PDA

View Full Version : Springfield model 1903


Keepin_Jeepin
October 30, 2012, 11:34 PM
I have a Serial number 682352 gun that I can put best at 1917

http://www.bowersweapons.com/US%20MODEL%201903%20RIFLE%20SERIAL%20NUMBER%20RANGES.htm

I am wondering if that is accurate because its near mint condition and I am also wondering what its worth.

I am going to keep it, just curious as to what I really have, thanks.

http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c98/Arrizxx130/Collection/IMG_3854.jpg

http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c98/Arrizxx130/Collection/IMG_3855.jpg

tahunua001
October 30, 2012, 11:50 PM
oldguns.net also dates it to 1917.
you have a single heat treatment rifle which according to common knowledge is considered unsafe to fire(safe to fire serial numbers start at 800,000 for springfields). however based on the fact that it has been heavily sporterised I am going to say that it has already been test fired a great deal and you shouldn't have anything to worry about. it has been rebarreled with a later style 1903A3 barrel. the barrel should have flaming bomb ordnance mark, 2 letters indicating manufacturer and month and year of manufacture, for instance a remington made barrel from april of 1943 would read:
RA
(flaming bomb)
4-43

it has an aftermarket rear sight that allows for windage and elevation adjustments while factory sights were not adjustable once they left springfield. overall I would say that it is a very nice sporterized springfield worth around $350-400.

good find. it should be a great shooter.

Keepin_Jeepin
October 30, 2012, 11:53 PM
Wow thanks for all the info.

What makes it worth such a little amount? I hate to admit it but I paid 800 dollars for it. Well I got it in a trade I valued at 800 dollars, actually. Same difference though.

Doug S
October 30, 2012, 11:56 PM
The fact that it has been sporterized is what brings the value down. Original 03' are in the $600+ price range from what I've seen.

tahunua001
October 31, 2012, 12:01 AM
OUCH!, sorry to have to tell you this but $800 is what original condition with 80% or more parts matching are going for. once the reciever has been drilled and tapped for scopes or sights the value instantly gets cut in half with no recoverable value. the entire thing that drives the C&R rifle market is collectability and collectors want rifles the way they were the day they left the battle field for the last time. sporterized rifles, though they are easier to hunt with and are often more accurate no longer have as much historical value so they usually end up sitting on the back shelves at the gun store and usually get sold as cheap alternatives to new production rifles.

out of curiosity, is there a letter stamped on the underside of the bolt handle? what markings are on the barrel near the muzzle?

Keepin_Jeepin
October 31, 2012, 12:31 AM
I will get you better pictures give me 10 or 15 minutes

Keepin_Jeepin
October 31, 2012, 12:42 AM
http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c98/Arrizxx130/Collection/IMG_3893.jpg

http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c98/Arrizxx130/Collection/IMG_3896.jpg

http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c98/Arrizxx130/Collection/IMG_3895.jpg

http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c98/Arrizxx130/Collection/IMG_3897.jpg

http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c98/Arrizxx130/Collection/IMG_3899.jpg

tahunua001
October 31, 2012, 12:53 AM
alright your barrel is a remington from december of 43.

I have never seen that stamp on the top of the bolt handle so I can't say for sure what it is, then again every bolt handle I have ever seen has been either Remington or aftermarket.

your rear sight looks welded on. if it was cold welded(IE JB weld) then you could hammer it off and clean it up with sand paper and re-parkerize the metal and return it to stock. the fact that it does not appear drilled and tapped raises the value but not by much.

in order to return this rifle to stock a person would need a springfield made barrel specific to the 1903 which are hard to find and spendy and a USGI stock which are also hard to come by so pretty much it's more trouble to convert than it is to just leave it as it is, as a very nice sporterized rifle that will serve it's owner well.

Keepin_Jeepin
October 31, 2012, 01:11 AM
Sorry I didnt get a great one of the sight. Should I get a better one for you?

Thanks... is it worth keeping as a shooter? I am not sure how I feel having a gun this old I actually use. I have some pretty rare original guns but this one has been molested . I am not nearly as interested in it now as I was, however I still like it as a plinker or midrange target shooter.

I do know a guy wanting a big gun for a Ingram Mac 10 he has. Would it be worth trading/selling/keeping? I am less of a collector and more of a shooter. The only guns I keep as 'collector guns' are the ones from Grampa, and this gun is not from him.

Thanks for the help and information I really appreciate it

kraigwy
October 31, 2012, 09:05 AM
CMP DOES NOT RECOMMEND FIRING ANY SPRINGFIELD RIFLE WITH A ”LOW NUMBER” RECEIVER. Such rifles should be regarded as collector’s items, not “shooters”.

