Springfield 1903?

[Cheapshooter]

I have an opportunity to acquire a 1903 Springfield, Marked Springfield with serial number 18,4xx. Would this low of a serial numbered gun be safe as a shooter, or were all the guns made at Springfield under 750,000 subject to poor heat treating?
The gun is all original, and looks to be in excellent condition except for a very rusted butt plate, and a little water damage marks on the first couple inches of the buttstock. I was told it was inadvertently left sitting in 2" of water somehow,
I'll try to get some pics us ASAP, but for now, any idea of it's worth and shootability.

[SHE3PDOG]

While there are many people who have shot 1903's with low serial numbers safely, there is a much larger risk of catastrophic malfunction with the poor heat treatment on them. I wouldn't try to fire it personally, but if you have the undying urge to do so, I'd take it to a trusted armorer first.

Generally, the lower numbered 1903's are worth less than the newer ones due to the fear that people have of them. That's not to say it isn't worth something, but it probably won't be worth as much as a later rifle with equivalent wear and tear.

[mapsjanhere]

All a question of price. If it's all correct for a pre WWI 1903 I'd pay $500 for it and put it in the safe as a collectible, even with the water damage. If it's reworked and doesn't have much of a collectible aspect I leave the fingers of it as I won't shoot them in that serial number range.

[highpower3006]

Really, it all depends on originality and condition. With that serial number it was originally manufactured as a rod bayonet rifle. Rod bayonet rifles that haven't been altered are worth thousands of dollars and are rare as hens teeth. Most likely it was rebuilt a few times in it's life and will have upgraded parts on it. If it has enough early parts, it may be worth more than the asking price if you part it out.

Thousands of early rifles were rebuilt/refinished and then put into storage during WWII. Most likely it will be one of those rifles and even though it is not recommended that they be shot, they still seem to bring about what the seller is asking.

Picture that are taken in good light and are in focus (no cell phone pics) would really help in identifying what it is. Also it would help to have a few close-ups of the left side of the stock in the wrist area and the top of the barrel just behind the rear sight.

[mehavey]

Out of curiosity,does it have what looks like Rockwell punchmark right next to the serial number?

[highpower3006]

Out of curiosity,does it have what looks like Rockwell punchmark right next to the serial number?

You have a high number Rock Island '03. RI receivers produced after #285506 are double heat treated and are safe. I think the punch mark may have been done by an armory after a rebuild (but I could be wrong). I have seen similar punch marks on the shelf just below the serial number which yours also has.

Officials at Springfield did extensive research to see if they could re-heat treat the early receivers and thus salvage them. What they decided was that there was no way to effectively change the consistency of the metal to make them safe.

FWIW, the Marine Corps used their low number '03's right up until they transitioned to the M1 Garand.

[mete]

A Rockwell hardness test imprint leaves a smaller hole.
Could be another mark as mentioned above.

[gyvel]

FYI: The 800,000 serial number cutoff for "low number" Springfield guns was an arbitrary number pulled out of somebody's behind. There have been at least two documented cases of Springfields with numbers just over 800,000 that have let go, and when analyzed, have been found to made of overly hardened, brittle steel.

(Note: It's been a few years since I read the article, but I believe one of the documented cases was a gun in the 807,000 range. I can't be sure, but I believe the article was in an Arms and the Man magazine from the 70s.)

[mehavey]

"... what looks like Rockwell punchmark..." [emphasis added]

That punchmark (if it exists/where it exists) indicates a Marine Corps receiver that they refurbed/rebarreled at the depot for war use.

If so, that also indicates a double-heat treated receiver which has seen more than a fair share of use/actual war conditions and was reissued for combat use.

While it does not guarantee nickel-steel safety of high-numbered Springfields, it does show that the receiver has literally run a proofing/abuse gauntlet of sorts without incident.

