Old 1903 Springfields

[Barlow]

My older brother is the VFW Commander in a nearby town. I was helping him pull his tree taps yesterday afternoon and we got to talking about rifles. Long story short, I was able to check out their 03 Springfield's. They have 8 of them the lowest serial number is 7***, the highest 74****, most are 5 numbers. A couple were Rock Island's the rest Springfield Armory. They all had full pistol grip stocks and some had been rebarreled. It was just a hoot to handle them, as I had one a few years ago and sold it to a neighbor. Barlow

 

[Dusty Stevens]

What do they do with them? Do they function?

 

[FatBoy]

low serial number 1903s have questionable heat treating and are not supposed to be used for centerfire. Serials this low, I'm surprised these aren't strait stocks with finger grooves.

 

[Barlow]

They did use them for funerals, but not anymore. They are 100% serviceable. I was surprised by the stocks as I thought they would be straight, and they had a shiny finish. The one I had was a 1936 high serial number with a scant stock. These rifles were probably reworked several times by the armory. Barlow

 

[shortgrass]

"High" number begins at 800,000 for Springfield. Seems like 297,000 for Rock Island, but I'd have to check to be certain. "Cone breeched"

 

[Ray B]

It's not that the first ones made, ie low numbers were defective. They were single heat treated which made them hard, which is good. The problem came in because the heat treating was done "by eye". The armorer would heat the action to the appropriate red glow then process it. the problem was that on cloudy days the appropriate red glow appeared at a lower temperature and on bright days the action had to get significantly hotter for it to appear to have the same appropriate red glow. This difference in temperature resulted in over heating some of the actions, which led to the crystalline structure of the action being faulty. So basically, if the action was heat treated on a dismal day it will be a splendid action. If it was made on a bright sunny day, there's a chance that the steel has been burnt and would not hold the pounding of high pressure loads. Since all of these low number '03s are now over 100 years old, it's likely that if they were going to fail, they would have done so by now; but then I don't know that there's an effective way to check them other than firing a proof load in them, but that may just take it to the brink so that another standard pressure load would cause a failure. It seems that with all the modern equipment developed in the last several years that there should be a way to check the molecular structure of the metal without damaging its integrity. Or you could just admire the rifle for its history and not need to shoot it.

 

[mongo chicago]

Just load the ammo to specs and you should be fine. Also remember that in combat, barrels sometimes get plugged even partially and that raises pressure.

 

[HPMike800]

It's not that the first ones made, ie low numbers were defective. They were single heat treated which made them hard, which is good. The problem came in because the heat treating was done "by eye". The armorer would heat the action to the appropriate red glow then process it. the problem was that on cloudy days the appropriate red glow appeared at a lower temperature and on bright days the action had to get significantly hotter for it to appear to have the same appropriate red glow. This difference in temperature resulted in over heating some of the actions, which led to the crystalline structure of the action being faulty. So basically, if the action was heat treated on a dismal day it will be a splendid action. If it was made on a bright sunny day, there's a chance that the steel has been burnt and would not hold the pounding of high pressure loads. Since all of these low number '03s are now over 100 years old, it's likely that if they were going to fail, they would have done so by now; but then I don't know that there's an effective way to check them other than firing a proof load in them, but that may just take it to the brink so that another standard pressure load would cause a failure. It seems that with all the modern equipment developed in the last several years that there should be a way to check the molecular structure of the metal without damaging its integrity. Or you could just admire the rifle for its history and not need to shoot it.

When I anneal I have noticed this same behavior,
I always set my annealer with the room light very low.

 

[msinc]

In the entire history of the 03 if I remember right there were only 3 or 4 that actually blew apart, and then they weren't ever sure it wasn't due to defective ammo at the time. It also wasn't that they were not treated hot enough, it was that they decided to go back and re-treat the suspect receivers and that was supposed to cause the big problem because it made them too hard and "brittle". I have heard and read so much conflicting info about the 1903's that I quit worrying about it.
I had a Rock Island that was exactly in the worst of the "bad" serial numbers, I believe it was made in like 1909 or maybe 1911. I re-barreled, put a C-stock on it and a Unertl and made it a 30-06AI. Then I loaded it as hot as the cartridge would stand and never had a problem. I figured that if I could drill and tap the receiver okay then it couldn't have been too terribly hard or brittle.
The 03 and the very early 03A3's had cut rifled barrels and they shot great. By design the rifle pretty much goes against everything we know accuracy wise today and yet they still shot great.
A little known fact was that the rifle infringed on Peter Paul Mauser's patent and during WWI when we were fighting them the U.S. govt was paying the royalties and penalty to him for the infringment.

 

[pirate ammo]

yo

In the entire history of the 03 if I remember right there were only 3 or 4 that actually blew apart, and then they weren't ever sure it wasn't due to defective ammo at the time. It also wasn't that they were not treated hot enough, it was that they decided to go back and re-treat the suspect receivers and that was supposed to cause the big problem because it made them too hard and "brittle". I have heard and read so much conflicting info about the 1903's that I quit worrying about it.
I had a Rock Island that was exactly in the worst of the "bad" serial numbers, I believe it was made in like 1909 or maybe 1911. I re-barreled, put a C-stock on it and a Unertl and made it a 30-06AI. Then I loaded it as hot as the cartridge would stand and never had a problem. I figured that if I could drill and tap the receiver okay then it couldn't have been too terribly hard or brittle.
The 03 and the very early 03A3's had cut rifled barrels and they shot great. By design the rifle pretty much goes against everything we know accuracy wise today and yet they still shot great.
A little known fact was that the rifle infringed on Peter Paul Mauser's patent and during WWI when we were fighting them the U.S. govt was paying the royalties and penalty to him for the infringment.

u are correct

 

[Dusty Stevens]

A guy in my deer camp has one thats been sporterized back in the 50’s like they used to do mausers. Ive been admiring and trying to acquire that rifle since 1983. Its the best looking military sporter conversion ive ever seen

 

[shortgrass]

What do they do with them? Do they function?