Regardless whether it's bee sporterized or not, it considered UNSAFE TO FIRE.

Low number Springfields are not allow to be fired in any CMP GSM Matches.

Some people shoot them, that does not make it safe to shoot.

I know, as a CMP GSM Master Instructor, if I see any low number Springfields at a match or clinic I run, I will have them removed from the firing line.

tahunua001
October 31, 2012, 11:17 AM
CMP DOES NOT RECOMMEND FIRING ANY SPRINGFIELD RIFLE WITH A ”LOW NUMBER” RECEIVER. Such rifles should be regarded as collector’s items, not “shooters”.

Regardless whether it's bee sporterized or not, it considered UNSAFE TO FIRE.

Low number Springfields are not allow to be fired in any CMP GSM Matches.

Some people shoot them, that does not make it safe to shoot.

I know, as a CMP GSM Master Instructor, if I see any low number Springfields at a match or clinic I run, I will have them removed from the firing line.
I'm pretty sure CMP states this as a release of liability. the ban on low serial rifles is also a legal issue, if someone is injured during a match CMP and the local range can be held liable so they ban them as a CYA gesture.
last I knew sporterized springfields are also not allowed in CMP competitions.
also the receiver failures were caused by a combination of overcooking the receivers and casing failures, the only way that the failures could be recreated in a lab was to load them with cartridges loaded with over 150% standard pressure loads.

OP I would say that it would be a good one to keep around as a shooter. I am not familiar enough with mac 10s to offer any trade advice on that matter. what you choose to do with it is your business but I would recommend shooting it a couple times before making the decision to sell it/trade it away. these rifles were fired hundreds and sometimes thousands of times during WWI and WWII, a few 3 shot groups aren't going to hurt it.

Keepin_Jeepin
October 31, 2012, 05:15 PM
Well if its going to make a good shooter I will just keep it, thanks for all the info!!!

taylorce1
October 31, 2012, 05:36 PM
Listen to the advice not to shoot it, it isn't just to release CMP from liability. While it is true a relatively small amount had the receivers blow up, do you want to risk having it blow up on you? Sorry you had to get burnt on the trade but lesson learned, salvage what you can by selling it off as a parts gun with the disclaimer that it is considered unsafe to shoot.

Jim Watson
October 31, 2012, 05:37 PM
When Slamfire comes along, he will present The Other Side from what tahuna says.

Me? I just don't get into the debate or the guns. My only remaining Springfield is a double heat treated Mk I which I figure is fine for standard .30-06

tahunua001
October 31, 2012, 06:42 PM
low serial numbered Springfields are a...er...controversial subject to say the least. there are many that read a great deal that read the findings of the study that caused the change in heat treatment process and do have a very valid argument against firing these weapons however I am of the train of thought that believes that since the failures often coincided with casing failures caused by pre WWI shoddy cartridge design and that any that were unsafe to fire would have been weeded out over the course of 2 world wars.

valid arguments for both, neither side likes to give up ground, often results in discussions getting heated and threads closed.

Slamfire
October 31, 2012, 08:05 PM
When Slamfire comes along, he will present The Other Side from what tahuna says.


I enjoy poking holes in fictitious beliefs on these older receivers. People who own the things make up stories why these receivers are perfectly safe to justify their purchase.

I am not a fan boy of any pre 1920 receiver because period metallurgy, process controls, were primitive. While the M98 action was the best design ever (I am biased) M98’s from that era had their own workmanship issues. I recommend reading Dieter Storz’s book: “Rifle & Carbine 98: M98 Firearms of the German Army from 1898 to 1918” to find things like Amberg produced bolts broke at the rate of 1 per 1000. Probably typical for that era.

It is apparent that the American single heat treat receivers were made using obsolete equipment (they did not use pyrometers till 1918!) and poor process controls. The Germans were using temperature sensors in 1906 but Springfield Armory relied on worker’s eyeballs to judge forging temperatures. It is incredible to realize that Springfield Army had been producing receivers since 1903 with a systemic defect and did not acknowledge it till receivers burst at a commercial ammunition plant in 1917, 14 years after production started. All of these problems show that Army Management was asleep at the switch. The Colonel in charge was mostly likely playing polo on the parade ground, and currying the Generals’ favor, instead of managing the details of his production facility.

In so far as safety features the M1903 has almost none. Off the top of my head the Hatcher Hole was the primary one adopted later and it is basically worthless in preventing gas from going in the shooter’s eye or doing much of anything else.

By the time you get to 1920, so many receivers have broken with crappy WW1 ammunition and poorly made single heat treat receivers the Army creates a coverup with greased bullets, and continues the coverup with the 1921 tin can ammunition; passing all blame onto civilian shooters.