[tahunua001]

the low serial numbers on springfield specifically are 1-800,000 while rock islands are 1-285,000. yours is definitely in the affected range.
the problem with this is only certain rifles done during a certain time of day per certain time of year. the steel workers had to eyeball the hot metal for a certain coloring but if they were in direct sunlight they had to get a lot hotter for that coloring to become plainly visible as opposed to overcast days or times where sunlight was not shining through windows in the factories. in addition many of the failures occurred in conjunction with casing failures from poorly manufactured ammunition from the WWI era. there is always risk when shooting these but some of these rifles are perfectly safe but without any means of determining which ones are the safe ones it all comes down to a personal judgement call about whether you want to risk personal injury and the loss of a rifle.

also I would pass on it if it sat in 2 inches of water, the stock is likely rotting from the inside out.

[gyvel]

the low serial numbers on springfield specifically are 1-500,000

Don't you mean 1-800,000, which, as I said was an arbitrary number someone pulled out of their behind?

[gyvel]

Regarding the water stain, I have been told that soaking the stock in grocery store ammonia solution will remove the water stain if it is not too far gone.

[tahunua001]

sorry, ten key typo... editing.

[Cheapshooter]

Here are some pics of the rifle I am asking about

[Cheapshooter]

and four more

[highpower3006]

Definitely no longer original, it has a 03-A3 stock and buttplate. Handguard looks to be a late type replacement. Bolt is later type also. What is the date on the barrel?

[gyvel]

Looks like it's been through the arsenal for rebuild. The stock is a two-bolt and was for much later issues than that rifle. The handguard also appears to be a replacement, as the early ones through somewhere in the 200,000 range did not have a groove cut in them.

Hard to say how much damage has been done to the end of the stock, but, if you can get the buttplate off and try soaking the end of the stock in household ammonia, it might get some of the staining out. If it's rotted beyond repair, your only recourse is replacing the stock, which isn't original anyway. Otherwise, the gun looks to be in pretty nice condition and is a good representative Springfield.

An in-focus image of picture #5 would possibly show the cartouche (if any) on the left side of the stock.

[gyvel]

Highpower 3006 is correct. The bolt is a later issue type as well; Early '03s had straigh bolt handles, not swept back.

Regarding the stock, it's definitely not an 03-A3, as those just had two brass threaded pins run through them for reinforcement.

Closer examination, however, shows a small encircled "RA" inspector's mark, which (if my failing memory serves me correctly) was one used by a Remington inspector; Remington manufactured 1903s in the early stages of WWII before producing 03-A3s.

The two-bolt stock was used by Remington on the 03s, and on Springfield Armory guns from ca. 1917/18 onwards (possibly a little before that).

[Cheapshooter]

Thanks for the info. The guy who owns the rifle wants to trade It for a deer hunting rifle. I had thought if It were worth It I would try to find one of the low end package set ups and buy It just for the trade Or offer him the purchase price plus tax for the Springfield.
Now considering that this is not an original, very early rifle, but is a low number Springfield with questionable heat treating that has been arsenal, or otherwise rebuilt, I think I will pass at this time.
It's most likely not a now or never offer, and I will keep my eyes open for a possible bargain priced used hunter to trade just to have a "wall hanger" representative of a Springfield. Even though all my other guns are shooters, and that is my major interest in any firearm.
One qiestion I have about the brittle receiver riles. If they have been around all these years, arsenal rebuilt, and have been shot in the past, has It proven itself to be one of the properly heat treated rifles? Or is the problem one that could not show up for many years of use?

[highpower3006]

Regarding the stock, it's definitely not an 03-A3, as those just had two brass threaded pins run through them for reinforcement.

Only the early 'A3 stocks had the pins, later production (mid '43 and later) had cross bolts. 03-A3 stocks are easily identified by the lack of grasping grooves.

Sept, 1943 Remington 1093-A3:

[James K]

The receiver appears to have been Parkerized, probably during a rebuild; the original color would have been a deep oil-blackening.

