Gunboards Forums banner

Is my 1903 serial number 693088 safe to shoot?

91K views 136 replies 71 participants last post by  berkmberk1 
#1 ·
This rifle was arsenal reworked in 1942 with a new stock, new barrel and a parkerizing job. I understand it is in the low range of serial numbers. However if it was good enough for the Army to rearsenal the I would think it would be good enough to shoot. I plan on handloading moderate ammunition for this rifle. I do not plan on feeding it any max pressure cartridges.

Thanks.
 
#29 ·
If you want to 'test' your receiver, take it out of the stock and using a hammer or steel rod, strike the receiver rail(s); if either shatters it it brittle. If it does not, maybe you didn't hit it hard enough.

Here is what brittle and double heat treated recievers look like when tested in this manner.

Hope this helps your decision.
 
#32 ·
The sky is not falling, but you are doing a great disservice to those who have limited knowledge of the early single heat treated M1903 rifle. You have accepted the risk of firing your rifle, by your own statements. Unless you possess some prescience of what will happen with cartridge cases, there is no possible way for you to say that there isn't a risk involved.

By the way, the National Brass and Copper Tube Co. cartridges would almost guarantee that the receiver in the RIA would fail, as they were one of the cartridges listed in Hatcher's Notebook.
 
#35 ·
Yes, there's a risk involved. There's a degree of risk involved in discharging any firearm. When considering the low numbered 1903 (or any of several other firearms designs) careful attention to detail can mitigate that risk to an acceptable level in my view. If, in future, I blow my silly head off shooting ancient '03s I'll let y'all know.

The low numbered actions remained in service for many years through a big war and some police actions. They were tested with the 75,000 "blue pill" which winnowed out the ones that were truly weak. They were used (and abused) both in service and after they were mustered out. They formed the basis of a host of custom rifles, some being rechambered for other cartridges. They were fed the products of the reloading benches of America for several decades, both well thought out hand loads and slip shod stuff along with thoughtless "hot" loads. It is certain that a fairly large pile of big game has fallen to low numbered '03 Springfield rifles.

Unknown numbers of other low numbered actions used during all those years were bound to have failed but one rarely ever hears about it outside "Hatcher's Notebook" and P.O. Ackley's work. Hatcher stated that the low numbered action could pretty well be depended to fail by 90,000 lbs. That's a lot of pressure. I'm not operating my rifle in the 75,000 to 90,000 range. I'm not going to strike its receiver with a hammer either.

A judicious hand load in a proven once-fired case represents a larger margin of safety than the unknown materials, components, and assembly of a factory load. Avoid high-pressure overloads, excessive headspace, soft case heads, greased ammunition, bore obstructions such as bullets, patches, gum, or dirt in muzzle, damaged firing pins that fire the cartridge prior to engagement of the locking lugs, or the firing of 7.9 German service ammunition in the rifle which is chambered for the .30-06. The brittle single heat treat receiver is a thread running all through the accounts reviewed in "Hatcher's Notebook" but it was aggravated by the significant issues as listed above. These would cause problems with most rifle designs.

By all means don't fire an old '03 if one can't become comfortable with the thing, however it isn't quite such a disservice to refuse to jump on the "Chicken Little" bandwagon regarding low numbered '03s. Have a gunsmith go over it, checking it for headspace before shooting it. As long as the rifle isn't a compilation of parts cobbled together in someone's garage or hasn't been rechambered to shoot some nuclear-powered magnum cartridge, it should be fine with factory fodder or hand loads generating pressure in the 40,000 to 45,000 range. Obviously there are no guarantees 90-100 years hence. It goes without saying that shooting glasses are a must as they are a necessity with any shooting. Hatcher also said that the simple expedient of wearing shooting glasses would have significantly reduced injuries encountered with burst rifles. I've seen both an M1 and an M1A damaged by cartridge cases that had been excessively annealed and were dead soft. In both instances factory ammunition was the culprit. In the case of the M1A, it occurred on the firing line during a high-power match and left the operator bleeding about the face. Shooting glasses saved his eyes from injury.

According to General Hatcher the early Model 1903 was manufactured from the same type of steel as Krag Jorgensen. I'm not familiar with heat treatment methods for the Krag actions but imagine it was much the same. Despite that pesky "cracked lug" issue that is repeated far and wide as a potential problem, Krags have never had a reputation for bursting and they are said to have a "weaker" action than an '03. Or, perhaps all Krags should be retired as well and not shot.

