Springfield 1903, Any Experts?

[iosteyee]

Hello All,
I'm new to this Forum, and I've decided to try and find out what I can about the Springfield 1903 that's been sitting in my safe for 20 or so years. This CV-19 shutdown has given me more time to spend at home and shoot a bit. Another silver lining of the situation is trying to figure out this beautiful, old Springfield.
It's serial number is 547050 and it's in a Sporter stock. It has a 24" barrel, a Redfield rear peep site, inside of the stock has 4215 engraved, under the receiver there are 4 symbols: 6 M J 8 that are separate from one another.There is a P under the barrel. There is a 2 partially obscured under one side of the Lyman front site and what appears to be an 8 partially obscured under the other side.
There are a few more little markings, but I'm not sure which are important. I'll post pictures when I figure out how to do it. Any help with this is much appreciated.
Thanks, Ian

[10-96]

Your rifle was made in 1914. The exact number for when improved heat treating started is debated a bit, but it is generally accepted that proper heat treating started at SN: 800,000. So, that leaves your rifle in the Low Serial Number Group.

That should be your very next research step. Google everything you can find about Low Numbered 1903's. I personally have never seen a blown up, cracked, or otherwise damaged receiver, but I believe there are some folks on this forum who have. Some argue that if they have been shot a bit over the past 117 years, they must be OK. Others, stand by the sound science of metallurgy and agree they are not safe to shoot. I, myself, would not shoot the rifle.

[iosteyee]

Thanks, I've read a bit about the 1903 early model failures. I, did, fire this rifle years ago when I first picked it up without knowing it might be a danger.

[veprdude]

I've seen a lot of "Low Number" M1903s with WW2 era barrels. This probably means that the barrel was shot out and replaced with then-new 1940's barrels for WW2 service. After that, many were sporterized and used as hunting rifles for decades. In my opinion, most that were to fail have failed at this point. That said, it is possible for any to fail at any given time but I think the odds are super low and the issue is overblown. Now if you get your hand on a low numbered M1903 with original barrel etc., it might be wise to leave it alone for the risk of destroying a valuable antique.

I have a few in my collection for historical reasons. I haven't had the itch to shoot any yet.

[tangolima]

I have such a low number 1903, that I bought from an old gentleman. The rifle was his father's. The barrel has been replaced at least once. Don't know exactly how many thousands of rounds had fired through the gun. I myself did hundreds, mostly milsurps.

I still fire it once a while. But I started treating it as an special antique. Light cast bullet rounds only, and no bystanders.

-TL

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

[44 AMP]

I have found info stating the heat treat change was in 1918 and at ser# 800,000 for Springfields and #285507 for Rock Island Arsenal.

Some older "sages" have said the low number actions (and bolts) are generally ok, UNLESS a case fails, at which point then tend to come apart violently.

Others disagree.

WWII (or newer) barrels do not change the issue. Its not the barrel that fails (WHEN/IF) one of the early actions fail. Its the action itself or the bolt or both.

If the gun has been in use for over a century, odds are decent it will continue to work under the same conditions, BUT any of them can fail and a small risk is not no risk.

[tangolima]

It isn't the barrel that has the risk. But having the barrel replaced could well mean the action has delivered a lot of rounds. It could still come apart though. We all need to make up our minds as responsible grown-ups.

-TL

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

[iosteyee]

Here's the 1903 Springfield. I'd, still, like to find out more of it's history.

[Jim Watson]

A 1914 is nominally a WW I veteran but there is no way of knowing if it went to France or guarded a gate at home.

Totally sporterized, I doubt there is original surface finish anywhere.
Peep sight and Monte Carlo comb, I would think done just shortly before scope sights became ubiquitous.

Safety? I don't know. It might be a good one heat treated just right and as strong as possible for Slamfire Rebar. It might be lucky and just never encountered a bad round.