Those "low numbered" rifles were removed from service put into storage by the government. During WW2 some were removed from storage and issued to guards at munitions plants and other war time industries that were guarded. Some may have been shipped to England for the home guard, there. After WW2, many still in the US, were given on loan to the VFW and a few other vet organizations for use in parades and honor guard at memorial services for service men. At the most, they fired blanks since arriving at the vet organizations. Anyone who pays liability insurance for their business wouldn't barrel a low number 03 receiver. I have turned a few of them away. With their history and the fact that the US Government pulled them from active service because of safety concerns, it just would not be worth the risk to the business to do so. A failure of one of these that you barreled would mean the end of your business, whether something else was at fault or not. An individual can do as he pleases. Personally, my health , well being and safety are more important to me than taking any chance I don't have to, just to say I have fired a low number Springfield. I own several Springfields. A 'low number' Springfield (797,***) that has had a proof round through it (with documentation of such), a Rock island that is well above being 'low numbered', and a Rem 03/A3 and a Smith Corona. I have never fired the 'low numbered' Springfield, and the others have never (since I have owned them) had any more than Ball M2 fired through them. It just serves a reminder and another piece in the collection next to the others. I used the SC when I shot military bolt action rifle matches. Damned accurate for an open sighted military issued rifle. Better sights than any Mauser '98. Anyone who has read "Hatchers' Notebook" can see the history of the 1903 Springfield Rifle.

 

[Albany Mountain]

A guy in my deer camp has one thats been sporterized back in the 50’s like they used to do mausers. Ive been admiring and trying to acquire that rifle since 1983. Its the best looking military sporter conversion ive ever seen

Maybe 2nd best?

 

[msinc]

yo

u are correct

Thank you, sir!!!

 

[Bart B.]

The 03 and the very early 03A3's had cut rifled barrels

I think all M1903 barrels were cut rifled. Some early ones were made with single point sine bar riflers, the rest with a broach that cut all grooves with one pass. Those made near the end of th broach's life had smallest groove diameters and were therefore more accurate.

 

[msinc]

I think all M1903 barrels were cut rifled. Some early ones were made with single point sine bar riflers, the rest with a broach that cut all grooves with one pass. Those made near the end of th broach's life had smallest groove diameters and were therefore more accurate.

Yes sir, it is also my understanding that all 1903 barrels were cut rifled too. It was not until they came out with the 1903A3 that button rifled barrels were issued. There were some 1903's that eventually ended up with arsenal installed button barrels. It is easy enough to tell which is which...if it is a G.I. barrel and it has 4 grooves it was cut, if it was a G.I. barrel and the rifling is only two groove then it was buttoned. The button rifling looked "different", the grooves and lands were equal in width making them look wide.
Funny that they did a conventional looking four groove button barrel on all the M1 Garands, but the 03A3 was that strange two groove.

 

[jonbearman]

I saw the remains of a low serial number and it disintegrated and the shooter had substantial injury so I would be very very careful about shooting a low number without having it checked thoroughly by someone who really knows these rifles. You could also have it checked at a machine shop on a brinell testor to see what the hardness really is and then research it to make sure it isn't too hard.

 

[shortgrass]

Yes sir, it is also my understanding that all 1903 barrels were cut rifled too. It was not until they came out with the 1903A3 that button rifled barrels were issued. There were some 1903's that eventually ended up with arsenal installed button barrels. It is easy enough to tell which is which...if it is a G.I. barrel and it has 4 grooves it was cut, if it was a G.I. barrel and the rifling is only two groove then it was buttoned. The button rifling looked "different", the grooves and lands were equal in width making them look wide.
Funny that they did a conventional looking four groove button barrel on all the M1 Garands, but the 03A3 was that strange two groove.

Button rifling was not perfected until LATE in the 1940s. Think Mike Walker of Remington and Clyde Hart of Hart Rifle barrels. The width of the lands and grooves in a barrel have a direct effect on pressure. That's why 2 groove rifling look different than 4 or 6 groove rifling. As far as broach, I'd have to see that in ligit print somewhere other than on the interdnet. Anyone wonder why there were many Pratt & Whitney rifling machines sold as surplus after the war? I had the opportunity to closely examine a "dedicated chambering lathe" that was of WW2 vintage. Basically, an 8 position turret lathe turned so all sockets in the turret faced the head stock, with no cross slide, made by who else other than P & W on the same frame as their single station sine bar riflling machine. With it was a 'flush system' for through the barrel coolant/lubrication that was original to the machine. A "production" machine, for sure.

 

[Bart B.]

It was not until they came out with the 1903A3 that button rifled barrels were issued.

I've never seen any reference to USA arsenal barrels being button rifled until reading your post. All I've seen in print are cut rifling methods. Single point or broach. The 2 groove 30 caliber barrels were broach rifled, both M1903A3 and Garand ones

No mass produced button rifled barrels were made in the USA until Remington did inbthe 1950's.

 

[muleman69]

This thread is very interesting ,keep it coming . I have a M1903A3 that I have been wanting to shoot. Does anybody have a load that is on the mild side and is somewhat accurate?