That compels us to reconsider the "Trapdoor" Springfield ... the 1873 Winchester...the Luger...the Beretta 92... even the Pre-64 Winchester Model 70 has that cone breach design that offers somewhat less support around the case head.

Coin collecting looks safer all the time.
 
#37 ·
Over the years I've read a lot of good information both for and against shooting these low numbered '03's. I don't own one, but if I did I would probably shoot cast bullets under a lesser charge. But then I usually don't try to see how much velocity I can get out of any rifle, especially my milsurps. There are exceptions since I do use a few for hunting, and there I'm looking for the flatest trajectory and sufficient terminal velocity.

As long as the shooter has made an informed decision to shoot and is aware of the risks, then the onus is on them.
 
#39 ·
Well mine was shot enough in WW1 to wear out a barrel. That's a pretty good test. It's got a 42 dated barrel. PO Ackley, and Hatcher seemed to think that the rifle was good if kept into the safe pressure range. I was planing on shooting 165 grainers at about 2450 FPS or so. Should be similar pressure to 150 grainers going at 2700 FPS.

I do believe that the low number Springfields are weaker than the high numbers. But if the rifle has been proof tested at 75,000, made it through a war being shot enough to wear out the original barrel and is shot with ammo in the 45,000 PSI range or lower what could cause it to fail besides a case head separation?

It does seem like it's just the thing to say when someone asks about a low number Springfield. The CMP says don't shoot them based on liability reasons, that makes sense. But that does not mean they are all unsafe.

I'd reckon a guess that all low number Springfields that have been proof tested with the blue pill are safe to shoot in the normal operating range of 45,000 to 50,000 PSI.
 
#42 ·
Well mine was shot enough in WW1 to wear out a barrel. That's a pretty good test. It's got a 42 dated barrel. .

Not true, most likely since it has a 42 dated barrel it was one of the recievers taken off a rifle returned for repair in the 20s. Those receivers were stored at SA and when the war started were assembled into complete rifles using any parts on hand. The original barrel may or may not have been worn out as it is not uncommon to find early barrels on very late recievers. I might also point out that one round of ammo can destroy a barrel if the bore is not cleaned afterwards. That would be any that is corrosive primed. I am sure most barrels that required replacement were from pitting not wear from firing.
I do not know why you even asked if it was safe to shoot your rifle since it seems you have your mind made up. Bottom line is that is there is no problem with the ammo then most likely there is not going to be an issue shooting. However if you have a head failure any Low Number 03 is subject to fragmentation becasue of the way it was made. Some of the low number 03s have really brittle receivers due to faulty heat treatment but all of them are somewhat brittle. SO when you do shoot your low number be sure have really good shooting glasses on and that your ammo is high quality. As a favor to other shooters if you are shooting at a public range do not shoot right next to other shooters so they will not be hit by fragments if you gun does blow up. Just hope you do not have a head split like this one I had in a 1917 Enfield.

 
#40 · (Edited)
Case rupture+questionable metallurgy=hole in face is a disqualifier for me. I submit the I-35 bridge collapse as my final attempt to make a comparison that catches your attention. The bridge worked perfectly for millions of cars until it fell. You know your "bridge" was made by the same maker as others that have fallen, there is no inspection that can be conducted on yours, yet refuse to change your route to somewhere you don't even need to go.
 
#44 ·
Yes, but the bridge had a bunch of work being done at the time and many large pieces of equipment on one end, similar to having a super hot load. I drove that route every day, and crossed 1/2 hour before it fell, by the grace of God.

Since the poster seems dead set (no pun intended) on shooting it, he is assuming the risk, whether good, bad, or indifferent...
 
#41 · (Edited)
noelekal

The Krag does not fail in the same fashion as a SHT M1903 due to the fact that it is a completely different design! The M1903 has a coned breech, and does not fully support the case head. The Krag's rimmed cartridge is fully supported, there is no void for pressures to spike. Any pressure release vents straight out of the action, there is no "containment vessel" of a coned breech to raise pressures.

To illustrate, here is an image of a Krag rifle. You can see the open design of the action. If you look just foward of the bolt stop pin, you can see the end of the receiver. If a cartridge fails, the gasses will be vented out of the receiver without encountering any intervening structure:



And yes, it is manufactured of the same Springfield Class C steel as the M1903.

