1903 Unfinished Receiver?

shank0668 · January 1, 2018, 10:21 PM

I bought an Unfinished 1903 receiver. I know little about it and am looking for more info.....

Here is the sellers description:

Quote:

Rare piece for the Springfield 1903 collector. An unfinished receiver.
Largely complete except for a few areas. Right side not milled to correct dimensions, floor is not milled out for passing cartridges thru the magazine, no serial number, Springfield or Model 1903 markings on the receiver ring. The only markings on the receiver are on the underside in the area where the bottom of the receiver would have been milled away for cartridge loading. That area is marked NS 3. Likely relating to an early batch of Nickel Steel. Nickel Steel went into use in 1928. The front ring of the barrel is threaded and cut for an extractor to move into the receiver ring when the bolt would close. The large flat area on the right side may just have been not finished, or perhaps for some design change Springfield was attempting.

Now I have found this that has sold at auction for a fair amount, but have not found anything else (No, I am not getting my hopes up that it is worth a ton, just curious if my piece is of any significance or a paper weight). The thing I see that differs from this M1901 receiver is that it has the raised section on the bridge and it has the NS 3 marked on the bottom.
https://jamesdjulia.com/item/lot-156...eceiver-58539/

Attached are the photos. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thank you

shank0668 · January 1, 2018, 10:22 PM

More photos. I will update with better photos when I receive the receiver tomorrow.

**Mike Irwin** · January 3, 2018, 08:58 AM

That's only the second one of those that I've ever seen. Other than that, I unfortunately know nothing about that part of the manufacturing process.

shank0668 · January 3, 2018, 11:06 AM

Interesting, I've gotten a range of responses from its a worthless junk casting to it's an unusual somewhat rare piece. I'm not sure what to believe.

**Mike Irwin** · January 3, 2018, 11:11 AM

It doesn't look like a casting to me. It looks like a 70% finished forging before they went to the finishing milling steps.

shank0668 · January 3, 2018, 11:20 AM

I tend to agree. The curious thing is it almost seems to have had numbers/letters on the flat side that would later be machined down... They were however scratched out. I cannot be certain, but it definitely looks like that was the case.

PlatinumCore16 · January 3, 2018, 12:22 PM

From the pictures, I will agree that it does not look like a casting. Too much detail in certain areas that would preclude casting, plus no other evidence, aka witness lines, plugs, etc.. Can't say anything else towards the piece.

Slamfire · January 3, 2018, 01:38 PM

I purchased a "unfinished bolt" from a major gun parts supplier back in the 1980's. I don't remember from whom, could have been Numrich, could have been someone else. Unfinished parts were floating around and I think it reasonable that your receiver could have been from that lot.

I think it is reasonable to assume that NS stands for nickel steel.

The origin of these is total speculation, could have been in process parts scrapped by the factory, but never made it to recycling at a steel mill.

As to value, who knows? This part is a curiosity. If if was a NOS double heat treat or nickle steel 03 receiver, then someone wanting to build a rifle would pay a reasonable price, but not more than the value of a rifle. To make this into a usable receiver is cost prohibitive, therefore, value is in the eye of the beholder.

Value is not always rational, take for example Bit Coin values. People are irrational and will buy if they think something is scarce or rare, regardless of the utility of the item. This is why advertisers are always telling us "supplies are limited", or "rare".

shank0668 · January 3, 2018, 01:46 PM

You very well could be correct. If nothing else it is interesting to speculate about. Thanks!

tobnpr · January 3, 2018, 05:08 PM

Not my area of expertise...
According to this, the 01 lacked the raised step on the rear bridge- which would put it at odds with the auctioneer. Unfinished means not heat treated...

http://m1903.com/odd1903/

I'd ask over at the CMP forums- gotta be a wealth of expertise there.