[HiBC]

My opinion,which s worth what you paid for it:

There are two separate subjects here.

The rifle,for what it represents,and the topic of low number Springfields.

This rifle is an outstanding example of a firearms time period .

It represents a time of transition...When the typical civilian rifle was some form of single shot or lever action.

The bolt guns were the "weapons of war" that Veterans became familiar with in the turn of the century wars,including WW1.

Post war,these Veterans appreciated the potential of these rifles,there was the DCM and the NRA involved in sharing the rifles with the public,at bargain prices,along with outfits like Bannermans.

The raw material of the war weapon was there,cheap,in a barrel at the hardware store.

And from the DCM Sporter program,to Griffin and Howe,Sedgely,etc.from Artisans to hacks,The classic bolt sporting and match rifle evolved.

This rifle is a beautiful,classic example of those times .

It is to be appreciated as a fine old Hawken or JP Gemmer or Sharps

And for the provenance of your Grandfather. It is all of tat regardless of the serial number.

Is it a shooter? Well,that becomes a matter if risk and discretion. Each of us must determine most of that for ourselves.

I can't tell you what to do.I can tell you what I would do for myself.

FWIW,it is my understanding that low number Springfields are banned from sanctioned competitions.

If I had a rifle like that,I'd appreciate it for just what it is.

I'd hunt with a safer rifle with full power loads.

If I just had to shoot that rifle, I'd consider I'm poking holes through paper with iron sights,probably at a 100 yd range.

I can do that just fine with loads in the 30-30 to 30-40 Krag performance range.,or Remington Rolling block range.

The Krag has one locking lug,and even older heat treat and metallurgy.

Your rifle has made it this far. You take care of yourself your own way.

I'd shoot it occasionally with 40,000 psi loads at 2000 to maybe 2400 fps loads,tops..

With those type loads,you can sling up,aim,squeeze,and poke a hole in a bullseye as well as you can with a 60,000 psi full house 30-06 load.

I would not shoot full power 30-06 loads in it at all.

Its is sort of like having a fine old side by side double shotgun with Damascus barrels.Its still a Parker or LC Smith fine double,but I would not fire Fiocchi Golden Pheasant loads in it.

[iosteyee]

HIBC,
What a well thought, mature and educated response; thank you very much for taking the time to post it.
As a former Marine, and guy who has several, generational rifles around, I have gleaned a new way to look at this rifle. I had previously only appreciated these rifles as issued rifles. It seems the post war sporterization of them has it's own technical and social importance.
Though I'd like to have a Springfield 1903 with a possible WW, USMC lineage, this rifle has a history of it's own that is also interesting.

[10-96]

iosteyee, that is one nice looking rifle. I missed it when I added post #2, but- Welcome aboard! It's good to have you amongst us. And thank you for your service as well.

[HiBC]

If I have this correct,Winchester came out with the model 54 commercial bolt rifle in 1925.
Before this,there was not an American commercial bolt action hunting rifle.(I could be wrong about this.Not sure about Newton,for example)

These Artisan Gunmakers actually developed the expression of what the bolt sporting rfle would become.

Also, the Director of Civilian Marksmanship,along with the NRA developed a program where the military trim rifles were arsenal converted to the NRA Springfield Sporter.

Post WW1,folks needed ways to earn a living. Yes,we hadlocal gunsmiths,but a cottage industry grew up around the local gunsmith sporterizing milsurps.

Some of them ere quite good.

In the 1960's John T Amber's "Gun Digest" would photograph full spreads of fine custom rifles ,most built on Mausers or Springfields.

Beautiful rifles!. Outfits like Bishop and Fajen capitalized on Missouri walnut trees.They selected and sawed and shaped,and sold a lot of gunstocks.

From that time we have Brownells,Timney,the scope and mount companies,
Lyman,Redfield...
And the legacy of cranky old curmudgeon gunsmiths!!
Who bought a lathe,a drill press,few had a mill. They made most of their other tools.

