Springfield '03
- Thread starter Trent
- Start date
- Status
RPRNY
Member
Good advice. It may well hold up to modern factory ammo, but it is 106 years old and you don't want to be the one that finds out that it won't. I would try to stay under 50,000 psi were it mine.
Wow. I never actually stopped to think that the rifle I just bought is 106 years old.
Ironic I don't have the rifle in my hands right now. We have a 24 hour waiting period on long guns here, and the shop is closed on Thursdays, so it'll be Friday before I can bring it home.
Can't believe I have to wait two days to pick up an antique.
Stupid laws.
BUT that's another discussion.
This rifle had a peep sight installed on the rear (pics can be had Friday...) - what's the significance of that, vs. a mid-rifle leaf sight?
Ironic I don't have the rifle in my hands right now. We have a 24 hour waiting period on long guns here, and the shop is closed on Thursdays, so it'll be Friday before I can bring it home.
Can't believe I have to wait two days to pick up an antique.
Stupid laws.
BUT that's another discussion.
This rifle had a peep sight installed on the rear (pics can be had Friday...) - what's the significance of that, vs. a mid-rifle leaf sight?
meanmrmustard
Member
Longer sight radius...and preference.Wow. I never actually stopped to think that the rifle I just bought is 106 years old.
Ironic I don't have the rifle in my hands right now. We have a 24 hour waiting period on long guns here, and the shop is closed on Thursdays, so it'll be Friday before I can bring it home.
Can't believe I have to wait two days to pick up an antique.
Stupid laws.
BUT that's another discussion.
This rifle had a peep sight installed on the rear (pics can be had Friday...) - what's the significance of that, vs. a mid-rifle leaf sight?
Doesn't affect value either way?
Personally, I'd prefer the longer sight radius.
Gun is .. well, it looks like it's 100 years old. No rust or anything, but a very dark, somewhat battered stock. No splits or signs of repair or anything, just .. kind of fugly.
Bore is so-so.
Can't wait to see how it shoots. Guess I'll load up some light ammo for it and go plinking this weekend after the J.A.K.E.S kids thing is done on Saturday (we're having a kids day at our range Saturday).
Personally, I'd prefer the longer sight radius.
Gun is .. well, it looks like it's 100 years old. No rust or anything, but a very dark, somewhat battered stock. No splits or signs of repair or anything, just .. kind of fugly.
Bore is so-so.
Can't wait to see how it shoots. Guess I'll load up some light ammo for it and go plinking this weekend after the J.A.K.E.S kids thing is done on Saturday (we're having a kids day at our range Saturday).
meanmrmustard
Member
That I don't know. LJMosin might be able to tell you, he's my milsurp aficionado.
Many folks would say that a low number Springfield should not be shot at all, with any loads.
http://www.odcmp.com/Sales/m1903.htm
Guaranteed to start an argument on a milsurp forum.
Be careful.
http://www.odcmp.com/Sales/m1903.htm
Guaranteed to start an argument on a milsurp forum.
Be careful.
dprice3844444
member
ok who is the manufacturer and what is the serial number.date on front of barrel?
http://m1903.com/03rcvrfail/
http://m1903.com/03rcvrfail/
rcmodel
Member in memoriam
Several of the shattered receivers and serious injurys recorded in military service happened while using low-velocity galley practice loads on indoor military ranges.
See Hatchers Notebook for details:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/08...details?ie=UTF8&me=&seller=#reader_0811707954
Course if it hasn't blown up yet?
It probably isn't going too.
Still, how much do you value your face and eyes??
rc
Yeah I read through quite a bit on them between the time I posted the original post and now, well, as much as could be done in the time anyway. The same exact thought occurred to me - the rifle has been through 1, maybe two world wars, who-knows-how many barrels or rounds fired.
I'm not expecting it to be a tack driver. But I also don't buy guns to put in a safe or hang on the wall like some trophy. Might not get shot much, but will probably get shot some.
As far as how much I value my eyes, they didn't have as good of safety glasses in the 1918's that we have now.
My face?
Chicks dig scars.
