Low Serial Number on Springfield sporter?

[MountainMan83]

Seeking a little advice. I recently made a post about my low number Springfield 1903 sporter with Serial #589,XXX. It was customized sometime around the 60’s and ended up in my hands a few months back. I claimed I wasn’t worried about the low number as I was sure that the receiver was hardness tested by the old timer who customized the rifle, as it looked like he did a locking lug on the bolt body. Many guys started posting concerning things that made me look for evidence of any hardness test on the receiver. I looked to no avail...nothing more than a pin prick the size of the point on a needle, it’s probably just a pit in the steel. The rifle has all of the reasons to appear safe like having been fired countless amounts of times and is still in one piece, it was rebarreled by a gunsmith and held up, and was built by someone knowledgeable. I was considering getting it checked out by a gunsmith maybe. Would they be able to hardness test it and tell me if it is good to go or not?

[Nodak1858]

Unfortunately no, no reliable way to tell. The low number debate rages on, some say they are ok if they've survived this long, some say they are never safe to shoot. I like my face, it's not real good to look at but everything works on it, I would not chance shooting a low number 1903. To me there are too many high number rifles out there to make shooting a low number worth it.

[Slamfire]

Seeking a little advice. I recently made a post about my low number Springfield 1903 sporter with Serial #589,XXX. It was customized sometime around the 60’s and ended up in my hands a few months back. I claimed I wasn’t worried about the low number as I was sure that the receiver was hardness tested by the old timer who customized the rifle, as it looked like he did a locking lug on the bolt body. Many guys started posting concerning things that made me look for evidence of any hardness test on the receiver. I looked to no avail...nothing more than a pin prick the size of the point on a needle, it’s probably just a pit in the steel. I was considering getting it checked out by a gunsmith maybe. Would they be able to hardness test it and tell me if it is good to go or not?

I understood that if a receiver was rebarreled it got a punch mark on the same line as the serial number.

Look, at the time your receiver was made Springfield Armory was not using temperature gages in the forge shop or with the heat treating ovens. Also, SA did not have any incoming steel inspection, so the smart steel producer would send the good steel to someone with a metallurgical lab, and the bad steel to SA, because they did not know the difference. A combination of varying steel quality, composition, and lack of process controls, it turns out the low number 03's are a mixed bag.

According to Hatcher's Notebook in 1927 an Army Board tested low number receivers, after re heating them. About 33% blew up in high pressure tests. The board recommended scrapping all 1,000,000 low number receivers, but for monetary reasons they were kept in service. The fact of the matter is, it is always cheaper to keep defective product in the field, even if it hurts someone, than to recall and replace with good product.

I am unaware of any non destructive technique that would tell you whether your receiver was made of good materials and properly heat treated. Maybe someone does know.

It is your head, hand, and body parts.


Thoughts on my sporterized Springfield M1903?
https://thefiringline.com/forums/sho...03#post6546703

I've experienced a catastrophic receiver failure. I will tell you flat out it's NOT something you EVER want to happen.

Over 100 stitches in my face/neck, shattered jaw that was wired shut for 12 weeks, a hole in my neck to breath through, weeks of missed work, weeks of being fed through a straw, lost 20-25% of my body weight, permanent nerve and tissue damage resembling the effects of a light stroke.
Hop right on that train Dude cause my seat is empty.

One of the "glass hard" P17 actions re-barreled to a belted magnum. Those actions are some of the strongest known(sarcasm). Some of the "over treated" ones are really strong right up to the point when they grenade.

[HiBC]

My priorities lean toward safety. Nothing costs more than Doctors and hospitals. I especially would not want a friend or family member to get hurt shooting my gun.

I'm pretty sure the Civilian Marksmanship Program has decided no low number Springfields may be used in a match. They know the rifles pretty well.

Its kind of like buying Bummer Lotto tickets. Instead of winning a jackpot three fingers are missing and what is left of an eyeball is hanging on your cheek. But,I've never won the Lotto.

Its your choice.

Whatever you decide,I compliment you on the Wisdom to step back and reconsider.

I get the idea that the Old Gentleman who built this rifle was someone you know and respect. Its a darn nice piece of work,and the guys who built such things deserve respect.There are a few I consider mentors...they are apart of my life.They were my friends.
No harm need come to that rifle or your regard for the maker.Keep it. Treasure it. Remember him..... It does not have to be shot.It would be an order of magnitude safer if ,when you want it to be shot,make loads in the 30-40 Krag pressure levels.Even that is not a sure thing,but the odds get a lot better. I would not load it for 400 yd elk hunting.