James K · January 3, 2018, 11:39 PM

I am not sure of the nomenclature but the earliest receivers were open at the top rear, like the Krag. Then it was found that the receivers warped during heat treatment and the rear receiver bridge was added. That rifle was a design mistake all the way through from the beginning. They first recognized the need for a safety lug, but instead of adding it where Mauser did, they added it to the right side of the bolt. But in that position it had to be very high to extend outside the right locking lug raceway and engage the receiver. But that meant the safety lug had to be high, which meant the rear bridge had to be either made high or split. They first used a split bridge, but when that resulted in the receivers warping in heat treatment, they closed the top, which solved one problem but created another as the sights now had to be high enough so the sight line would clear the rear receiver bridge. That should have meant raising the stock comb to give the proper feel, but that would have precluded normal bolt removal, so the stock had to be left as was, and the rifleman's cheek was floating in the air when aiming. That also mean that the rear sight had to be high, and the front sight had to be mounted higher than it needed to be, making it more fragile and exposed to damage.

All in all, a lesson in how not to design a rifle, plus a good study in why sometimes "back to the drawing board" is better than trying to go ahead with a poor design and just hoping that one more fix will solve the problems. And that once sucked into a trap like that, it is very hard, and very costly, to back out.

Jim

Hawg · January 4, 2018, 12:23 AM

What are the odds it's a factory reject at that stage of it's fabrication?

shank0668 · January 4, 2018, 07:20 AM

Jim, very interesting! Thank you for the history, I enjoy learning about this kind of stuff.

Hawg, this could be a possibility. It certainly would be cool to know the story.

tobnpr · January 4, 2018, 03:43 PM

Somehow, Sergei Mosin's split-bridge receiver design was able to be heat-treated without warping...to the tune of some 35,000,000 of them.

Why couldn't Springfield Armory figure it out?

DukeConnor · January 5, 2018, 07:26 AM

It probably went home from the factory in a lunch box.

**Mike Irwin** · January 5, 2018, 10:01 AM

"Somehow, Sergei Mosin's split-bridge receiver design was able to be heat-treated without warping...to the tune of some 35,000,000 of them."

Not sure, but I don't think that Moisin Nagants were ever made with nickel steel, and I think, but am not sure, that the issue of receiver warping became more of an issue with the nickel steel.

Also, it's very likely that the heat treating processes were considerably different, which may have made a difference, as well.

It would be interesting to know how the heat treating process for Krag receivers was done, and whether they ran into any problems with receiver warping there.

Jim Watson · January 5, 2018, 12:48 PM

Heat treatment for 1903 and later rifles are described in Hatcher.
I would think the Krag to have been processed like the "low number" 1903s, its "ordnance steel" being of similar composition to "Class C."

While I think the Krag was a dead end in rifle development, it is a neat design. Its single locking lug balanced by a lower chamber pressure, and even that better contained by the rimmed case seated all the way into the chamber.

FrankenMauser · January 5, 2018, 03:53 PM

We'll probably never know the truth, but my money would be on it being a reject or test article.
Some machining has already been done to that receiver, but it was removed from production, for whatever reason, before moving on.

RickB · January 5, 2018, 06:57 PM

The "NS" is raised, or stamped?
It appears raised, so at what point would you machine away material to leave those raised figures in an area of the receiver that is then going to be machined away, anyway?

**4V50 Gary** · January 5, 2018, 08:16 PM

Suggest you contact the rangers at Springfield Armory National Historic Site.

shank0668 · January 5, 2018, 08:33 PM

Thank you for the info Gary, email sent.

Rick, it is raised. I still have no way to know if it's a casting or a forging.... There are no details that could not be forged on it, so no way to definitively tell unless i do the grinding test (not happening).

tobnpr · January 5, 2018, 10:35 PM

Missed the nickel steel part....and I'll confess that my knowledge of heat treatments is not as extensive as I'd like it to be.

But I have learned that they were made from Steel grade 40, very similar to 1040 steel here -which is also similar to the 4140 currently used for modern receivers, but lacking chromium and molybendum which would be in short supply in wartime

http://metallicheckiy-portal.ru/marki_metallov/stk/40

I occasionally see write-ups about them being case-hardened like Mausers which absolutely isn't the case.

James K · January 7, 2018, 11:04 PM

The letters indicating the steel type (NS = Nickel Steel) were normally removed in finishing the receiver. Their only purpose was to make sure the machine shop knew what they were working with and that it met current specs (not a leftover from old production, for example)..

