Springfield 1903 safety issues?

Status
Not open for further replies.

joshk-k

Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2007
Messages
455
Location
Portland, OR
Folks,

I've just put a Springfield 1903 on layaway. The gun is in pretty good shape, and the price is right, and it would fit the bill of what I'm looking for right now. After going home and looking up some info on the rifle, I find that there have been some safety issues with the heat treating of the receivers in some low number 1903s (the one I'm got a hold on is a low numbered one).

Obviously, safety issues are to be taken seriously, and I do. From the reading I've done on the internet though, it seems like this particular issue is essentially non-existant/negligible. If a gunsmith checks this rifle out and tells me it's safe, should that be enough for me?

Anyone own a low-number 1903? Are you aware of this potential hazard? Do you shoot it?

Thanks for the info!
Josh
 
If a gunsmith checks this rifle out and tells me it's safe, should that be enough for me?

Only if it is a gunsmith with extensive knowledge of 1903s. Good Luck finding one. Most Smiths will either tell you not to shoot it, or they won't know about the '03s history and just check the headspace and say it is OK.

I had one once, and it didn't blow up on me, but I sold it to a collector. There are plenty of high numbered ones out there if you want a shooter.
 
THE expert on US military firearms is NRA Editor Bruce N. Canfield.
When there's aquestion on American military arms, you go see Canfield.

Here's what the real expert says about the low number 1903 rifles:

"Low Numbered" '03s.What's the Risk?

Most shooters and collectors are aware of the so-called "low numbered" M1903 rifle receivers. These were the '03 rifles made prior to 1919 that utilized case-hardened receivers. Springfield Armory changed to the improved double heat treatment around serial number 800,000 and Rock Island Arsenal changed around number 285,500.

After the M1903 rifles were in use for a while, it was discovered that some of the receivers were overly brittle and could be easily shattered. The classic book, "Hatcher's Notebook", detailed a number of failures of these receivers from around the First World War into the 1920s. Some of the failures were traceable to the use of incorrect ammunition such as the German 8mm Mauser cartridges. Many of the failures, however, were not attributable to any specific reason and were caused by the nature of the old case-hardened receivers. Hatcher only compiled a relatively small number of receiver failures but it is clear that there was definitely a problem. The Ordnance Department eventually adopted a policy of recalling the "low numbered" receivers from service use. It should be noted, however, that some of the early receivers were subsequently used for arsenal rebuilds due to the pressing need for rifles just prior to, and during, World War II. Nevertheless, the safety issue of the old case-hardened receivers was of very real concern during this period, in and out of the military. All of this is easily discovered if anyone wishes to research the subject.

Today, the issue of the safety of the "low numbered" receivers causes a lot of misunderstanding and contentious comments in many of the Internet gun forums. Some people think that the old rifles are perfectly safe and anyone who questions the wisdom of firing the rifles is an uninformed "nervous nellie" who has fallen for an old-wives' tale. Others believe that all of these receivers will blow up if even one shot is fired. As is often the case, the truth is somewhere in the middle.

There can be no real argument that some of the old receivers are inherently unsafe and may shatter at any time. Even if thousands of rounds have been previously fired through one, there is no way to determine if thousands more can be safely fired or if the next shot will case the receiver to come "unglued".

There has been at least one pseudo-scientific "study" done in an attempt to debunk the danger of firing the "low numbered" receivers. The study was based on questionable assumptions and really didn't prove anything. Statistically speaking, the risk is not huge but is significant.

Some people who own, and regularly shoot, low numbered '03s have stated that there can't be any risk because they have shot their rifle for 30 years with no problems. My response is that I know people who have smoked for 30 years and who are in perfect health. Does this mean that there is no risk in smoking? Of course not. Smoking may not cause lung cancer or heart disease in everyone but it sure causes it in some people. The same is true with shooting the old receivers. Firing one may never result in an accident for you but that is precious little comfort to the individual who loses an eye (or worse) from a shattered '03 receiver.

Everything in life has a risk. Driving a car, taking a shower or crossing the street can result in injury or death. However, such activities are part of daily living and we can hardly avoid them. On the other hand, such things as sky-diving, smoking and shooting low numbered receivers may bring pleasure but increase the risk of injury or death. If one is aware of the inherent danger and wishes to engage in the practice anyway, that's fine with me. Just don't try to convince me that there's no risk. There most certainly is. It may be rather small but it is real and it is avoidable.

I treasure many of my "low numbered" '03s including my rod-bayonet rifle and a number of pre-WWI unaltered examples. However, I'm not going to shoot any of them. If I feel an overwhelming desire to shoot an '03, one of my nickel steel 1903A1s or WWII M1903A3s will do just fine. I don't smoke nor will I shoot a low-numbered rifle. If someone wishes to do either, or both, they can have at it. I just don't want to stand too close when he lights up or when he touches off a round! I'll pick my own poison.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top