They could thread and chamber,drill and tap,reshape or weld bolt handles,polish and blue,and make a stock from a board.

Then,of course,there ere rifle cranks,who wanted more and cheaper ammo. Folks certainly reloaded before,but it took off to a new level with Bruce Hogdon salvaging military rfle powder,and folks beginning to swage jacketed bullets.

Did you know RCBS stand for Rock Chucker Bullet Swage Co?

Then we had the wildcatters. What happens if we neck this cartridge down or up? Cartridges like the 270,257 Roberts,35 Whelen,were developed,and many are still popular.

It was all strong up till about the time post 1968. The MilSurp rifles supply was cut off. Imports stopped.

These days,a Springfied is best left pristine military.

Now we assemble AR's. No walnut,no chisels...But good rifles.

Yup. Rifles like yours defined an era

https://sportingclassicsdaily.com/am...-griffin-howe/

[RickB]

This has been (almost) beaten to death, but I'll cast one last blow . . . apparently, the problem with the heat treat is "old hands" were eyeballing the color of the steel to judge temps, and depending on lighting conditions, the color appeared differently, to the tune of 300 degrees.
If they got a batch of rifles right, they're still right, but those that were mis-treated . . . were dangerous then, and if any of them still survive, would be dangerous now.

[mehavey]

See https://thefiringline.com/forums/sho...31&postcount=5

and https://thefiringline.com/forums/sho...7&postcount=17

[tangolima]

Originally Posted by RickB

This has been (almost) beaten to death, but I'll cast one last blow . . . apparently, the problem with the heat treat is "old hands" were eyeballing the color of the steel to judge temps, and depending on lighting conditions, the color appeared differently, to the tune of 300 degrees.

If they got a batch of rifles right, they're still right, but those that were mis-treated . . . were dangerous then, and if any of them still survive, would be dangerous now.

Springfield armory had been making other models of rifles with this eyeballing method way before the 1903. Why don't we hear a Krag or a trapdoor blowing up?

-TL

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

[HiBC]

This has been (almost) beaten to death, but I'll cast one last blow . . . apparently, the problem with the heat treat is "old hands" were eyeballing the color of the steel to judge temps, and depending on lighting conditions, the color appeared differently, to the tune of 300 degrees.

The way I heard it: A new Big Boss showed up at the arsenal,and demanded all the windows be washed.
The change in ambient light de-calibrated the eyeballs of the heat treaters.

The Law of Unintended Consequences strikes again!!

Tangolima, The Eddystone P-17.

And,IIRC,there were some problems with Krags. Some of it was about a sharp nside corner bolt lug to bolt body.It needed a radius

A dull red in dim light is a different temp in bright light.In bright light,the steel got burnt.

[iosteyee]

Great history lesson. I've taken a screen shot of this thread! Also a good warning following "Mehavey's" links.
I think the rifle came into my possession in the late 90's. I remember shooting it, but probably only put a handful of rounds through it. It's been sitting in the back of my safe ever since. Though it would be nice to know it's full history and if it's safe to fire, I'm content to have it keeps it's secrets and remain retired.
I really appreciate the warm welcome to your ranks, and hope I can be of service on some, or other thread in the future.

[Jim Watson]

Springfield armory had been making other models of rifles with this eyeballing method way before the 1903. Why don't we hear a Krag or a trapdoor blowing up?

-TL

Because we are not listening, maybe. They are a generation and perhaps three generations older than the 1903 and other Mauser knockoffs and are not used much any more. I have seen pictures of wrecked Trapdoors and Krags, so it did happen.

Because they did not blow up as spectacularly. I doubt there were many Trapdoors hotrodded with more modern calibers. The ones that did fail were probably beat to death with smokeless high velocity .45-70s or ruined with erroneous loads. A Remington Rolling Block is stronger but if it is pushed too far will "grenade" more dangerously as gas gets loose in its iron box of a receiver. Kind of like a 1903.