Jim

HiBC · January 7, 2018, 11:42 PM

The flat pads on the side of the receiver gave a flat/square surface to fixture on for other machining operations.

Pure speculation on my part,those two grind marks on the top of the forward receiver ring MIGHT be the shop floor way of indelibly marking the part as "Non-Conforming",or reject.

As a part like that moves from machine operation to operation,it will be gauged or checked.

When an operation is set up,,the first part through that operation will be subjected to "first article inspection",typically by a different employee qualified to verify that cut or hole or geometry was done properly.That would be done before that operator ran the whole lot,say 105 parts,through the operation.

We would paint them with red dykem,notch them with a cutoff wheel,attach a non-conformancy tag,and enter a non-conformancy report .

Those two grind marks look like that to me.

**Mike Irwin** · January 8, 2018, 08:04 AM

Interesting thought on the grind marks. I was wondering about them myself.

January 3, 2018, 08:58 AM	#3
Mike Irwin Staff Join Date: April 13, 2000 Location: Northern Virginia Posts: 41,389	That's only the second one of those that I've ever seen. Other than that, I unfortunately know nothing about that part of the manufacturing process. __________________ "The gift which I am sending you is called a dog, and is in fact the most precious and valuable possession of mankind" -Theodorus Gaza Baby Jesus cries when the fat redneck doesn't have military-grade firepower.

January 3, 2018, 11:11 AM	#5
Mike Irwin Staff Join Date: April 13, 2000 Location: Northern Virginia Posts: 41,389	It doesn't look like a casting to me. It looks like a 70% finished forging before they went to the finishing milling steps. __________________ "The gift which I am sending you is called a dog, and is in fact the most precious and valuable possession of mankind" -Theodorus Gaza Baby Jesus cries when the fat redneck doesn't have military-grade firepower.

January 3, 2018, 01:38 PM	#8
Slamfire Senior Member Join Date: May 27, 2007 Posts: 5,261	I purchased a "unfinished bolt" from a major gun parts supplier back in the 1980's. I don't remember from whom, could have been Numrich, could have been someone else. Unfinished parts were floating around and I think it reasonable that your receiver could have been from that lot. I think it is reasonable to assume that NS stands for nickel steel. The origin of these is total speculation, could have been in process parts scrapped by the factory, but never made it to recycling at a steel mill. As to value, who knows? This part is a curiosity. If if was a NOS double heat treat or nickle steel 03 receiver, then someone wanting to build a rifle would pay a reasonable price, but not more than the value of a rifle. To make this into a usable receiver is cost prohibitive, therefore, value is in the eye of the beholder. Value is not always rational, take for example Bit Coin values. People are irrational and will buy if they think something is scarce or rare, regardless of the utility of the item. This is why advertisers are always telling us "supplies are limited", or "rare". __________________ If I'm not shooting, I'm reloading. Last edited by Slamfire; January 3, 2018 at 01:47 PM.

January 3, 2018, 05:08 PM	#10
tobnpr Senior Member Join Date: August 1, 2010 Location: Tampa Bay Posts: 4,556	Not my area of expertise... According to this, the 01 lacked the raised step on the rear bridge- which would put it at odds with the auctioneer. Unfinished means not heat treated... http://m1903.com/odd1903/ I'd ask over at the CMP forums- gotta be a wealth of expertise there. __________________ Remington 700/Savage Rebarreling /Action Blueprinting 07 FFL /Mosin-Nagant Custom Shop/Bent Bolts Genuine Cerakote Applicator www.biggorillagunworks.com

January 4, 2018, 03:43 PM	#14
tobnpr Senior Member Join Date: August 1, 2010 Location: Tampa Bay Posts: 4,556	Somehow, Sergei Mosin's split-bridge receiver design was able to be heat-treated without warping...to the tune of some 35,000,000 of them. Why couldn't Springfield Armory figure it out? __________________ Remington 700/Savage Rebarreling /Action Blueprinting 07 FFL /Mosin-Nagant Custom Shop/Bent Bolts Genuine Cerakote Applicator www.biggorillagunworks.com

January 3, 2018, 11:06 AM	#4
shank0668 Junior Member Join Date: January 1, 2018 Posts: 7	Interesting, I've gotten a range of responses from its a worthless junk casting to it's an unusual somewhat rare piece. I'm not sure what to believe.