However by the late 20’s it becomes apparent through accidents that the single heat treat receivers are too risky for the troops and in 1928 the Army makes the ultimate decision to scrap 1, 085,507 single heat treat rifles when the rifles come in for rebuild. This is a large bunch of defective rifles as in 1928 Springfield Armory was at serial number 1,285,266.

I consider this a criminal decision in terms of today’s society. The Army made the decision to keep a defective $40.00 product in service, and if a trooper lost an eye, a hand, before that defective rifle made it way to depot for rebuild, well that was just too bad for the trooper.

The basic problem the Army had then, and it is just as true for today, is non destructively figuring out which were the good receivers. If the receiver was over heated in the forging shop ovens it will be weak. If you have an overpressure event the receiver is prone to fragment. Today’s steels have more elasticity and today’s’ breeching methods will protect the shooter more. These old guns, really only the M98 has superior shooter protection features, and the metallurgy for all of them stink.

There are good liability reasons why organizations selling these things don’t recommend anyone shooting them at all, or in their matches. They have a known history of failure. These actions are a risky unknown.

Examining the pictures you have a WW2 bolt, a WW2 barrel, probably a 50’s Fajen stock, and a old receiver.

If you plan to shoot the thing if would recommend reloading for it and sticking to loads that are closer to 40,000 psia than 50,000 psia. The original 30-06 load was a 150 grain bullet at 2700 fps. That is pretty mild in today’s world. Use only the best brass as case head failures in single heat treat receivers have sent people to hospitals.

If your barrel is a two groove barrel, think about only using it with cast bullets. My two groove barrels shoot cast bullets better than the four groove ones and cast loads are very mild.

RC20
October 31, 2012, 10:28 PM
Lets see, you can fall in the tub (don't take a shower), get hit by a out of control driver (dont' drive), don't walk, don't breath and dang, maybe its just time to check out, life is sooooooo risky.

Like people shooting at you was not risky? Grenades blowing up with short fuses.

Marines kept using them, tests were run and the blow ups had far more due to other factors than the treatment.

No it was not right, but it was so solid it did not have to be.

That said, I would load it mild and then shoot it and enjoy it.

Keepin_Jeepin
November 1, 2012, 01:04 AM
Wow, there is so much great info. Thanks to everyone that posted.

Mixxed feelings about the gun!

highpower3006
November 1, 2012, 06:29 AM
Boy I hate to step into a hornets nest, but I'm going to anyway.

I have been shooting and collecting the venerable '03 for almost thirty years now and I have a few observations I'd like to present.

First off, the decision to shoot or not to shoot these rifles should be based on the risk assessment of just how dangerous they are to shoot. The actual number of receivers that failed is miniscule compared to the numbers produced. The fact that the Marine Corps used their low number Springfields until they were replaced with Garands in WWII should tell us that there was a low risk of one failing.

But.... when they do fail, it is very likely going to be a catastrophic event that could very well result in the shooter being severely injured. Are you, as the person shooting the rifle, willing to risk it?

Most people that do shoot their low number '03's recommend using ammo that has been loaded down a bit from factory levels. I have heard people say to those that don't handload say to stick with factory loaded ammo with 150 grain bullets or lighter to avoid higher pressure ammo.

I have low number '03's in my collection that are original that are probably on their third or fourth barrel and, as they haven't yet exploded, I assume that they have been safely fired by military personnel for many years.

I, personally, only shoot my low number rifles occasionally, and then only with very mild cast bullet loads. If I want to shoot high powered loads, I use one of my high number guns.

As to your rifle, here are my observations:

The rear sight is not welded to the receiver. There is some crud at the junction of the sight base and the receiver that makes it look like it might have been welded of silver soldered, but I think that it is attached to the in the usual manner and has two screws holding it on.

Hunting rifles are typically shot very little, so it likely has had few rounds fired through it since the conversion and therefore is no real test as to how "safe" it is.

Since it has a low number receiver, the only real value in it is as a parts gun If the receiver itself had not been drilled ad tapped for the rear sight, it would have some value, but now that part of it is virtually worthless. If I owned it, I would split it up and sell the pieces which would probably fetch somewhere between $200 to $300, maybe more if you get lucky.

Sorry for the the bad news, but at this point it is what it is.

kraigwy
November 1, 2012, 08:37 AM
The fact that the Marine Corps used their low number Springfields until they were replaced with Garands in WWII should tell us that there was a low risk of one failing.

That's not true at all. The Marines and Army used some low number not because they were safe, they used them because we were un-prepared for war and had nothing else to arm them with.

