Have ? on 1903 springfield
1 - 18 of 18 Posts
Joined
·
14,549 Posts
You have what is referred to as a low number Springfield receiver. Until S/N 285,506 and up, Rock Island receivers are neither double heat treated nor nickel steel, the two solutions used to stop receiver shattering on failure. This does not mean your gun will not work, but you need to be aware it is more brittle and less robust than the later metallurgy.
Get a copy of Hatcher's Notebook to read about the history of the receiver failures (pp. 198-231). This is a summary article on the topic. If you intend to shoot it, stay with lighter loads and don't push it. Don't use surplus ammo in it, as some can be warm and some can be aged until the bullet sticks and raises starting pressure. I have a high serial number Springfield Armory '03, but avoid Federal brass, which is often a bit softer than most, Winchester, which has a thinned out semi-balloon head design, and also most foreign origin brass in the Springfield due to the unsupported portion of the head the closed action exposes.
Some of the low number receivers are strong enough that they will never fail with properly specified rounds, but when they do fail they shatter rather than bend, which makes the failure more dangerous due to flying fragments.
You will also find people writing online who are in complete denial that there was ever any danger with the old low-numbered receivers and that the ammunition was to blame or other problems, but I believe them largely to be making excuses. One such person on another forum has a collection of low number Springfields, so he has some investment in it not being true. He claimed Hatcher and everyone else had it all wrong. It was a "myth". He made some good, but not entirely compelling arguments. Then he lost all credibility when, in another thread, he claimed slamfires in Garands never happen and tried to convince me (I've witnessed two), and another member who personally survived two catastrophic out-of-battery slamfires in his own guns, that Garand slamfires are we were a "myth" (the same word he'd used regarding low number '03 receiver failures).
People have sacrificed low numbered '03 receivers to the hammer test to find some shatter on being struck, despite having survived Rockwell hardness testing at the factory when they were made. I don't know enough about metallurgy to say whether an x-ray or other modern examination method could tell you how safe your particular copy is non-destructively? Short of such effort, I don't see a reason to take pointless chances with it. I would stick only to lighter loads if you decide to try shooting it.
Note that value of such a gun as a non-shooting collector's military piece will depend on it being 100% original parts and no re-bluing or sporterizing of any kind.
Get a copy of Hatcher's Notebook to read about the history of the receiver failures (pp. 198-231). This is a summary article on the topic. If you intend to shoot it, stay with lighter loads and don't push it. Don't use surplus ammo in it, as some can be warm and some can be aged until the bullet sticks and raises starting pressure. I have a high serial number Springfield Armory '03, but avoid Federal brass, which is often a bit softer than most, Winchester, which has a thinned out semi-balloon head design, and also most foreign origin brass in the Springfield due to the unsupported portion of the head the closed action exposes.
Some of the low number receivers are strong enough that they will never fail with properly specified rounds, but when they do fail they shatter rather than bend, which makes the failure more dangerous due to flying fragments.
You will also find people writing online who are in complete denial that there was ever any danger with the old low-numbered receivers and that the ammunition was to blame or other problems, but I believe them largely to be making excuses. One such person on another forum has a collection of low number Springfields, so he has some investment in it not being true. He claimed Hatcher and everyone else had it all wrong. It was a "myth". He made some good, but not entirely compelling arguments. Then he lost all credibility when, in another thread, he claimed slamfires in Garands never happen and tried to convince me (I've witnessed two), and another member who personally survived two catastrophic out-of-battery slamfires in his own guns, that Garand slamfires are we were a "myth" (the same word he'd used regarding low number '03 receiver failures).
People have sacrificed low numbered '03 receivers to the hammer test to find some shatter on being struck, despite having survived Rockwell hardness testing at the factory when they were made. I don't know enough about metallurgy to say whether an x-ray or other modern examination method could tell you how safe your particular copy is non-destructively? Short of such effort, I don't see a reason to take pointless chances with it. I would stick only to lighter loads if you decide to try shooting it.
