rbernie
Contributing Member
I seem to recall from Hatcher’s Notebook that the Army tried to find a process that was satisfactory, and ultimately gave up.I have heard that the low numbered receivers can be re-heat treated. ?? True or false?
I seem to recall from Hatcher’s Notebook that the Army tried to find a process that was satisfactory, and ultimately gave up.I have heard that the low numbered receivers can be re-heat treated. ?? True or false?
I seem to recall from Hatcher’s Notebook that the Army tried to find a process that was satisfactory, and ultimately gave up.
In 1923, Springfield Armory undertook an investigation to determine the practicability of re-heat treating receivers with numbers below 800,000 to determine if they could thus be given strength equal to receivers of better manufacture. One hundred receivers were re-heat treated and tested. The result indicated a considerable variation in carbon content, many receivers being low enough to require recarburizing before heat treating.
The test showed that while the old receivers were improved by re-heat treating, they were still likely to burst at pressures slightly in excess of 50 percent above normal, while the later double heat treated receivers would successfully withstand very high pressures. The Board stated: "The test brings out quite clearly the fact that uniform results cannot be obtained by re-heat treating old receivers which vary widely in chemical composition."
It may be noted that one trouble encountered with the tow numbered receivers was that some of them were dangerously weak by reason of having been overheated, or burnt, during the forging process. No amount of re-heat treating would cure this trouble.
In one of the experiments at Springfield Armory, 48 receivers were carefully re-heat treated, after which 16, or one-third, failed on high-pressure test. The Board found:
(1) That low numbered receivers are not suitable for service use in their present condition.The Board recommended that the receivers be withdrawn from service and scrapped.
(2) That means have not yet been determined for making such receivers suitable for service use.
(3) That it is considered impracticable, if not impossible, to reheat treat these receivers in such a manner as to make them serviceable.
US produced 1917s were in large production before 1917, even though the UK had changed their mind on buying any. Savage was cranking SMLEs out in quantity for their use.Pederson devices were never intended for use in SMLEs. There were intended for 1903s, 1917s and Mosins-Nagants,
Your 03A3 is made from nickel steel and is very strong. You don't need to worry about shooting any factory load or handload equivalent. Your last sentence in post #25 says it all. The possibility of re-heat treating the low # receivers was examined by Hatcher decades ago. He decided it wasn't worth the expense and trouble.I paid 750 for a 1943 (3.5mill SN) 1903A1 Remington with unmarked barrel about 6 months ago and felt like i got a fair deal.
I would buy it and shoot light loads, and enjoy a nice piece of history. Regardless of how much its been shot, it has been shot and has survived for 117 years. As long as you dont push it, it should continue to last.
Unless I'm mistaken ( pretty sure I'm not ) Savage didn't start making SMLEs until WW II. They only made #4 Mk 1s. The Pederson device was long dead and buried by then. They were never intended for use in any Enfield, of any Mk. Savage never made any rifles for Britain in WW 1.Pedersen Model Three was to go on Savage-made SMLE,
Your 03A3 is made from nickel steel and is very strong. You don't need to worry about shooting any factory load or handload equivalent. Your last sentence in post #25 says it all. The possibility of re-heat treating the low # receivers was examined by Hatcher decades ago. He decided it wasn't worth the expense and trouble.
BTW, I'm guessing that you have an affinity for Bronco's.....the four wheeled kind
That's a great deal. I'd grab it in a heart beat and not worry about the low serial number. It has survived this long, what makes you think it won't last another 100 yearsAn LGS just took in a 7XX,XXX Springfield Armory produced 1903. The gun looks almost unissued, has the original 1917 barrel, and includes the front sight protector. The bore is pristine.
Was I stupid to not buy it this morning for $695?
I don't need a shooter- I already have one of "final production run" 1934 guns for that use.
It will last exactly as long as it takes to encounter a seperated case. Might never happen. Might run into a reload that has been resized too many times, or a factory overcharge........it happens.That's a great deal. I'd grab it in a heart beat and not worry about the low serial number. It has survived this long, what makes you think it won't last another 100 years
Bear in mind that those old Springfields were made with plain old carbon steel and were heat treated by eye. I would not want to shoot one especially with modern ammo.
Nothing wrong with plain old carbon steel. I made my 45-70 rolling block out of 1045 plain old carbon steel. After heat treating, it passed a 50,000PSI proof load.Bear in mind that those old Springfields were made with plain old carbon steel and were heat treated by eye. I would not want to shoot one especially with modern ammo.
US produced 1917s were in large production before 1917, even though the UK had changed their mind on buying any. Savage was cranking SMLEs out in quantity for their use.
Pedersen Model One for 1903, which was due to the pile of 1903 being made for the war effort, and were to ship with the 2nd AEF.
Pedersen Model Two was to be fit to the 1917.
Pedersen Model Three was to go on Savage-made SMLE, once their production for UK was complete.
Westinghouse's production of Moisin's was a foreign (ally) contract, and only became an issue after the Revolution of October 1917. By the time it was realized "we" had a huge quantity of Moisin available, the War was over, and we were not adding Top Secret materiel to those.
We would send an abbreviated 2nd AEF off to White Russia with all those Moisins, though.
My understanding is that the 3rd model of the Pedersen Device (a prototype) was designed for the Moisin. The thinking apparently was that U.S.troops (the North Russia and Vladivostok expeditions) were armed with Moisins, and could use the Devices. Also these guns were .30 cal., and could therefore use the special Device ammunition. In any case this idea came to nothing.Westinghouse's production of Moisin's was a foreign (ally) contract, and only became an issue after the Revolution of October 1917. By the time it was realized "we" had a huge quantity of Moisin available, the War was over, and we were not adding Top Secret materiel to those.
We would send an abbreviated 2nd AEF off to White Russia with all those Moisins, though.
You should have grabbed it as fast as you could. Just because it is a low number gun, doesn't mean it is worthless. It means that is has questionable value as a shooter, but collectors drool over pristine early 03s simply because they are so hard to find. If that gun is as you describe, it is worth well north of what they are asking.An LGS just took in a 7XX,XXX Springfield Armory produced 1903. The gun looks almost unissued, has the original 1917 barrel, and includes the front sight protector. The bore is pristine.
Was I stupid to not buy it this morning for $695?
I don't need a shooter- I already have one of "final production run" 1934 guns for that use.
Heavily used in North Africa and not rare in the Italian campaign too.
I figure it's unfairly underrepresented in photographic history as the contemporarily preferred photos would be of more modern long arms.
Todd.
I have a 1903, a 1917 and an M1 Garand. Natch, the Garand is a classic, though it's really not in the same class having a semi-auto action, but of those three different types, my 03-A3 is the best rifle of the three, IMO, and if I had to take a rifle into combat (as Othais always asks Mae) that's the one I'd want to have with me.The 23d Infantry Regiment, 2d Infantry Division landed on Utah beach armed with 1903 Springfields. The regimental commander didn't trust the new fangled M-1s.