They were replaced just as fast as the production of 1903a3s & Garands could be produced.

sundog
November 1, 2012, 08:56 AM
Just because a 150 gr bullet is loaded in '06 ammo does not necessarily mean that it is milder or lower pressure, factory or hand load.

Slamfire
November 1, 2012, 09:47 AM
The actual number of receivers that failed is miniscule compared to the numbers produced. The fact that the Marine Corps used their low number Springfields until they were replaced with Garands in WWII should tell us that there was a low risk of one failing.

Examining failure rates against total population leads to misleading probabilities and is something commonly done by fans of low number receivers.

Fan boys create probabilities of failure based on Hatcher’s Notebook which is not an all inclusive list of all 03 failures. Hatcher’s list starts 1917 and ends 1929. There are known failures after, and I have no doubt, known failures before.

Percentages are based on the total number of rifles built, not the rifles in use. There were about one million of these rifles built, but post WW1, there were never one million at service at any time. By the time you get to 1922 Congress authorized only 136,000 Officer’s and enlisted in the Regular Army. I could guess how many rifles were in service with an Army that small, and it sure would not be one million. Lets say, as a ridiculous example, that their were four rifles in use and the remaining one million in storage. Let also say that one of the four blew up. The fan boy’s analysis would give you the risk as one in a million. But for those rifles in use, it would be 25%.

Times have changed and the risks we are willing to accept have changed. In the period these rifles were made society accepted death and dismemberment as normal workplace hazards. Today we don’t.

As an example of period attitudes, I got some data from a Titantic program. In 1912 the death rate at Harlaam and Wolff was 1 worker death per 10,000 tonnes of ship. Basically one dead worker per small ship. Eight died building the Titanic, their ages 15-43. Of the four mentioned in the program, 3 died due to falls and one was crushed during launch. The average cash benefit given to the families was 100 pounds sterling.

I heard at the time the Golden Gate Bridge was built the accepted death rate on construction projects was one death per $1,000,000 of construction.

Industry, Military, Government are very callous towards the lives of their employees, and back then were able to get away with it. Their decisions reflect that, they traded workers lives for profit. I don’t agree, nor do I accept profit as valid justification for adding risk on their workforce.

Still, a properly made low number receiver is going to be about as strong as any of those early actions, (not much) which does not mean it will be safe to be behind in an accident. It is sort of driving without your safety belt on. As long as you don’t have an accident everything will be fine.

tahunua001
November 1, 2012, 10:58 AM
That's not true at all. The Marines and Army used some low number not because they were safe, they used them because we were un-prepared for war and had nothing else to arm them with.

They were replaced just as fast as the production of 1903a3s & Garands could be produced.
answered a not true with another not true, EPIC FAIL!
the marine corps refused the M1 initially leaving the army to take all of the M1s. it wasn't until Guadalcanal that the marines were forced to pilfer army stores that they realized the advantage of a semi auto and commanders began asking to be outfitted with other options. if the marines were outfitted due to a complete lack of other resources then why wouldn't they have been given the much more plentiful M1917s?

the marines already had the 1903 and were too proud of them to consider replacing them with some newfangled semi auto Garand. in the end the low serial rifles in the pacific performed amicably despite horrible conditions and even with all the humidity, rain, mud, crappy ammo and nothing to clean them with these guns kept running right up to the day that they were replaced with M1s and M1 carbines.

RC20
November 1, 2012, 11:21 AM
That is a Lyman 48 sight on that gun and its worth something around $250 to 300 alone.

Other parts are worth a fair amount (trigger, floor plate etc)

And as those become more in demand you will see people shrug off receiver taping. Give it another 5 years. Values are going through the roof.

Bolt is worth at least 50 and maybe more dependong on pedigree.

Taking the barrel off and selling it is wroth $150 (4 grove) to somewhat less for a 2 grove.

Shooting It: Going to the grocery store is far more of a risk. You don't think twice about that. Sheese.

Lets see, at least one barrel was shot out on that gun.

It takes something around 5,000 rounds minimum to shoot out a barrel to the point it needs replacing.

No I would not load to a maximum hot load, but anything in the 2600-2700 fps area would be fine for 150s and adjust according to other bullets.

I would not even worry about the usual sight it and and hunt with it for typical hunting loads with it with factory ammo

I would not target shoot with those loads, but then I only do that with hand-loads anyway and tone them down as I have no need to max that out.

RC20
November 1, 2012, 11:24 AM
Bolt is swept back so its not an OEM to that date receiver.

No surprise, very often that happened. Still worth 50-100, maybe more depending on who made it.

highpower3006
November 1, 2012, 09:52 PM
That's not true at all. The Marines and Army used some low number not because they were safe, they used them because we were un-prepared for war and had nothing else to arm them with.