Note that value of such a gun as a non-shooting collector's military piece will depend on it being 100% original parts and no re-bluing or sporterizing of any kind.
100% what Unclenick as stated.
"An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure." That's very appropiate in this case.
You might want to consider taking it to a competent gunsmith to have check over and evaluated for a value. If desiring to sell, the collector value (if not monkeyed with) will surely fund the purchase of a nice new rifle of choice.
"An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure." That's very appropiate in this case.
You might want to consider taking it to a competent gunsmith to have check over and evaluated for a value. If desiring to sell, the collector value (if not monkeyed with) will surely fund the purchase of a nice new rifle of choice.
Joined
·
2,646 Posts
Is the rifle in orginal configuration? If so look behid the front sight post on the barrel for the flaming ordance bomb. There should be two numbers on either side of the bomb. That is your date of manufactuer. Left two nos. the month, Right two the year (19xx).
Unclenick gave a very good discirbtion of the reciever. Also if not sporterized the rear sight has a battle sight when folded, and there should be three different apetures when raised (notch, christmas tree, peep). Numbers are for hundards of yards (not meters). Its adjustable for windage and elevation. There is a trap door in the butt stock for a oiler and pull thru cleaning kit. Correct bayonet would be a 16" M1905 with a M1907 leather sling. If I remember correctly yours should date before WWI. Only two armories made the 1903 rifle during that period Springfield Armory and Rock Island.
CD
Unclenick gave a very good discirbtion of the reciever. Also if not sporterized the rear sight has a battle sight when folded, and there should be three different apetures when raised (notch, christmas tree, peep). Numbers are for hundards of yards (not meters). Its adjustable for windage and elevation. There is a trap door in the butt stock for a oiler and pull thru cleaning kit. Correct bayonet would be a 16" M1905 with a M1907 leather sling. If I remember correctly yours should date before WWI. Only two armories made the 1903 rifle during that period Springfield Armory and Rock Island.
CD
Joined
·
3,981 Posts
These folks have given good advice
I have a sporterized 1903 Springfield 1903 that was made in 1908. I suspect that previous owners shot it quite a bit. It was rebarreled in WWII and has a barrel date of 11-44. Your rifle was made in 1911.
I shoot my low number Springfield with light loads. Within their limitations, these are fine rifles but should not be shot with hot loads. All the best...
Gil
Covering numbers: 1 - 445000.
The year of manufacture for serial number 209449 is 1911.
All rifles recalled and rechambered for .30 caliber in 1906.
The improved heat treatment started at 285507.
Introduction of nickel steel started at 319921.
I have a sporterized 1903 Springfield 1903 that was made in 1908. I suspect that previous owners shot it quite a bit. It was rebarreled in WWII and has a barrel date of 11-44. Your rifle was made in 1911.
I shoot my low number Springfield with light loads. Within their limitations, these are fine rifles but should not be shot with hot loads. All the best...
Gil
U.S. MILITARY DATES OF MANUFACTURE
U.S. Military M1903 Rifle: Rock Island Arsenal:Covering numbers: 1 - 445000.
The year of manufacture for serial number 209449 is 1911.
All rifles recalled and rechambered for .30 caliber in 1906.
The improved heat treatment started at 285507.
Introduction of nickel steel started at 319921.
Low number Springfield rifles
I would urge caution regarding the use of low number Springfield rifles as noted in the material already submitted and a portion copied below. Not all low number Springfields were pulled from service right away. I would not shoot factory ammo or hot reloads in one of these rifles. If I felt the need to shoot one, it would be with cast bullets. Take care...
Oberndorf
..."On December 2, 1927 a board was convened by the U.S. Army to look into the problem, and determine how to identify the brittle receivers and determine if they could be strengthen by re-heat treatment. The board made the determination of where the problem had occurred in receivers, and its from their deliberations that we use the 800,000 serial number for Springfields, and 286,506 for Rock Island receivers. They also concluded it was not feasible to re-heat the "low numbered receivers", and that they should be withdrawn from service.