Under 40,000 psi,maybe 2200 ,2300 fps or so.That will shoot targets or kill a deer at 200 yds.

Besides,its pretty. No sense beating it up,getting it rained on ,etc. Some of the newer rifles are good tools,accurate and not real expensive.
If I can attach this link,the pic will look painfully familiar to a TFL member who gave me permission to share it. This was a reload problem,but you get the idea

[tango1niner]

When I taught hunter safety I had a mauser rifle in class for the students to handle. With safety in mind I shortened the firing pin about .150" so the rifle could not discharge a round of ammo.
The Springfield Rifle (03/03-A3) has a two piece firing pin assembly, a striker and firing pin. If you would rather no one fire that rifle you could easily buy a spare pin, shorten and install it.
Hang it over the mantle with a note on the back side saying that it shouldn't be fired and why.
Just my $.02...

[mehavey]

I understood that if a receiver was rebarreled it got a punch mark on the same line as the serial number.

And so it was... done by/for the Marines. (naturally )
ONLY such receivers (and such rather obvious) punch marks carry any provenance of school-of-hard-knocks survival.

Again, however, there is no non-destructive test -- though many knowledgeable people have noted well-shot/long-shot receivers having lasted over 111 years (in the photo's case) have passed a "practicality" test.

You roll the dice, however, even then....
Forewarned

[MountainMan83]

In the attached picture, the Springfield in question, has a hole drilled and tapped for scope bases. The hole is so close to the edge I feel that if the receiver steel were brittle this hole would have fractured or split in the 60 or so years it has been there taking the shock of the 30-06. https://s19.postimg.org/ekjbbhhgz/4_...287_EB0991.png

[Jim Watson]

as it looked like he did a locking lug on the bolt body.

No.
That is the original design factory "safety lug."

A scope mount hole is not "taking the shock" to any extent.

[MountainMan83]

Originally Posted by Jim Watson

No.
That is the original design factory "safety lug."

You took the locking lug part out of context. I was saying that it appeared the rifle builder had hardness tested the front right locking lug on the bolt body.

[Jim Watson]

OK, but you said "he did a locking lug."

Slamfire and Dave LeGate converted me to the "don't shoot them" party.

[HiBC]

Mountain Man.its your rifle and your face.You asked,folks answered.Now you can do what makes you happy.No Problem.

Just for clarity,Those two drilled and tapped holes are not for a scope mount.
They ate for a receiver peep sight. Those were classic on an earlier version of a Springfield sporting or target rifle.I suspect your rifle lived another life before this configuration.
Your Monte Carlo comb would not be compatable,I think.

The rear receiver ring does not take any shock. There is no load on it. Odds are good,to drill and tap it,it was torch annealed.
Those safety lugs on the side of the bolt are designed to have clearance behind them. They don't bear any load. If the front lugs are failing and the bolt is coming back,the safety lug is supposed to stop the bolt.

Your bolt handle has been forged/reshaped. I would not jump to conclusions,but the low number bolt handles were bent straight down. High numbers were swept back.

I have not looked at the books on this issue in decades. I don't pretend to be an authority on low number Springfields. I'm sure there are more sources,but I believe you can get a start with "Hatcher's Notebook" and PO Ackley's "Handbook for Shooters"
I can tell you the problem is not that the receivers are soft.They might be glasshard. Gunsmiths had real problems trying to drill and tap them. Some used an oxyacetylene torch to spot anneal them.The problem is they are brittle and lack strength. Whack them with a chunk of rebar and they break.
Its not something they could sort out with a Rockwell test or a re-heat treat.


Also remember its not just pressure.The barrel is dynamic when the rifle is fired. It is a long lever arm that is anchored in the front receiver ring.That barrel movement amplified by the leverage is taken by the receiver every shot fired. Did you say 1915? That's 102 years. You never know when fatigue will win.
Its a real nice rifle and a tribute to the man who built it.As long as its in one piece.

[Mobuck]

"Odds are good,to drill and tap it,it was torch annealed. "

And folks, this makes the situation even worse. Now you have a "soft spot" within the superhard receiver ring and where's that stress going to concentrate? My blowup split directly through the D&T holes for the scope base.