I never said they were safe, I said that they used them, Whether they are safe or not, could be construed as a subjective point. That they were still in use as late as the start of the second world war is a fact and is not debatable.

I also mentioned that they were replaced, so obviously there was a better alternative as soon as there were enough M1's to go around.

Examining failure rates against total population leads to misleading probabilities and is something commonly done by fans of low number receivers.

Well first off let me state that I am not specifically a "fan" of low number receivers. I mentioned that if I chose to shoot mine, I use specially prepared low pressure loads. While there is a risk of receiver failure, I have made the risk assessment that I mentioned in my first post, and have concluded that since I believe that there is a low risk of being injured while shooting my particular rifle , I will occasionally take that risk.

Just because a 150 gr bullet is loaded in '06 ammo does not necessarily mean that it is milder or lower pressure, factory or hand load.

I didn't make myself clear and for that I apologize. Of course the weight of the bullet will not necessarily determine the pressure that a cartridge is loaded to. But it is easier to overcome the inertia of a lighter bullet and so would produce less pressure to achieve a given velocity than would be generated with a heavier bullet.


That is a Lyman 48 sight on that gun and its worth something around $250 to 300 alone.

I typically see those Lyman sights go for between $100~150. If you would be willing to give me a couple of three C notes for one, I have a few in my parts stash. I assigned a relatively low value to the parts because since I saw that the barrel looks to be reblued, I assumed that the trigger guard assembly was reblued also. While they may have some value, for me at least, once the original finish has been removed, the value is cut by quite a bit. Things are only original once.

See, I told you I was going to step in a hornets nest.

Jim Watson
November 1, 2012, 10:16 PM
Slamfire,

Has there been a modern effort to grade the low number receivers?
Everybody says the burnt ones can't be identified and can't be fixed.
I'll give them the second part, but surely there is a way to tell the difference between a burnt one and one properly heat treated by the standards of the day, and usable with normal ammunition in good brass.
I mean, of course, nondestructively. It doesn't matter if you hit it with a hammer and a bad one breaks but a good one bends.

As I understand it, they have good tensile strength for the grade of steel, just that they are brittle and will fragment if stressed beyond it.

OK, what would happen if you ground a divot halfway through in an unobvious location and actually measured the core hardness? Hard in the core = brittle and not safe. Soft in the core = as intended, serviceable.

highpower3006
November 1, 2012, 10:48 PM
Supposedly, they tried to find a method to re heat treat the receivers at Springfield Armory, but were unable to successfully salvage them. I really don't think that there is a economically feasible way to do this and so, for the foreseeable future, the low number rifles will remain conversation pieces rather than range toys.

The problem with those low number receivers that aren't "burnt" is that they are the same hardness all the way through. When they fail, they shatter like a piece of glass. When the Armory went to the double heat treat process for receivers and bolts in 1918 they were heat treated to give a hard outer surface for durability, and a softer, more malleable interior. These receivers might still be subject to failure under the right circumstances, but they won't shatter.

Later, very high numbered Springfield receivers and all Remington and Smith-Corona receivers are made from nickel steel and are the strongest type.

Keepin_Jeepin
November 2, 2012, 01:38 AM
Its a little scary. I might just take it to the local gun shop and see what they will give or trade for it since they will know about it and their gunsmith can check it out.

That way I don't need to worry. Its a little sad I really did like this rifle. I was going to buy a box of ammo before I read all these later posts lol

Slamfire
November 2, 2012, 11:18 AM
Slamfire,

Has there been a modern effort to grade the low number receivers?
Everybody says the burnt ones can't be identified and can't be fixed.
I'll give them the second part, but surely there is a way to tell the difference between a burnt one and one properly heat treated by the standards of the day, and usable with normal ammunition in good brass.
I mean, of course, nondestructively. It doesn't matter if you hit it with a hammer and a bad one breaks but a good one bends.

As I understand it, they have good tensile strength for the grade of steel, just that they are brittle and will fragment if stressed beyond it.

OK, what would happen if you ground a divot halfway through in an unobvious location and actually measured the core hardness? Hard in the core = brittle and not safe. Soft in the core = as intended, serviceable.

The materials that I examined, at a local technical library, about burnt steel, dated from the WWII period. The book that discussed burnt steel showed a pictures of the crystalline structure of a burnt section of steel, and what it looked like after long anneals. Very little changed. These pictures were optical in nature.

Unfortunately, I do not know enough about current non destructive inspection techniques to know if state of the art would be able to tell the difference. I would think that because the metal crystals are different, your should be able to see differences in electromagnetic fields, current capability, or something. But then, you would have to start out with a perfect single heat treat receiver to make comparisons from. Also, if you review Hatcher’s Notebook, there are comments in there about the material variability of these early receivers. Evidentially these were not controlled to the level that a uniform reheat treatment process could later be established. The steel was not uniform from lot to lot, or year to year.