Your theory regarding high pressure overloads is flawed. They can fail with normal service cartridges, that nominally operate at 50,000 pounds. Yes, the rifle can be successfully fired, many thousands of times, IF the pressure is contained within the cartridge case, and not vented into the action. If you have a cartridge failure, the pressures exerted on the receiver by a failed service cartridge exceeds the determined bursting strength of the receiver!
 
#45 ·
I like talking about stuff and getting other opinions. I want to shoot it since I bought it and was told by the seller it was safe. I now want to get other opinions. If anything this thread is a good source of information.

Thanks for all the posts.
 
#54 ·
Muscle, I understand your pain, trust me I know where you are coming from. Either go back on the seller as misrepresenting the condition of the rifle, or put it back/sell as a collectors piece, and buy a rebuild that IS a shooter. I realize you probably got porked, and are trying really hard to justify the porking. However, please consider all the facts that the VERY knowledgeable members of this board have presented to YOU. I was hard headed about this deal once, but Rick and the other members here wore me out, until they eventually penetrated my very thick skull with COMMON sense. I would suggest you do the same, for your own safety, and the preservation of a nice piece of history!!! JMO.

Michael
 
#46 ·
I vote that we make this a sticky. MJL, you should retitle it "The risks of firing the low numbered 1903"

There is lots of great info here for anyone in the future to make an informed decision and know the risks, and exercise their own judgement.
 
#47 · (Edited)
"The seller said it was safe". Now why would he say something like that when he was trying to sell a rifle most MILSURP shooters would avoid? Hmmm. I have had sellers tell me lots of interesting things about Springfields I was handling from their tables.Most gunshow sellers, with some notable exceptions, are far less educated about MILSURPS than the folks that end up buying them. 90% of what I have been told over the table was absolute BS.
 
#48 · (Edited)
Hi Deputy Dan;

I do recognize that the Krag is of different design. The point being made is that it has historically been considered to be a "weaker" design than the double lugged Mauser adaptation that the Model 1903 represents. Much is made in this thread of the cone breach and unsupported case heads but the esteemed pre-64 Model 70 also features this same design and offers no more case head support than does a 1903. The cone breach design makes for a smooth feeding bolt action and is perfectly sound as long as good quality cases are used. Though the pre-64 Model 70 is manufactured from more suitable steels it has the potential to be a rough customer in the event of a cracked case head. A cracked case head due to faulty annealing is a serious event in any high powered rifle and not only in the low numbered '03.

I'm not retiring my pre-64 Winchester Model 70s either.

The early '03s failed due to the variable heat treatment process AND extenuating circumstances. There were very few if any that were documented to fail solely from firing proper ammunition without another aggravating condition. Dithering over standard pressure loads causing the action to catastrophically fail is ratcheting up the alarm excessively. This is only my viewpoint.

Brad;

If I was to take the bridge analogy to heart then I'd stop driving over bridges on the Interstate system, fretting over whether or not my vehicle's "million and onth" pass over them will send me to my doom. One doesn't need to make stuff up to be concerned over. Both bridges and early '03s are "tempests in teapots." I'm not firing proof loads, sticking my old chewing gum up the chamber ahead of a cartridge, or even using unproven cartridge cases. The bridges will hold and so will a properly regulated early 1903.

This is my last hurrah on this thread as I gotta go drive over a number of those bridges on I-20, I-30, and I-40 this evening. I'm about to become a first time grandpa and so am headed from out west of Brownwood, Texas to Jackson, Tennessee this evening.




I really am going, I promise. Couldn't resist pulling this thread up on last time while checking weather reports. Was amused that I completely overlooked my own Krag in that photo of the Krag action Deputy Dan posted.
 
#50 · (Edited)
The early '03s failed due to the variable heat treatment process AND extenuating circumstances. There were very few if any that were documented to fail solely from firing proper ammunition without another aggravating condition. Dithering over standard pressure loads causing the action to catastrophically fail is ratcheting up the alarm excessively. This is only my viewpoint.
Congratulations and have a safe journey.

