OT Springfields Do I need to worry about .....

[rjohns94]

receiver being brittle on this serial # 563604 for an 03 30-06?? also, I need some education on two land and four land barrels? was there a switch over, any problems with stabilizing bullets out of a two land barrel? when did they stop making those (either year or serial #). thanks.

[AJMD429]

I don't know, either, but I will watch this thread so I learn something...

[Terry Murbach]

I CANNOT FIND THE BOOK WITH THE NUMBERS RIGHT NOW BUT I AM PRETTY SURE THAT IS A LOW NUMBER-DO-NOT-SHOOT-IT RIFLE.
THIS I DO KNOW, THE NUMBER OF GROOVES DOES NOT MEAN A FLIPPIN' THING AND THOSE TWO GROOVE BARRELS USUALLY SHOOT LIKE A MILLION BUX. THEY USUALLY ARE SUPERB WITH CAST BULLETS.

[stew71]

I think the general consensus is that one shouldn't shoot an '03 Springfield if it has a serial number below 800000 if it came from the Springfield Arsenal and below 286000 if it came from the Rock Island Arsenal. Here is some info re: that from the CMP.

http://www.thecmp.org/m1903.htm

I think the 4 groove barrel was switched out for the 2 groove barrel sometime in the mid '30 as part of the 1903A3 designation. And I've never heard of any issues with bullet stability between the two types. I'm sure someone here will chime in with the correct information.

My Remington 03A1 was re-barreled in 1944 with a 2-groove tube and handles 150, 165, and 168, and 175gr Sierra Matchkings quite nicely , thank you. It also has no issues with any M2 round or clone thereof.

[rjohns94]

I had heard don't shoot below mid 800,000 (source was Rifle magazine article) but that many were refired below that number.

[jnyork]

I have a nice sporter built on a Springfield, has the original 2-groove barrel, I cannot tell any drawback to it, shoots as well as a guy would want. I can recall reading some articles on this subject over the years, seems most agree the 2-groove works just fine.

[stew71]

I had heard don't shoot below mid 800,000 (source was Rifle magazine article) but that many were refired below that number.

And I think that's part of the problem. Neither arsenal keep good enough records on which particular rifles were re-treated. So as a general guideline, the Ordnance Department later just said to avoid shooting anything below such-and-such number and you'll be fine. Since the CMP is using those same guidelines when selling surplus 03's, I would take that as gospel in this case.

[Old Savage]

The number is 800,000 and I read the book on the Spingfield - have it somewhere; the blowups seemed all due to things you would not normally do if you are a reasonable shooter/reloader. Many had to do with obstructions in the barrel in the front third. They didn't all blow up.

[2ndovc]

The number is 800,000 and I read the book on the Spingfield - have it somewhere; the blowups seemed all due to things you would not normally do if you are a reasonable shooter/reloader. Many had to do with obstructions in the barrel in the front third. They didn't all blow up.

OS nailed it!

Grandpa's '03


jb

[KCSO]

If you have read Hatcher's Notebook or Whelen's book there is a wealth of comtemporary information on so called low According to Hatcher there were a total of 12 ??? or so blown up rifles out of 800,000 produced. This was attributed to improper hardening using the case like process that was then changed. There was and still is considerable discusssion as to wether the remaining rifles are or are not dangerous but for liability purposes most have kept quoting the 800,000 serial number.

Now as to personal experience... Over the last 30 years i have routinly fired a low number springfield with over two thousand cast and jacketed loads. I have pretty much come to the same conclusion as Hatcher and Whelen, the bad ones blew up and the rest are fine for sporting purpose. You will have to use your own discretion, but other than a haggling point I don't ever pass on an 03 due to serial number.


Two groove vrs 4 groove..... The 2 grooove barrels were a WWII attempt to speed production and they work just the same as a 4 groove. They are just as accurate as a 4 groove and with the right size bullet are fine for cast bullets also. I have replaced several worn out 4 groove barrels with new surplus 2 groove barrels and I have yet to have a complaint.

[Gun Smith]

When I was gunsmithing the second most common rifle to sporterize was the 03 or 03A3. Mauser 98 was the most common. Anything from recoil pads to cutting down the forestock and tossing the handguard to all out customs. We were aware of the weak action caution and did not recommend any magnum caliber rebarrel work on low number guns. We never saw a problem any 03-03A3 in 30-06 in any serial number series.
I always felt that two groove barrels work as good as four groove barrels.

[Cliff]

The problems with the lower numbered 03's was due to improper heat treatment of the receiver steel. It used to be done by very experience persons at the arsenals by judging the color of the metal when heated. With WWI production ramped up and newer inexperience personal they found they were burning the steel. Then they installed proper measuring instruments and could regulate the heat treatments. The low numbered were only heat treated once. With new instruments they underwent a double heat treatment. Then they switched to a nickle steel alloy and solved any future problems. All the 1903's used in WWI were considered low numbers. They worked very well. Hatcher found a number of blow ups were caused by some novice's trying to fire 8X57MM ammo and also a practice at the time of dipping the loaded rounds into oil or grease (Just the bullets were supposed to be coated) drove pressures up and in some rapid fire events, oil would run down into the chambers and increase case thrust which aided in action failures. Teddy Roosevelts 03 was serial number 6000 and it worked for him. ATB

[Charles]

Here is what I know about the subject at hand.