January 3, 2018, 11:20 AM	#6
shank0668 Junior Member Join Date: January 1, 2018 Posts: 7	I tend to agree. The curious thing is it almost seems to have had numbers/letters on the flat side that would later be machined down... They were however scratched out. I cannot be certain, but it definitely looks like that was the case.

January 3, 2018, 12:22 PM	#7
PlatinumCore16 Senior Member Join Date: February 23, 2017 Location: Colorado Posts: 424	From the pictures, I will agree that it does not look like a casting. Too much detail in certain areas that would preclude casting, plus no other evidence, aka witness lines, plugs, etc.. Can't say anything else towards the piece.

January 3, 2018, 01:46 PM	#9
shank0668 Junior Member Join Date: January 1, 2018 Posts: 7	You very well could be correct. If nothing else it is interesting to speculate about. Thanks!

January 3, 2018, 11:39 PM	#11
James K Member In Memoriam Join Date: March 17, 1999 Posts: 24,383	I am not sure of the nomenclature but the earliest receivers were open at the top rear, like the Krag. Then it was found that the receivers warped during heat treatment and the rear receiver bridge was added. That rifle was a design mistake all the way through from the beginning. They first recognized the need for a safety lug, but instead of adding it where Mauser did, they added it to the right side of the bolt. But in that position it had to be very high to extend outside the right locking lug raceway and engage the receiver. But that meant the safety lug had to be high, which meant the rear bridge had to be either made high or split. They first used a split bridge, but when that resulted in the receivers warping in heat treatment, they closed the top, which solved one problem but created another as the sights now had to be high enough so the sight line would clear the rear receiver bridge. That should have meant raising the stock comb to give the proper feel, but that would have precluded normal bolt removal, so the stock had to be left as was, and the rifleman's cheek was floating in the air when aiming. That also mean that the rear sight had to be high, and the front sight had to be mounted higher than it needed to be, making it more fragile and exposed to damage. All in all, a lesson in how not to design a rifle, plus a good study in why sometimes "back to the drawing board" is better than trying to go ahead with a poor design and just hoping that one more fix will solve the problems. And that once sucked into a trap like that, it is very hard, and very costly, to back out. Jim

January 4, 2018, 12:23 AM	#12
Hawg Senior Member Join Date: September 8, 2007 Location: Mississippi Posts: 16,189	What are the odds it's a factory reject at that stage of it's fabrication?

January 4, 2018, 07:20 AM	#13
shank0668 Junior Member Join Date: January 1, 2018 Posts: 7	Jim, very interesting! Thank you for the history, I enjoy learning about this kind of stuff. Hawg, this could be a possibility. It certainly would be cool to know the story.

January 5, 2018, 07:26 AM	#15
DukeConnor Senior Member Join Date: May 6, 2016 Posts: 224	It probably went home from the factory in a lunch box.

January 5, 2018, 10:01 AM	#16
Mike Irwin Staff Join Date: April 13, 2000 Location: Northern Virginia Posts: 41,389	"Somehow, Sergei Mosin's split-bridge receiver design was able to be heat-treated without warping...to the tune of some 35,000,000 of them." Not sure, but I don't think that Moisin Nagants were ever made with nickel steel, and I think, but am not sure, that the issue of receiver warping became more of an issue with the nickel steel. Also, it's very likely that the heat treating processes were considerably different, which may have made a difference, as well. It would be interesting to know how the heat treating process for Krag receivers was done, and whether they ran into any problems with receiver warping there. __________________ "The gift which I am sending you is called a dog, and is in fact the most precious and valuable possession of mankind" -Theodorus Gaza Baby Jesus cries when the fat redneck doesn't have military-grade firepower.