To clarify, the steel problems with the M1903 resulted from the forging operation, which was not controlled by pyrometers until after there were receiver failures, as Hatcher indicates. The forge shop workers were using the Mk 1 eyeball to gauge the correct heat of the receiver billet in the forge furnaces. The heat treatment operation was controlled by pyrometers. The alarm is that there is no reserve of strength in the material of the receiver. The coned breech isn't a problem, unless you start with an inferior receiver. The coned breech design, in a receiver of questionable strength, sets the stage for the potential for bad things to happen. The cartridge case is the only component that allows a low number rifle to function properly. You are relying on the weakest component in the system to function correctly 100% of the time, zero defects. If that case fails, the coned breech and the relatively poor gas evacuation features of the M1903 allow pressures into the action that excedes the material strength of the case hardened receiver. The propellant gasses escape a ruptured cartridge, enter the breech cone and receiver ring, building pressure, and can't be vented fast enough. In a DHT or Nickel steel receiver, no problem... the material is far more resilient. Those materials can still fail, but they fail through deformation... not shattering. That pressure load exerted into the receiver is far greater than you seem to realize. Service cartridges were pressure tested at the time with a copper crusher, which was set over the chamber of a pressure test rifle. Ever notice how thick the steel over the chamber is in comparison to the receiver ring construction??? The steel at the chemical level has been damaged, but there is no way to separate the good from bad receivers without destroying it in the process.

The majority of failures were with standard pressure service cartridges that failed, in rifles that had previously passed proof firing. This problem with metallurgy was never an issue with the M1903's contemporaries: Gewehr 98, SMLE, Mle 1886, Mosin Nagant 1891.

The industry has learned from these mistakes, and it was not repeated with later rifles... both military and commercial, such as the Win Mod 70 you mentioned.

Careful handloading of cartridges to a slightly lower velocity has little to no bearing on the operating pressure of the cartridge. Bad lots of brass were made in the past, and some bad batches can still make it out from manufacturers... that is why lot numbers are attached to significant products, to track material deficencies. A failed cartridge exerts far more pressure on the receiver than during normal operation. You can handload everything correctly, and sometimes things still fall apart:



Different cartridge, same concept.

None of this would be a problem if the receiver steel wasn't in question.
 
#51 ·
Enjoy. I'm going to shoot a few of mine... perhaps I will pull the cosmoline off these and shoot them for the first time since they were returned from England...



Perhaps not. I do have the luxury to go to the vault and decide what to take out. My personal shooter is a Remington in the 3,170,000 range.
 
#53 ·
The subject of the low number 1903 has been hashed over MANY times.
Suffice to say, the top experts like Bruce Canfield and others say not to shoot them, life and collectible rifles are too short.

My take is:
Take a large caliber revolver.
Insert one cartridge in the cylinder, spin it and close the cylinder.
Cock the hammer, put the muzzle against your head and pull the trigger.

Now take a low number 1903 and insert and chamber a 30-06 cartridge, the most powerful service rifle cartridge ever used.
Put your face RIGHT behind the receiver and pull the trigger.

Notice the similarities in the two experiments.

Or, as one old timer told me, "Kid we're all going to Hell in a handcart. Why would you want to grease the wheels".

If you shoot these, at least be a gentleman and do it well away from innocent bystanders.
 
#55 ·
Somebody posted this in another forum on 9/19, thought it was pretty timely:

mpguy80/08 said:
Hi Gang...

First of all let me tell you that I am okay. Thank god.

I was out with my reenacting unit today getting a little live fire in. One of our guys recently aquired an Underwood Carbine and a Remington M1903A3. Both weapons were cleaned, and inspected and found to be with no faults, lubricated, and reassembled. Five others fired the M1903A3 before I did, and had no problems. I was handed five rounds, which I had fed into the internal magazine and I closed the bolt. When I pulled the trigger, I thought I'd lost my face. The round in the chamber ruptured, flashing back and destroying the extractor, and the metal clip around the bolt. The shrapnel and gasses and unburned powder vented back almost directly into my face. Most of the force of the blast vented our at the extractor, however some vented straight back along the bolt channel and into my face and hand where I held the stock.

I stood there dazed for a moment, with the others asking if I was okay... I can hear myself on the video saying yes, but the next thing I felt was blood running down my face. I put a hand up and came away with blood. I went to my vehicle and got my first aid kit and worked at tending and assessing my wounds. I was lucky, I only had one small puncture, which caused all the bleeding. I dont know what hit me, but it punctured the skin but did not penetrate all the way through. Nothing got under the skin. The small puncture was about one inch under my right eye.

The others came over and were trying to remove the bolt from the weapon in order to unload the remaining rounds. After about twenty minutes they finally got the bolt open and the ruptured casing out of the chamber. The case ruptured right above the extractor groove, blowing out a small portion of the brass, which did not separate from the casing, but allowed the gasses to vent back. The excractor was bent, and looked like it may have been chipped. there is a kind of clip around the bolt... and this was pretty well mangled.