To discard approximately 1,000, 000 receivers would create a political problem of major proportions for the U.S. Military, especially at time when military was funded at an extremely low level. The decision also has be questioned from a numeric standpoint. There had been 58 reported receiver failures when the board made its decision. To suggest that 1,000,000 other receivers were defective because of the failure of 58 is extrapolating well beyond the available data. On February 7, 1928 after considering all the factors the Chief of Field Service, U.S. Army,, General Samuel Hof, made the following policy for the United States Army: "Our ammunition is getting worse and accidents may be somewhat more frequent. On the other hand, some of these early rifles have been in use for many years and undoubtedly some of them have worn out several barrels. I do not think the occasion merits the withdrawal of the rifles of low numbers in the hands of troops until the rifle is otherwise unserviceable. On the other hand, I do not think we are justified in issuing such rifle from our establishments. I recommend that we instruct our Ordnance establishments to no longer issue rifles with these questionable receivers, that such rifles be set aside and considered as a war reserve and the question of the ultimate replacement of the receivers be deferred. When rifles are turned in from the troops for repair the receivers having these low numbers should be scrapped."
Hof’s decision meant that low numbered receivers would not be issued, but that those already issued would remain in service. The Army was small enough that new troops could easily be issued high numbered rifles, but low numbered rifles already issued would remain in service.
The U.S. Marine Corp, because of an even more limited budget than the Army, did not follow this recommendation and never retired any of its low numbered receivers until they were replaced with the M1 rifle about 1942. The desperate need for rifles caused by World War II, saw many of the low number receiver rifles taken from war reserves and issued to U.S. and foreign troops. In 1942-44 the United States also equipped the Free French Army of Charles DeGaulle with low numbered Springfields"...
I would urge caution regarding the use of low number Springfield rifles as noted in the material already submitted and a portion copied below. Not all low number Springfields were pulled from service right away. I would not shoot factory ammo or hot reloads in one of these rifles. If I felt the need to shoot one, it would be with cast bullets. Take care...
Oberndorf
..."On December 2, 1927 a board was convened by the U.S. Army to look into the problem, and determine how to identify the brittle receivers and determine if they could be strengthen by re-heat treatment. The board made the determination of where the problem had occurred in receivers, and its from their deliberations that we use the 800,000 serial number for Springfields, and 286,506 for Rock Island receivers. They also concluded it was not feasible to re-heat the "low numbered receivers", and that they should be withdrawn from service.
To discard approximately 1,000, 000 receivers would create a political problem of major proportions for the U.S. Military, especially at time when military was funded at an extremely low level. The decision also has be questioned from a numeric standpoint. There had been 58 reported receiver failures when the board made its decision. To suggest that 1,000,000 other receivers were defective because of the failure of 58 is extrapolating well beyond the available data. On February 7, 1928 after considering all the factors the Chief of Field Service, U.S. Army,, General Samuel Hof, made the following policy for the United States Army: "Our ammunition is getting worse and accidents may be somewhat more frequent. On the other hand, some of these early rifles have been in use for many years and undoubtedly some of them have worn out several barrels. I do not think the occasion merits the withdrawal of the rifles of low numbers in the hands of troops until the rifle is otherwise unserviceable. On the other hand, I do not think we are justified in issuing such rifle from our establishments. I recommend that we instruct our Ordnance establishments to no longer issue rifles with these questionable receivers, that such rifles be set aside and considered as a war reserve and the question of the ultimate replacement of the receivers be deferred. When rifles are turned in from the troops for repair the receivers having these low numbers should be scrapped."
Hof’s decision meant that low numbered receivers would not be issued, but that those already issued would remain in service. The Army was small enough that new troops could easily be issued high numbered rifles, but low numbered rifles already issued would remain in service.
The U.S. Marine Corp, because of an even more limited budget than the Army, did not follow this recommendation and never retired any of its low numbered receivers until they were replaced with the M1 rifle about 1942. The desperate need for rifles caused by World War II, saw many of the low number receiver rifles taken from war reserves and issued to U.S. and foreign troops. In 1942-44 the United States also equipped the Free French Army of Charles DeGaulle with low numbered Springfields"...