1. The ratio of low number 03s and high numbers failing is about the same.
2. The issues however, is not how often they fail, but what happens when they do.
3. The low numbered 03s being hard and brittle fragment/grenade when the fail.
4. The high number 03s being more plastic, swell up, but don't come to pieces.
5. Many cast bullet shooters shoot the low numbered 03s with low pressure loads.
6. The 2 groove barrel was a WWII cost saving measure by Remington on the 03A3s.
7. Remington just didn't cut the second set of grooves as they would have in a 4 groove barrel.
8. None of the Springfield, Rock Island or Smith-Corona rifles had 2 groove barrels unless they were rebarreled with a Remington barrel.
9. Two groove barrels give up nothing in accuracy to the barrels with more grooves.

[brokenhand]

Maybe this link will help

http://m1903.com/03rcvrfail/

Jim

[rjohns94]

I read multiple articles in rifle magazine about the low serial number receivers. unfortunately, they can't tell unles you do a destructive test on them. I passed on this rifle tonight. It was a Sedgley sporter that I was highly coveting.

[Ysabel Kid]

Excellent post Mike!

My 1903 is a shooter made after WWI (1921), S/N 1217XXX. What a great gun!

[Malamute]

One thought, as a Sedgely would be quite desirable, would be to lay hands on it, and swap recievers with a later receiver for shooting. You could keep the original for collectibilty.

This isnt as complicated as it may sound at first. The Springfields seem to have kept extremely good dimensional tolerances regarding barrels, bolts and receivers. Barrels and bolts seem to interchange without issue for the most part. The gunsmiths I've heard discuss it have said that when the barrel is turned in to the index mark, the torque is right on, as is the headspace. Swapping bolts doesn't seem to be a problem either. It's worth checking headspace, but doesnt seem to be out of spec in general. One 'smith said in 20 some years of messing with 1903's, he had only seen one Springfield bolt that didnt headspace correctly.

The double heat treat recievers, I believe, were not early guns re treated, but a different process used on later guns. The early guns that were overheated, apparently, had the carbon content of the steel permanently changed, and no re-heat treatment was able to improve it. The brittleness was too hard, and the carbon burned out of it.

I have heard of an early 1903 that was a sporter, and used for years before it came apart. The later guns were tested to 100,000 PSI and didnt come apart. or was that 125,000 PSI ? Could have been double heat treated to 100k, and nickel steel guns to 125K ot vice versa.

I have not read all the referenced materials, if I'm mistaken on any details, I'd be glad to know the correct information.

[Doc Hudson]

The number is 800,000 and I read the book on the Spingfield - have it somewhere;

Not according to the Dixie Gun Works Catalog Reference Section, which I have in hand.

According to DGW, rifles produced at Rock Island Arsenal upto and including serial number 285,507 were made of "very hard carbon steel," i.e. very brittle and are unsafe with modern loads.

Starting with serial number 285,508 the "consistency of the steel was changed to make stand heavier proof loads."

DGW goes on to say: "All Model 1903's produced at Springfield Armory below serial number 785,000 should be considered unsafe. Heat treatment was visual rather than with recording instruments."

So "Low Number Recievers" serial numbers vary depending on where it was made. Rock island 03-A3's aove 285,507 are safe. Springfield rifles above 785,000 are safe. And apparently all rifles from all other manufacturers are safe.

[ceb]

Well I at one time owned a low serial Springfield. And I shot it, my understanding was the problem was in the unexpected happening, a overcharge or blown case or obstructed bore for example. Still it was in the back of my mind though, with good ammo it would probably shoot forever but...., I sold mine to a feller that wanted a wall hanger after explaining the issues to him, not cause I was really afraid of the rifle, but I just can't see those sights anymore. I looked for a peep sighted A3 model ever since.

[firefuzz]

Here is what I know about the subject at hand.

3. The low numbered 03s being hard and brittle fragment/grenade when the fail.
4. The high number 03s being more plastic, swell up, but don't come to pieces.

That's my take on it, it's not if they will, it's what happens if they do. The major problem was when a case head seperated, much more common with ammo made then (wartime) than now. If one occurrs the venting gas turns the receiver into a grenade instead of just swelling. Barring that, I'd think they would be fine...the question is do you want to chance it? I've not bought several of these rifles due to the low number and wish now that I had.

I've seen barrel obstructions banana peel modern barrels but usually the receiver survived, but I'd have to think very hard about rebarreling one after that happened. I think the factory would have to OK it and do the work. My insurance co-pays are higher than the cost of a new gun.

Rob

[Charles]

"The double heat treat recievers, I believe, were not early guns re treated, but a different process used on later guns. "

A few more thoughts on the subject at hand.

1. Double heat treated receivers surplanted the single heat treated in production and were the mainstay until the use of nickle steel took over for receivers.
2. The double heat treaded receivers were some of the best. They certainly were the slickest to operate.
3. I am building a sporter for my son on one of these double heat treated receivers (SN 1235500 Springfield Arsenal) wich was produced in 1921.
4. The Krag rifle was built from the same steel and same heat treatment as the first string of brittle single heat treated 03s. Yet you don't hear of a Krag fragmenting.
5. The Krag action vents gas much better than the 03s and therein is the reason the older SHT 03 fragment and the Krags do not when the gas escapes into the action.
6. I had a double heat treated 03 years ago, that experience a case failure and the gas got loose into the action. The Hatcher hole did it's work, yet enough gas entered the bolt through the firing pin hole to compress the spring and blow the cocking piece back to full cock. Really strange happening. The rifle was not damaged, just my nerves were a little frazzled.