The Casing was marked with an K at the top, and 54 at the bottom. The rounds had been sold new, I think, but may have been reloads, I'm not sure, they werent my rounds, but they came in a red colored box with a name that started with a P, and the rounds were held in 2 red 10 round plastic racks inside the box. All the rounds that had been fired before me came from this same lot.

A couple of things I've learned today.

1. No matter how many people have fired a weapon before you safely, it CAN malfunction when you pull the trigger.

2. No amount of prep... disassembly, cleaning and lubrication can stop a weapon malfunction.

3. Seemingly brand new ammunition can, and will from time to time malfunction.

4. Not all ammunition packages as new ammo, is indeed new ammo. They very well may be reloads.

5. As safe as ammunition makers try to make their ammunition, there is always that one casing that slips through.

6. Most importantly, wear safety glasses. I wasnt, and I'll tell you, that lesson is not lost on me. I could very well have lost an eye today. As it is, I have a face full of minor flash burns. It might have been alot worse.

Hope this helps everyone to be extra careful, especially when you are firing ammunition you have no idea where it came from. I'll never shoot ammo someone else provides again. My face and nose are still tender from the incident.

Wayne

http://www.usmilitariaforum.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=55014

Bad ammo didn't go away with the end of World War I. Good thing he was shooting a properly heat-treated M1903A3 that held together.
 
#56 ·
+1 on that post.

The older I get and the more I have at stake (wife and 4 year old kid), the less I'm interested in pointless risks with no discernible reward. I've done 10 years in the Army, been to Iraq, Kosovo, and jumped out of planes, but can't imagine why it's worth the risk shooting a low number when safer models are available.
 
#57 · (Edited)
Don't find a "K" headstamp for US 30-06. KS was Alleghany Ordnance plant stamp (KS + date). But that does look like a military headstamp, so the ammo may have been reloads or repackaged since the container sounds like a non-factory box.

In any case - several lessons here, including the very important one that you should always (make that ALWAYS) wear eye protection. I don't always wear my old set of B&L Shooting Masters, but i ALWAYS wear eye protection - my regular glasses are all safety-standard plastic and provide a lot of protection.

PS - I would NOT shoot a low number Springfield. Especially one when the production rate increased as we realized a war was coming, and then was upon us. All of the numbers known to me that failed were produced after 1914 or 1915 - meaning just that, could be some from the earlier days that failed, I just don't know about them.
 
#61 ·
Might be from this article:
http://m1903.com/03rcvrfail/

From the article by Joeseph Lyon:

"The overall failure rate of the 33 Springfield receivers was 4.13 failures per 100,000 receivers. The highest rate of failures occurred among the receivers manufactured in 1904 (8.71/100,000), followed by 1911 (8.53/100,000), 1916 (7.53/100,000), then 1907 (7.26/100,000). The belief that the problem with brittle receivers was caused by inexperienced workers overheating the receivers in 1917 is not supported by the data. Only one of the 11 receivers that failed in 1917 was made in that year. The other ten were made before 1917, two in 1904. The distribution of these rates by year suggests that the problem of overheating the receivers was present during ten of the 15 years of manufacture, and was worse before 1917, especially in the earliest years of production, with 10 of the 33 known receivers being made before 1908."

"The overall failure rate of the 22 Rock Island manufactured receivers was 7.71/100,000, nearly double that of those manufactured by Springfield. (See table 2 and figure 1.) Rock Island produced rifles for 11 years, starting in 1905 and ending in 1914, and then during most of 1917 and early 1918, There were no receiver failures of rifles manufactured for five of those 11 years (1905-6, 1913-14, and 1917), a higher percent of years than Springfield Armory (33.3% compared to 45.5%). Receiver failures occurred in rifles made between 1907 to 1912, with the peak rate occurring in 1912 at 20.27 per 100,000, about two and half times the peak rate for any of the years of manufacture for the Springfield Armory rifles."
 
#68 ·
I think some of you have missed the point. I was saying that I was reminded why I wanted a MODEL 1917, NOT a 1903. To confuse things more, doughboy1953 has mentioned that some MODEL 1917 receivers made by Eddystone were found to be cracked after rebarreling. It is believed that this was caused by Eddystone installing the barrels very tight with a hydraulic device and then gunsmiths were using inappropriate methods to get them out again.

Only this statement:

If I recall, several thousand receivers made in 1917 were destroyed as suspect. Rock Island actually stopped production for several months at a time that rifles were in serious demand.
appears to apply to the Model 1903.
 
Top