Hey Guys thanks for all the info. I have a few more questions.
1. Is it possible that the receiver and barrel was replaced and issued to my grandfather in WWII He was never in a war zone and spent him time in the army in Porto Rico as an MP. The family member that gave me the gun said it was his rifle issued by the army but with a build date of 1911 makes me wonder if that is true
2. My brother and I thought it would be nice to have the rifle gone thru by a gunsmith and restored.
Is that costly and is there any other resones I should not pursue bring it back to firing condition.
3. I was also given a Japaneses bolt action rifle is there a site you would suggest to get info on that rifle and I may take a pic of it and post on here.
Thanks for your help
1. Is it possible that the receiver and barrel was replaced and issued to my grandfather in WWII He was never in a war zone and spent him time in the army in Porto Rico as an MP. The family member that gave me the gun said it was his rifle issued by the army but with a build date of 1911 makes me wonder if that is true
2. My brother and I thought it would be nice to have the rifle gone thru by a gunsmith and restored.
Is that costly and is there any other resones I should not pursue bring it back to firing condition.
3. I was also given a Japaneses bolt action rifle is there a site you would suggest to get info on that rifle and I may take a pic of it and post on here.
Thanks for your help
Joined
·
39,105 Posts
Barrels were replaced all the time. As far as re-issuing a low-numbered Springfield to what might be considered "rear" or "guard" (read non-combat) duty, yes that is certainly plausible.
Barrels were replaced, and everything else, but receivers were not replaced with identically-marked specimens. A receiver will always have the date it was born on for a Springfield.
Your Japanese bolt rifle is probably an Arisaka, but occasionally something else turns up. www.surplusrifles.com is a wealth of information. Describe the markings in detail as best you can, or put pictures on a third-party host such as PhotoBucket.
Barrels were replaced, and everything else, but receivers were not replaced with identically-marked specimens. A receiver will always have the date it was born on for a Springfield.
Your Japanese bolt rifle is probably an Arisaka, but occasionally something else turns up. www.surplusrifles.com is a wealth of information. Describe the markings in detail as best you can, or put pictures on a third-party host such as PhotoBucket.
HotRod,
FWIW, the Arisaka actions have been noted for being very strong, if a bit ugly and having a terrible safety. Still, my model 99 in 7.7 Japanese is quite comparable to a 303 British. It has ample power and accuracy for hunting game, up to and including elk, at 200 yards or so. If yours is a Model 38 Arisaka, in 6.5 caliber, then it is among the smaller 6.5 military rounds, but still quite capable on deer and other medium, thin-skinned game.
IMHO, the Arisaka is a shooter, but I would be hesitant to fire the '03 with anything like modern ammo. In fact, if you don't load your own, so you KNOW they are lower pressure rounds, it would probably be best preserved as a mantle piece. Be selective about what gunsmith you choose to restore it, and how much you change the gun, if any. Collectibility (and hence, value) is based largely on how original those older military guns are kept.
It is entirely possible your grandfather carried that rifle, in its original configuration, even though it was built in 1911. As he was not in a front-line unit, he was not issued the most up-to-date firearm. Many Model 1903 rifles were built and issued, but saw little, if any, actual combat, despite being built all the way through WWII.
FWIW, the Arisaka actions have been noted for being very strong, if a bit ugly and having a terrible safety. Still, my model 99 in 7.7 Japanese is quite comparable to a 303 British. It has ample power and accuracy for hunting game, up to and including elk, at 200 yards or so. If yours is a Model 38 Arisaka, in 6.5 caliber, then it is among the smaller 6.5 military rounds, but still quite capable on deer and other medium, thin-skinned game.