If someone could make money examining low number receivers and declaring them "safe" or "unsafe" I am certain a smarter person than myself would be in the business.

The problem with those low number receivers that aren't "burnt" is that they are the same hardness all the way through. When they fail, they shatter like a piece of glass.


Let me add to this. I have a WW2 era metallurgy book that calls these plain carbon steels "shallow hardening" steels. There is a picture in the book showing many circular cross sections of a plain carbon steel that were all the same steel and had all been heat treated in the same furnace under controlled conditions. All of the coupons showed various levels of hardening, some clear to the center, some only at the edge. The whole conclusion of that section was that these plain carbon steels heat treat in a random, erratic manner. That is why today, no one would use a plain carbon steel in such an application that involved so much cost, and is so safety critical. Alloy steels harden evenly, more consistently, and have higher yield values for the same carbon content.

Those double heat treat receivers are not perfect, despite of all the trumpeting of Hatcher on the perfection of the things, there are records of broken double heat treat receivers. I am of the opinion that Springfield Armory only partially improved their process controls and given the erratic nature of plain carbon steel, they still had receivers come out that were too brittle.

This is an example of why I have little faith in early receivers. This is a double heat treat receiver. The original owner had a case separation that he could not get out. So he poured Cerrosafe in the chamber and let it harden around the case. He put a cleaning rod up the barrel, put a brass drift against the receiver lug, hit the drift and sheared the receiver lug.

This lug is thin, but that sure tells me that even double heat treat receivers have their brittle sections.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v479/SlamFire/M1903/Rearlugfragmentoff.jpg

RC20
November 2, 2012, 11:20 AM
The barrel was shot out and replaced. The receiver stood up to it and obviously has not failed. All that ammo was higher performing stuff.

If you are still afraid of the gun after having that much proof its safe, then you should indeed sell it.

Keepin_Jeepin
November 2, 2012, 02:38 PM
Well its a little scary everything that has been said in here.. as far as the barrel change goes from what was said in the first page it was changed to be sporterized not because it was shot out. It was changed because its a better barrel that was on it. I assume the barrel was changed with the stock....

Maybe it was shot out. I have no idea. And I guess it could be shot but I don't know if I trust the gun after what was said here................. you do? Enough to risk your face on it? I could get a face shield or something. I am going to go to the store and see if I cant get some lower power loads as reccomended since I do not have a loader. And we will go from there.

RC20
November 2, 2012, 04:06 PM
The barrel was not changed out to sportize it, it was sub par and someone put a new barrel on it (maybe the Marine corps!).

Someone put a sporter stock on it. Not necessarily at the same time.

It is a stock RA barrel with the OEM front sight.

If it was sportorized it would be shorter and you would not be able to read the data on it, they would be cut off or partially cut off (cut off because it makes not sens to shorten it half an inch.

I was just looking at one in the surplus store. 777XXX date. $299. No indication it is not right. Its been shot a lot per the appearance.

I am shooting a gun with a questionable heat treated bolt. I am not the least bit worried.

I have almost been killed by clowns at the range, on the scale of risk this is a .000000000000000001.

Again if you are afraid, sell it. If I needed an 06 I would buy it in a heart beat and take advantage of your fear and jack you down to $50. If I was close to you I would buy it anyway. Lots of good parts if nothing else.

tahunua001
November 2, 2012, 04:20 PM
The barrel was not changed out to sportize it, it was sub par and someone put a new barrel on it (maybe the Marine corps!).
the marines would not have replaced an 1903 barrel with a 1903A3 barrel. the 1903 barrl had a sleeve that slipped over it and housed the rear sight where-as the 1903A3 had a receiver mounted rear sight. as the A3 barrel does not have the necessary cutouts to allow the rear sight to attach it would have been a pointless rebarrel for the defense dept since a rifle with one sight is almost as worthless as a rifle with none.
Someone put a sporter stock on it. Not necessarily at the same time.
not necessarily at the same time but more than likely all part of the same process
It is a stock RA barrel with the OEM front sight.

If it was sportorized it would be shorter and you would not be able to read the data on it, they would be cut off or partially cut off (cut off because it makes not sens to shorten it half an inch.
also not necessarily true as many sporterising jobs did not focus on overall length but instead focused on updating sights/mounting scopes and cutting down on weight by losing the handguard and cutting the stock down.

Slamfire
November 2, 2012, 08:42 PM
I believe it is a rifle that someone built up from parts. That A3 barrel and 03 receiver were never together in the military because there is no rear sight.

