Hooray! Got my Springfield.

[Mister Ridge]

Well, actually it's a Rock Island Arsenal but you know what I mean. Below are the pics of my newly acquired US Rifle Model of 1903. My plans for it include acquiring a leather sling and learning to shoot it. The owner of a local shop shoots Service Rifle and offered to teach me how to shoot with a leather sling. Please don't tell me what it's worth. I probably paid too much and I don't want to know. I think the pictures will tell the whole story. And to think, I was a little upset that I couldn't buy the Husqvarna M38 that another shop had for the same price.









Here she is. The grain of the stock is nice but I would like to put the straight grip away and replace it with a scant grip. No cartouche.


Close up of the receiver.


The first two of six reasons why I got it a little cheaper.


And the other four.


This is a scope I would like to put on it but probably won't get around to. At present, it won't clear the bolt handle. Nor am I certain the holes are even straight.


And last, here we have the muzzle and the barrel stamping.

 

[Donr13]

Nice rifle

 

[Dan M]

Rock Island M1903 rifles below serial number 285507 are generally not recommended for shooting. The receiver was manufactured from single heat treated Class C steel. Your rifle is one of the "low number" M1903s. The lower band is from Model of 1917 rifle.

Do your research on low number M1903s and make an informed decision whether to shoot it or not. Hatcher's Notebook is a good place to start... you can find it on the net.

 

[Mister Ridge]

Rock Island M1903 rifles below serial number 285507 are generally not recommended for shooting. The receiver was manufactured from single heat treated Class C steel. Your rifle is one of the "low number" M1903s. The lower band is from Model of 1917 rifle.

Do your research on low number M1903s and make an informed decision whether to shoot it or not. Hatcher's Notebook is a good place to start... you can find it on the net.

I have done my research and I still plan to fire it.

 

[kraigWY]

[quote[ I still plan to fire it.[/quote]

Except its not allowed in CMP Matches and I believe the NRA bars low serial number Springfields.

 

[Bangarang]

IMHO If you plan to fire it, I wouldn't recommend full power loads. B

 

[Mister Ridge]

[quote[ I still plan to fire it.

Except its not allowed in CMP Matches and I believe the NRA bars low serial number Springfields.[/QUOTE]

I am aware of this. I had not planned to fire any matches with it. Incidentally, I fired it today and will be posting about the results a little later. Let's just say that I wouldn't be winning any matches yet anyway.

 

[itwillis]

Any 1903 is a nice rifle but there are just so many un-f-ed up ones that are high number I just don't see the value. I don't belittle people who shoot them but when the "right" ones for shooting can still be found for $600 without looking too hard. I do like the wood!

 

[classicshooter]

Just hand load for it, with a reduced load and you should be okay.

 

[Dan M]

Reduced loads won't solve the problem.

Folks, the issue is that the "low number" M1903 had an unknown percentage of receiver billets burned in the forge shops in Springfield Armory and Rock Island Arsenal. They were machined into receivers, heat treated, finished, assembled into complete rifles, proofed and saw service. The receivers were glass hard on the outside and brittle internally. Those rifles have given decades of service and might still give good service as long as the cartridge case remains intact.

If this happens, you can have a really bad day:

A failed case can cause a low number receiver to burst... that started happening with shit quality WW1 ammunition...soft case heads were a real problem. Army Ordnance carefully examined the problem and decided that the proper corrective course of action was to withdraw all receivers made before the switch to double heat treatment from service as rifles were sent back for repair from units in the field... which would have been done completely if WW2 hadn't intervened. There is absolutely no way to determine if the receiver steel was compromised by non destructive inspection methods. The M1903 also has very poor gas escape provisions. There isn't any reserve of strength in the receiver material when a cartridge fails... you are betting that the cartridge case will work as designed, every time. It is kind of like driving your car after cutting away all the seat belts and removing all the air bags. The car still functions, but you are taking your chances.

The OP can do what ever he wishes with the rifle. A high quality pair of eye protection is an absolute must as most of the recorded injuries to shooters in Ordnance records were blinding, loss of eye and other eye/facial injuries. Tattooing from the powder is also a possibility. You may ask yourself why were those rifles rebarreled for the Second World War... the simple answer was that there was a war to be won and loosing some troops to injury was an acceptable risk vs getting weapons into the hands of combatants.

PS-If anybody is using the pile of shit that Dr. Lyons wrote about the probability of a M1903 receiver failing as justification to say that it is safe to shoot their low number M1903, you would be living in ignorance of the ACTUAL mode of failure.

 

[ChrisBCS]

Great post, Dan M. The rifle belongs hanging on a wall. Please don't shoot it at a range where other people may be injured. You're aware of the risks, injuries from a failure would be criminal negligence.