IMHO, the Arisaka is a shooter, but I would be hesitant to fire the '03 with anything like modern ammo. In fact, if you don't load your own, so you KNOW they are lower pressure rounds, it would probably be best preserved as a mantle piece. Be selective about what gunsmith you choose to restore it, and how much you change the gun, if any. Collectibility (and hence, value) is based largely on how original those older military guns are kept.
It is entirely possible your grandfather carried that rifle, in its original configuration, even though it was built in 1911. As he was not in a front-line unit, he was not issued the most up-to-date firearm. Many Model 1903 rifles were built and issued, but saw little, if any, actual combat, despite being built all the way through WWII.
Similar Question
I have a similar situation to the original poster.
I have inherited my father's 1903 (very low serial number: Rock Island 62357). I'm not sure if it's originally military--it looks like a Sporter to me (though I am by no means a gun aficionado (yet!!)). The family has been using it as a hunting rifle since forever it seems (if only I had a photo of Grandad with it, then we'd have 3 generations documented).
My questions:
#1 Is there a way to tell what Model it is? I ask, because I would like to put optics on it . . . which leads to my 2nd question . . . .
#2 If I put optics on it, I would only do so if I could get something vintage piece. Is that delusional?--to find fully working optics that are 100+ years old?
Thanks in advance!
I have a similar situation to the original poster.
I have inherited my father's 1903 (very low serial number: Rock Island 62357). I'm not sure if it's originally military--it looks like a Sporter to me (though I am by no means a gun aficionado (yet!!)). The family has been using it as a hunting rifle since forever it seems (if only I had a photo of Grandad with it, then we'd have 3 generations documented).
My questions:
#1 Is there a way to tell what Model it is? I ask, because I would like to put optics on it . . . which leads to my 2nd question . . . .
#2 If I put optics on it, I would only do so if I could get something vintage piece. Is that delusional?--to find fully working optics that are 100+ years old?
Thanks in advance!
Joined
·
3,981 Posts
dumpster
Welcome to the Forum. I believe that you have a low number Model 1903 rifle made in 1906 at Rock island Arsenal. It would help if you could post pictures. What sights are on the rifle now? Optics can be added. If the rifle is original, there are no drill scope mounts to keep the rifle intact. If the rifle has been sporterized, there are other options. Hope this helps. All the best...
Gil
Covering numbers: 1 - 445000.
The year of manufacture for serial number 62357 is 1906.
All rifles recalled and rechambered for .30 caliber in 1906.
The improved heat treatment started at 285507.
Introduction of nickel steel started at 319921.
Welcome to the Forum. I believe that you have a low number Model 1903 rifle made in 1906 at Rock island Arsenal. It would help if you could post pictures. What sights are on the rifle now? Optics can be added. If the rifle is original, there are no drill scope mounts to keep the rifle intact. If the rifle has been sporterized, there are other options. Hope this helps. All the best...
Gil
U.S. MILITARY DATES OF MANUFACTURE
U.S. Military M1903 Rifle: Rock Island Arsenal:Covering numbers: 1 - 445000.
The year of manufacture for serial number 62357 is 1906.
All rifles recalled and rechambered for .30 caliber in 1906.
The improved heat treatment started at 285507.
Introduction of nickel steel started at 319921.
Noteb that the "problem" was not even considered by that board until those rifles had been through a war (where most of the failures occured) and more than two decades after the manufacture of the gun in question.
In point of fact, most of those million rifles were just fine.
Pete
1903 Pictures
Thanks for the info, Gil!
Here are some photos, I hope this helps. Let me know if you need to see a specific part.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/sets/72157624556230184/
Thanks for the info, Gil!
Here are some photos, I hope this helps. Let me know if you need to see a specific part.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/sets/72157624556230184/
Joined
·
14,549 Posts
Joined
·
380 Posts
I too have a low number 1903 Springfield. It had been sporterized and obviously well used. With a little TLC, rifle cleaned up nicely and bore was in good shape. I do shoot it on occassions at local range. But as others have suggested, keep my jacketed bullet reloads pretty mild and often use Trail Boss with cast bullets in it.
1 - 18 of 18 Posts
