooting any WW1 era rifle.

The materials and processes back then were primitive.