Because of more conservative design. The .30-40 operates at substantially lower pressure in the superior rimmed cartridge. It does not have case head hanging out in the breeze and the safety lug plus bolt handle are stronger than the single front locking lug, just the opposite of 1898 and 1903.

[tangolima]

Originally Posted by Jim Watson

Because we are not listening, maybe. They are a generation and perhaps three generations older than the 1903 and other Mauser knockoffs and are not used much any more. I have seen pictures of wrecked Trapdoors and Krags, so it did happen.



Because they did not blow up as spectacularly. I doubt there were many Trapdoors hotrodded with more modern calibers. The ones that did fail were probably beat to death with smokeless high velocity .45-70s or ruined with erroneous loads. A Remington Rolling Block is stronger but if it is pushed too far will "grenade" more dangerously as gas gets loose in its iron box of a receiver. Kind of like a 1903.



Because of more conservative design. The .30-40 operates at substantially lower pressure in the superior rimmed cartridge. It does not have case head hanging out in the breeze and the safety lug plus bolt handle are stronger than the single front locking lug, just the opposite of 1898 and 1903.

Shooting a low number 03 with light load is not any safer, according to the warnings. The action is like made of glass. You tap it in a wrong way, it will shatter.

Hot loading an old rifle designed for low pressure is an understandable mechanism to fail the action. The one with 03 doesn't sound the same.

-TL

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

[Jim Watson]

Shooting a low number 03 with light load is not any safer, according to the warnings.

In one way. At least one of the "official" blowups was with the "guard cartridge" having 9 grains of Bullseye and a 150 grain bullet. Not high pressure but a sharp rap.

I think the worst danger was split cases or head separation in hastily produced wartime brass. Pressure sealed inside the cartridge, OK, pressure loose in the action, demolition.

[tangolima]

Well, I guess enough said. Each of our own makes his own decision. I still shoot mine with light cast loads and without any bystanders. Don't be like me. Can't say enough of that, as we live in the land of the blamed.

-TL

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

[10-96]

One of the possibilities of the erroneous calibrated eyeballs that I recall hearing was a matter of morning vs afternoon sunlight. This story said that the afternoon sun cast a different hue than the morning sun which shown in through different windows in the plant. We'll never know what the realest reason was- just bad heat juju in the end. I do like to hear the stories of the possibilities though.

[RC20]

It really does not matter why, its the fact that it was inconsistent and not the right methodology for a critial heat treatment operation for a gun of that era.

Having a barrel replace also means the receiver was subjected to more stresses and lends some credence to being ok.

Actually one after market company made cast receivers and while they are loathed and I believe a UK company tested and condemned , they still worked. go figure.

Overall the biggest danger is the nature of the unsupported case head of any era 1903 (as well as the 1917)

One test never run was to ID a glass shatter type receiver and shoot it and see how if fared. A controlled gas expansion (fired round) vs a hammer smack is not the same thing mechanically. The latitude seems to be much wider than anyone has established as was noted, the same methods were used to make Kraig rifles.
That said I saw a modern Winchester Model 70 blown up (other than blowing up under a Gunsmith employee doing test firing with hand loads no firm knowledge of what pushed it there)

Damage was fortunately in the possible range of outcomes, damage was fairly limited but the shooter got a bunch of new teeth. Eyeballs ok, phew.

One bystander got side smacked with a piece of receiver and just a nasty blemish on the cheek (also phew)

Once piece of receiver embedded itself in the back of the shooting shed. Phew again as there were people and watchers on benches either side.

Supposedly the supported head and gas delivered does not allow that blow up to occur. so much for supposed.

[Don Fischer]

I'd turn it into a cast bullet shooter and not worry about it. My own 1903 I used with cast for a while using 180gr cast bullet and 13 grs Red Dot with a TP wad over the powde. Shot pretty good!