January 5, 2018, 12:48 PM	#17
Jim Watson Senior Member Join Date: October 25, 2001 Location: Alabama Posts: 18,541	Heat treatment for 1903 and later rifles are described in Hatcher. I would think the Krag to have been processed like the "low number" 1903s, its "ordnance steel" being of similar composition to "Class C." While I think the Krag was a dead end in rifle development, it is a neat design. Its single locking lug balanced by a lower chamber pressure, and even that better contained by the rimmed case seated all the way into the chamber.

January 5, 2018, 03:53 PM	#18
FrankenMauser Senior Member Join Date: August 25, 2008 Location: In the valley above the plain Posts: 13,424	We'll probably never know the truth, but my money would be on it being a reject or test article. Some machining has already been done to that receiver, but it was removed from production, for whatever reason, before moving on. __________________ Don't even try it. It's even worse than the internet would lead you to believe.

January 5, 2018, 06:57 PM	#19
RickB Senior Member Join Date: March 1, 2000 Location: Boise, ID Posts: 8,518	The "NS" is raised, or stamped? It appears raised, so at what point would you machine away material to leave those raised figures in an area of the receiver that is then going to be machined away, anyway? __________________ Runs off at the mouth about anything 1911 related on this site and half the time is flat out wrong.

January 5, 2018, 08:16 PM	#20
4V50 Gary Staff Join Date: November 2, 1998 Location: Colorado Posts: 21,838	Suggest you contact the rangers at Springfield Armory National Historic Site. __________________ Vigilantibus et non dormientibus jura subveniunt. *Molon Labe!*

January 5, 2018, 08:33 PM	#21
shank0668 Junior Member Join Date: January 1, 2018 Posts: 7	Thank you for the info Gary, email sent. Rick, it is raised. I still have no way to know if it's a casting or a forging.... There are no details that could not be forged on it, so no way to definitively tell unless i do the grinding test (not happening).

January 5, 2018, 10:35 PM	#22
tobnpr Senior Member Join Date: August 1, 2010 Location: Tampa Bay Posts: 4,556	Missed the nickel steel part....and I'll confess that my knowledge of heat treatments is not as extensive as I'd like it to be. But I have learned that they were made from Steel grade 40, very similar to 1040 steel here -which is also similar to the 4140 currently used for modern receivers, but lacking chromium and molybendum which would be in short supply in wartime http://metallicheckiy-portal.ru/marki_metallov/stk/40 I occasionally see write-ups about them being case-hardened like Mausers which absolutely isn't the case. __________________ Remington 700/Savage Rebarreling /Action Blueprinting 07 FFL /Mosin-Nagant Custom Shop/Bent Bolts Genuine Cerakote Applicator www.biggorillagunworks.com

January 7, 2018, 11:04 PM	#23
James K Member In Memoriam Join Date: March 17, 1999 Posts: 24,383	The letters indicating the steel type (NS = Nickel Steel) were normally removed in finishing the receiver. Their only purpose was to make sure the machine shop knew what they were working with and that it met current specs (not a leftover from old production, for example).. Jim

January 7, 2018, 11:42 PM	#24
HiBC Senior Member Join Date: November 13, 2006 Posts: 8,286	The flat pads on the side of the receiver gave a flat/square surface to fixture on for other machining operations. Pure speculation on my part,those two grind marks on the top of the forward receiver ring MIGHT be the shop floor way of indelibly marking the part as "Non-Conforming",or reject. As a part like that moves from machine operation to operation,it will be gauged or checked. When an operation is set up,,the first part through that operation will be subjected to "first article inspection",typically by a different employee qualified to verify that cut or hole or geometry was done properly.That would be done before that operator ran the whole lot,say 105 parts,through the operation. We would paint them with red dykem,notch them with a cutoff wheel,attach a non-conformancy tag,and enter a non-conformancy report . Those two grind marks look like that to me.

January 8, 2018, 08:04 AM	#25
Mike Irwin Staff Join Date: April 13, 2000 Location: Northern Virginia Posts: 41,389	Interesting thought on the grind marks. I was wondering about them myself. __________________ "The gift which I am sending you is called a dog, and is in fact the most precious and valuable possession of mankind" -Theodorus Gaza Baby Jesus cries when the fat redneck doesn't have military-grade firepower.