The bolt is WW2, the trigger guard might be, (fuzzy picture) the barrel too.

I think someone found a cheap receiver and built a rifle around it.

RC20
November 2, 2012, 11:29 PM
also not necessarily true as many sporterising jobs did not focus on overall length but instead focused on updating sights/mounting scopes and cutting down on weight by losing the handguard and cutting the stock down.

And what does the barrel have to do with any of that?

You can cut the sight sleeve off a barrel without removing it. Scope mounts to the receiver. Ergo barrel change has nothing to do with sporterizing it. If it was done it was done because of a shot out barrel.

The front sight is the same and any changes needed to accommodate a rear sight would be done with existing sight.

You would only replace the barrel if there was an issue and as any question is the receiver here, then the barrel as obviously in poor enough shape to need it.

tahunua001
November 3, 2012, 01:02 AM
And what does the barrel have to do with any of that?

You can cut the sight sleeve off a barrel without removing it. Scope mounts to the receiver. Ergo barrel change has nothing to do with sporterizing it. If it was done it was done because of a shot out barrel.

The front sight is the same and any changes needed to accommodate a rear sight would be done with existing sight.

You would only replace the barrel if there was an issue and as any question is the receiver here, then the barrel as obviously in poor enough shape to need it.
removal of the sight sleeve is irrelevant because this barrel never had it, there are slits cut lengthwise in the barrels of 1903s to lock the sight sleeve in place, A3 barrels do not have the slits and therefore would not have been placed on an 03 receiver by an arsenal. they also would not mount a rear sight as the A3 sights have a dovetail cutout and would rest too low on the receiver to be of use, not that it would have been possible to mount them without welding anyway.

also shot out barrel is not the case for all rebarrels. the 1903A3(especially remington barrels) has a much greater reputation for accuracy and if a person wanted a tack driver sometimes rebarrels were the way to go. accurizing is also a form of sporterizing. as it was pointed out 1903s were cranked out on obsolete equipment and but by the time 1903A3s came out there was much better QC especially considering that this is a wartime production rifle. it could have also been bent or otherwise damaged.

I do agree that these guns were fired a great deal and have definitely been thoroughly tested to MY standards enough to warrant firing my low serial springfield.

The front sight is the same and any changes needed to accommodate a rear sight would be done with existing sight.
front sights on 03s and A3s are very different, not the same sight. similar styles on the blades but both elevation and method of mounting to the barrel are different. the sights on the A3 rest nearly an entire inch higher than on an 03. there is no way to make the necessary changes to accommodate that much change in rear sight elevation.

RC20
November 3, 2012, 02:13 PM
You miss the point on the barrel.

If someone merely wanted to get rid of the OEM Springfield barrel sight and make sporter out of this of which this rifle obviously came equipped, you would simply cut it off. None of this has anything to do with contours.

Ergo, the barrel would have had to have an issue for anyone to go to the trouble to remove the OEM one, install the new one and do the chamber reaming. That’s neither cheap nor a slam dunk on a 1903.

Something was wrong with the original barrel to require it being changed. And due to the date, it had the original barrel or more than one.

Again for this rifle to wind up where it did, either it was taken out of circulation and kept there for 80 years or it was a Marine Corp issue (it seems far more likely the latter as they got serious about removing the early receiver from circulation in the Army and they were not being surplused out at the time).

If it was an army arsenal they would have taken it out of service.

So either it was Marine Corp or a private gunsmith. No company would have put a new barrel on a receiver of that serial range.

You are wrong on the accuracy of the Remington barrels.

By 1942, production as rushed, they had gone to the two grove and the admonition by the experts was that if you are going to do that you need to maintain the tight tolerances.

Those then went out the window with am official prevision that loosened up the tolerances as well by .005.

The Springfield barrels were all made by experienced workers and craftsman with long standing familiaririty with the machinery and the barrels were all far better accuracy than required.

The Remington barrels were being cranked out to meet a standby need on machinery that the Remington personal did not know (Rock Island shipped to them). And then they change to the two grove.

I am not saying that ALL Remington barrels were poor, but as a group they did not meet the exacting standards previously required and you get a much wider variation in accuracy. Still acceptable for what they were intended, but not the tack drivers previously (and some indeed are good but not consistently as an overall group. )

If someone was going to put a barrel on a gun for accuracy purposes, it would not be a two grove Remington.

If someone was going to put a barrel on an old action for a sporter they would indeed have no issue with taking that barrel as it would be acceptable for hunting purposes.

Keepin_Jeepin
November 4, 2012, 03:23 AM
Thanks for the info still, to everyone involved.