(I used to race superbikes until 2010, you know, those two wheeled buggers that go 200+ mph on a road course. My definition of "acceptable risk" is MUCH different than most people's.)
rcmodel
Member in memoriam
Looking at the bright side?
An 03 bolt through your right eye socket probably won't leave a scar.
rc
An 03 bolt through your right eye socket probably won't leave a scar.
rc
The M1903A3 with the receiver mounted sight is better to use than the mid-rifle leaf that is standard on the M1903.
If the sight is something done in civilian life, it will lower the value of the rifle even if it is the M1903A3 sight.
I am not sure if any M1903's were updated with the M1903A3 sight, but I might be mistaken. There was a small run of M1903s made at the beginning of WWII.
It is my understanding the low serial number M1903s should not be fired at all.
One of the best uses for a low number M1903 that I have seen is in a WWI exhibit at the Air Force museum in Dayton, Ohio.
It is an interesting topic about firing these old rifles....could the expert care to elaborate a bit??
I heard too that the early models 1903 Springfields should be fired with care and reduced loads...or not fired at all for safety purposes...but why??
Why sporterized Mauser K98 in 30-06 are totally safe so are old Enfields and Mosin Nagants with modern ammunition??
Thank you...
I heard too that the early models 1903 Springfields should be fired with care and reduced loads...or not fired at all for safety purposes...but why??
Why sporterized Mauser K98 in 30-06 are totally safe so are old Enfields and Mosin Nagants with modern ammunition??
Thank you...
tahunua001
Member
the reason he told you that is the lower numbered springfields and rock island 1903s were manufactured using a single heat treatment process where the factory workers had to try to eyeball the metal and tell the temperature based on the color of the hot metal. the problem is that on a cloudy day it was easier to tell the temperature than on a bright sunny day and a number of these single heat treatment rifles had too much carbon baked out of them and became brittle. a number of them exploded when subjected to hotloaded ammo(some of the test ammo was loaded over 50% over specs) and poorly constructed casings.
here's something to wrap your head around. your 1903 is 106 years old. it went through 2 world wars. it has made it through 60 years either in storage or in private collections and has probably been shot a great deal over the course of it's lifetime. I would be willing to bet that it has been proven safe to fire by now.
I have a 1912 made springfield that is unsafe to fire yet it made it all the way through 2 world wars and was fired enough that the barrel was replaced at the end of WWI and the bolt was replaced at the end of WWII. I think I am willing to say that mine is safe to fire. I fire M2 ball out of it regularly and have had no problems.
EDIT: the A3 sights are much nicer than the leaf sights but any permanent modifications to these rifles severely injures the collectors and resale value. hopefully it was just a bubba job done with epoxy and removal of a couple roll pins but if he ground down the barrel where the leaf sight went and drilled the receiver to mount the aperture sight then it is probably not going to go for quite as much. but luckily for you, these guns were chopped, sawed, ground, drilled, filed and mangled in the thousands back when you could grab one at your local ACE hardware or SEARS for $25 so they are constantly increasing in value and demand for parts guns is always on the rise.
here's something to wrap your head around. your 1903 is 106 years old. it went through 2 world wars. it has made it through 60 years either in storage or in private collections and has probably been shot a great deal over the course of it's lifetime. I would be willing to bet that it has been proven safe to fire by now.
I have a 1912 made springfield that is unsafe to fire yet it made it all the way through 2 world wars and was fired enough that the barrel was replaced at the end of WWI and the bolt was replaced at the end of WWII. I think I am willing to say that mine is safe to fire. I fire M2 ball out of it regularly and have had no problems.
EDIT: the A3 sights are much nicer than the leaf sights but any permanent modifications to these rifles severely injures the collectors and resale value. hopefully it was just a bubba job done with epoxy and removal of a couple roll pins but if he ground down the barrel where the leaf sight went and drilled the receiver to mount the aperture sight then it is probably not going to go for quite as much. but luckily for you, these guns were chopped, sawed, ground, drilled, filed and mangled in the thousands back when you could grab one at your local ACE hardware or SEARS for $25 so they are constantly increasing in value and demand for parts guns is always on the rise.