The Army recognized the brittleness problem early (see Hatcher's Notebook) but given its rarity and randomness chose not to recall and destroy millions of dollars worth of rifles that rarely failed with good quality standard ammunition. But they did order that single heat treated ("low number") receivers not be used in arsenal rebuilds. When they came in to the arsenals and depots, the receivers were scrapped. But during the early days of WWII, the need for rifles - any rifles - was so great that that practice was stopped and those receivers were used in rebuilds. That is probably what happened to that rifle.

There is no point in having the rifle checked by anyone. There is no non-destructive way to know or see whether a given receiver is brittle or not.

I strongly recommend that you remove that butt plate, determine how much damage the stock has sustained and either replace the stock or at least replace the buttplate, preferably with the proper smooth one.

Jim

[gyvel]

Only the early 'A3 stocks had the pins, later production (mid '43 and later) had cross bolts. 03-A3 stocks are easily identified by the lack of grasping grooves.

Not sure about that. To the best of my knowledge, only the early WWII Remington 1903s (not 03-A3) used the two bolt stocks. The brass pins were a cost cutting measure used when they began producing 03-A3s. Also, Remington 1903 stocks did not have grasping grooves.

I would assume that you might possibly have a very early 03-A3 that used one of the remaining two bolts from 1903 production at Remington. All of my 03-A3s (both Remington and Smith-Corona) have the brass pin reinforced stocks, and are all later than 43.

Perhaps some of our Springfield experts can confirm or deny.

[highpower3006]

Early in 1903-A3 production they did try steel pins as means to cut costs and save labor. However, it was found that the pins didn't provide enough support for the stocks when used for grenade launching, allowing them to split lengthwise. Hence the decision to go back to the stock bolts. This changeover back to the bolts was initiated in late spring of 1943 and by mid year production had shifted over to the earlier type of design.

Very early Remington 1903's were made directly off of equipment acquired from Rock Island Arsenal and using engineering drawings supplied by them. These early Remingtons are identical to late Rock Island production rifles including the finger groove stocks.

Almost as soon as they had started production the Remington engineers had started looking for ways to speed production and save time in the manufacturing process. By serial number 3050000 or so the finger grooves had disappeared. By Sept of 1942 enough changes had been submitted to the Ordanance Department the a new nomenclature had been adopted for the rifle, now known as the Model 1903-A3. It took a few months for all the changes to be adopted and production of the new type of '03 rifle wasn't fully implimented until the end of 1942/early 1943.

While I certainly don't consider myself to be an expert, I have been collecting Springfields for about twenty five years and have handled more than just a few in my time.

Here are some pictures of rifles showing the timeline of Remington stock evolution.

Oct 1942 Remington 1903 rifle:


Jan 1943 Smith-Corona. These were made directly off off the drawings supplied by Remington:



May 1943 Remington:



Sept. 1943 Remington:

[Ibmikey]

All of the "experts" will tell you not to shoot it but untold rounds of ammo have been fired with but very few failures. True you do not want to be one of those "failures", I have shot a variety of my 03's with light loads (1700 fps) for forty years and still have all my fingers to type this. Sometimes in this era of warning labels we get a bit crazy. Many of these rifles were rebuilt during WWII and fired lots of M2 ammo without incident.

[Cheapshooter]

, I have shot a variety of my 03's with light loads (1700 fps) for forty years and still have all my fingers to type this. Sometimes in this era of warning labels we get a bit crazy.

I am inclined to agree with you. If I do find something in the bargain range to trade, as that's what the guy wants, I would handload for the Springfield. Thinking It could still be a lot of fun to shoot with some cast bullet reduced loads.
The rifle has not been shot, but in a long time. I'm sure It was used numerious times without the owner knowing anything about Hatcher, and brittle receivers. Where there is said to be no way of testing the brittleness in a lab, this rifle may have been "proof tested" through many years of use. That's why I asked if anybody knows of instances that low number Springfield rifles that were shot for years finally let go with normal factory ammo?