I bought some Federal Power-shok in 150 grain to shoot Monday. I am going to do a little overkill and go in the woods and not at the range at first, wear a face shield, leather gloves and maybe even my welding jacket just because I do not know the gun yet or feel comfortable with it.

who knows it may be a sweet shooter. I will have range pictures when I do shoot it :cool:

youngunz4life
November 4, 2012, 03:36 AM
a firearm isn't the same if you haven't put a couple rounds thru it. You could do that and then have it at the ready(on the wall) or 'retire' it. I wouldn't bring it down and trade it in.

RC20
November 9, 2012, 12:47 PM
I was going to stop but I came across this and I find it extremely illumination if you can dig through all the details.

http://www.m1903.com/03rcvrfail/

I will also PM the OP to make sure he sees it.

Please note the risk factors he listed for every day life.

darkgael
November 9, 2012, 01:13 PM
By the time you get to 1920, so many receivers have broken with crappy WW1 ammunition and poorly made single heat treat receivers the Army creates a coverup with greased bullets, and continues the coverup with the 1921 tin can ammunition; passing all blame onto civilian shooters.
"so many".....how many? Source of that fact?
Pete

Remington74
November 9, 2012, 01:35 PM
Low serial number, questionable heat treatment of the time, unknown history of how it got to be in that configuration, opposing views on the safety of that particular action....I'd take my beating like a man and sell it.

Reagardless of the opposing views, when you touch it off it will be your eyeballs and fingers in possible harms way, not theirs.

Take it to that gun shop you mentioned and see what they will give you in trade for whatever you might want. Or mayby post it on one of the gunboards and see if anyone ponys up to take off your hands at a decent price as a collectors item of interest.

jmtbiggin
November 9, 2012, 03:56 PM
I feel your pain keep jeepin. I had a sweet shooting .243 on a mauser 93 action. I shot it alot and someone else shot it alot as well. After learning about the pressure the 243 generates vs the original 7mm i was to nervous to enjoy my tack driver. Sold it to a friend as a parts gun for 150. That sucked but who can enjoy shooting when you know you are at the limit every time you squeeze the trigger?

Keepin_Jeepin
November 19, 2012, 01:57 AM
Well, thanks for all the great info and discussion in this thread. I did however, shoot the gun today. Only shot about 50 yards with it. Not a range day just some pumpkin killing.

It shot GREAT, its a serious tack driver, and is now one of my new favorite rifles. The gun was up for sale/trade on a local forum, but now I have an odd love for it. I am so happy and satisfied with its performance. Action is great, feels good in the hand, feels great to shoot, trigger pull feels very fluid and smooth.

I am much happier with this rifle that I planned on . Its an oldie but a goodie.

tahunua001
November 19, 2012, 01:10 PM
glad yo enjoy yours as much as I do mine.

see aren't you glad you shot it before you sold it?:D

SIGSHR
November 19, 2012, 08:02 PM
Nothing wrong with wall hangers or safe queens, my champion is my M1898 Krag manufactured in 1902. Bought it in 1972, have yet to put a round through it. People buy and restore vintage radios and TVs, but you can't tune in 1935.
My understanding-FWIW-is that Hatcher found there were a few bad "vintages" of M1903 receivers, from 1906-1907 and 1911 IIRC. regarding the rebarreling and rebuilding of low number M1903s, in 1942 we needed anything that could shoot. And from what I have read troops in the pre-WWII went to the rifle range a lot more often that in my day (1967-1971), those M1903s had a lot more rounds put through them. And if there had been a very serious problem with brittle receivers there would have a major investigation and we would have documentation-IIRC there were Congressional hearings into the problems with the M-1, the 7th round stoppage, etc.

Keepin_Jeepin
November 20, 2012, 05:04 AM
@tahunua001

Yes!! This gun is going NOwhere!!

@SIGSHR

You make a valid point

Slamfire
November 21, 2012, 09:54 AM
By the time you get to 1920, so many receivers have broken with crappy WW1 ammunition and poorly made single heat treat receivers the Army creates a coverup with greased bullets, and continues the coverup with the 1921 tin can ammunition; passing all blame onto civilian shooters.

"so many".....how many? Source of that fact?
Pete

Have we not been through this before?

So what is your point?


http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=401147&highlight=1903


And if there had been a very serious problem with brittle receivers there would have a major investigation and we would have documentation-IIRC there were Congressional hearings into the problems with the M-1, the 7th round stoppage, etc.

Not necessarily. Congress gets involved for political reasons, to knock the Executive down, or to lobby for a political campaign contributor, get their face on TV, but it all comes down to power and the acquisition of power. Congress is an amoral organization only interested in sensationalizing events for their benefit.