Last edited:
The heat treatment problem was discovered during the production of the M1903. The double heat treat was the solution.
If I remember correctly, nothing was done at the time during WWI about the single heat treat receivers in use at the time. The problem was considered small and the army needed rifles.
It is relatively recently that the suggested restriction was placed on low number M1903 rifles. There is no way to tell if a receiver will let go until it does.
I believe when I got my M1903 from CMP in the late 1999 or 2000, the warning about low serial numbers M1903s was not widely published, if at all. When I learned about it a few years ago, i was relieved that my M1903 is a high number rifle.
Many choose to ignore the warning.
Heat treat problems have not been issues with Enfields or Mosin-Nagants. Whether they used the same process or not, the rifles have not failed in the same manner as the Springfields.
Last edited:
rcmodel
Member in memoriam
The problem stemmed from the type of steel alloy used in the early Springfield's.
Russa & England used less complex alloys
Early Springfield heat treatment was done by a few old guys using eyeball judgment of when the cherry red color was obtained before quenching.
The problem was, light or lack thereof.
As it got lighter during the day, cherry red became hotter and hotter before the eye could see it and judge just the right temperature to quench it.
See this about that:
http://m1903.com/03rcvrfail/
rc
Old Dog Man
Member
Springfield Actions
I just recently sent a 1903 Springfield action to a THR poster to be checked to find out what the hardness was. Since they have a reputation of breaking because they are to hard or brittle I wanted to know what it would test at roockwell hardness. It was 35 on the C scale which shocked me, I expected something around 55 which would be to brittle. The S.N. 21XXXX is below what is recommended to be on the safe side, I cut it in half to keep anyone from using it and possibly getting injured. Al
I just recently sent a 1903 Springfield action to a THR poster to be checked to find out what the hardness was. Since they have a reputation of breaking because they are to hard or brittle I wanted to know what it would test at roockwell hardness. It was 35 on the C scale which shocked me, I expected something around 55 which would be to brittle. The S.N. 21XXXX is below what is recommended to be on the safe side, I cut it in half to keep anyone from using it and possibly getting injured. Al
Jim Watson
Member
And of course the MN and SMLE use the inherently superior rimmed cartridge which does not leave brass hanging out the end of the barrel.
The demolished low number Springfields didn't just let go for no reason, most broke up after a casehead ruptured and put gas pressure inside the action instead of against the bolt.
The demolished low number Springfields didn't just let go for no reason, most broke up after a casehead ruptured and put gas pressure inside the action instead of against the bolt.
madcratebuilder
Member
IMHO the dangers of shooting low number M1903's is greatly exaggerated by the internet forums. The number of failures the military experienced was very small and the military continued to use the rifle. Some failures were attributed to faulty ammo.
The '03 was used until the end of war2, with many on the second or even third barrel. Owners should be aware of the possible issues and make their judgement on facts.
The '03 was used until the end of war2, with many on the second or even third barrel. Owners should be aware of the possible issues and make their judgement on facts.
RC from that article;
"There were no further receiver failures after 1929."
Does this mean there have been no other failures, PERIOD, after 1929?
If so, it sure sounds like people are all worked up over what amounts to (in reality) very, very little risk.
"There were no further receiver failures after 1929."
Does this mean there have been no other failures, PERIOD, after 1929?
If so, it sure sounds like people are all worked up over what amounts to (in reality) very, very little risk.
OK I have the rifle.
The rear peep site is a Lyman, drilled and tapped. The leaf site has been removed permanently - looks to be machined off, by someone very smooth with an end mill, no tooling marks to speak of.
(I didn't pay attention to that when I bought it, because I honestly didn't know to look for it.)
Post up some pics in a min.
The rear peep site is a Lyman, drilled and tapped. The leaf site has been removed permanently - looks to be machined off, by someone very smooth with an end mill, no tooling marks to speak of.
(I didn't pay attention to that when I bought it, because I honestly didn't know to look for it.)
Post up some pics in a min.
- Status