 

[itwillis]

Great explanation of why reduced loads doesn't matter. I was going to say something similar but you did it much better. Again I don't berate people for shooting them as the vast majority were likely not hardened improperly. But with no way to tell... the good ones are still easy to find.

 

[Dan M]

No one needs to take my word on this matter...If anyone out there is looking for definitive word the issue, go to Google Books and type in Hatcher's Notebook in the search query... Google has it as an eBook.

Gen. Julian Hatcher was the ordnance officer tasked with determining the problem. The applicable passages start midway down page 204 and all of 205, and then from page 212 to 223. Hatcher explains the matter far better than I ever could.

The entire book is a great read if one is so inclined.

 

[Socrates]

Reduced loads won't solve the problem.

Folks, the issue is that the "low number" M1903 had an unknown percentage of receiver billets burned in the forge shops in Springfield Armory and Rock Island Arsenal. They were machined into receivers, heat treated, finished, assembled into complete rifles, proofed and saw service. The receivers were glass hard on the outside and brittle internally.... .

I've heard of armorers using a file on receivers to see how hard they are. Maybe it could never prove definitively which ones were safe, but it might at least cull out some that don't pass the test.

 

[Dan M]

That would tell you absolutely nothing regarding the chemical state of the steel...the problem is to be found there.

Also, the receiver is case hardened... how would anyone propose to tell what the surface hardness is absent an accepted materials hardness test such as Brinell, Rockwell, Vickers or Knoop ?

That is purely gunshow B.S.

 

[Socrates]

I found where Hatcher quotes from Rock Island themselves about the file test:

"As to Rock Island receivers, on September 24, 1926, Rock Island replied as follows: "There are no records to show the serial number at which a change was made from carbon to nickel steel. Miscellaneous shop memoranda indicate that this change occurred shortly after August 1, 1918. The serial numbers in August, 1918, run upward from 319,921. One fact seems clear and that is that all finished receivers of nickel steel were stamped 'NS' on the face at the front end. This stamping is covered by the assembly of the barrel but can be seen on disassembled receivers. A fairly sure test can be made with a file as all nickel steel receivers cut easily, while filing makes no impression on the file-hard carbon receivers." (Hatcher's Notebook, page 220-221)

So it seems the usefulness of a file test was actually never for the sake of determining the safety of any "low number" (below 285,507) RIA carbon steel receivers. Rather it was used on higher number RIA receivers. But why test any of them? Here is a quote from a forum where someone else elaborates on that:

"RIA Springfield receivers from s/n 1 to 285,507 were SA class C carbon manganese steel, single heat treated. From s/n 285,507 to 319,921 they were of the same steel but double heat treated. Over s/n 319,921 the material spec changed to a 3.5% nickel steel with a SINGLE heat treatment. Unfortunately, RIA records show the intermixing of receivers with the earlier steel spec in with the later nickel receivers. These intermixed carbon steel receivers probably had the later double heat treat spec for carbon steel receivers since the single heat treat was discontinued at s/n 285,506 but can anyone be sure? I wouldn't bet my life on it. Carbon steel and nickel steel receivers require different heat treatment processes, yet serial numbers were mixed in this group. That's why I'd feel safer with one between 285,507 and 319921 but do the file test on a Rock Island '03 over s/n 319,921 and not fire it if it turns out not to be nickel steel."

 

[Dan M]

Again, it was well known that a file will cut nickel steel.

Again, the author of your quote has limited to no understanding of what transpired at RIA.

Rock Island Arsenal had completely suspended bolt and receiver production on January 30th 1918... in the middle of our participation in the war... it doesn't get more serious that that. No receivers were produced during Feb, Mar or Apr 1918. Approximately 450 employees were laid off, transferred or reassigned. RIA tested EVERY piece of steel it had, discarding any piece that failed meeting specs. Instructions were issued to Commander, Rock Island Arsenal on 2 Mar 1918 to destroy ALL carbon steel receivers having the old (case hardened) heat treatment that were in inventory and assemble ONLY receivers having the new heat treatment after that date. New heat treatment ovens were purchased and surplus ovens from the Eddystone plant were procured during the period RIA was not producing receivers and bolts. There was NO intermingling of single heat treatment receivers and double heat treatment receivers at RIA, and the EXACT serial number of the transition IS known (Springfield Armory is a different story).

Notice the word "feel" used in the "error-net" forum posting you cited. There is no need to "feel" anything, the original documents which explain what actually occurred still exist... it is all in the National Archives. It is far better to use primary source materials when you are trying to support an argument.

 

[TRAC]

This thread make me happy , when i will get to 90's i'm sure someone will be interested to buy my rifles i got when i was at 20's .

Passion have no limits and no end.

Trimis de pe al meu GT-I9100 folosind Tapatalk

 

[Socrates]

Dan M, thanks for your observations and after a little further consideration, your conclusions in this matter seem right to me.