My granddad gave me his '03 Springfield 25 or so years ago. It's a Springfield Armory #598674...obviously a low number '03. He used to shoot competitive high power (late 1940's & 1950's) with it. In the 60s he shortened the barrel, removed the rear peep sight and restocked it in a beautiful hunk of walnut. He had the receiver drilled for Weaver bases and put on a 4X scope. The barrel has been replaced and it has a Canjar trigger. It's a wonderful shooter and beautiful rifle. Since then I have shot quite a few deer and coyotes with it. When I realized it was a lower number Springfield, I kinda quit shooting it as much. He shot 56 gr. of IMR-4350 w/ a Sierra 180 and a 50 gr. of IMR-4895 and a Hornady 150 gr...both are pretty much max. loads. It surely has had 5-10,000 rounds minimum through it.

Sooo...did the early Springfields have soft metal or brittle metal or ??? Did they start off ok, then develop headspace issues??? Any help here would be appreciated too. I assume those that were going to "blow up" probably already have.

Thanks, Larry

If you do a search on here you will find tons and tons of posts on this topic.

Next to Remington bolt handles you will have a hard time finding a topic that will generate more varied opinions...or more heated discussions.

If I owned it, I would back off each of the loads by three grains of powder and keep shooting. The reported trouble with the low number Springfields was that the actions were brittle.

quote:

Next to Remington bolt handles you will have a hard time finding a topic that will generate more varied opinions...or more heated discussions.

Remington actually made some of those Springfields and they too had trouble with the bolt handles coming off.....especially when using SMKs for hunting and after rechambering to .30-06AI and raising velocities to 3,100'/sec with 180 grain bullets.....but of course there was no pressure signs at all.

quote:

Originally posted by vapodog:

quote:

Next to Remington bolt handles you will have a hard time finding a topic that will generate more varied opinions...or more heated discussions.

Remington actually made some of those Springfields and they too had trouble with the bolt handles coming off.....especially when using SMKs for hunting and after rechambering to .30-06AI and raising velocities to 3,100'/sec with 180 grain bullets.....but of course there was no pressure signs at all.

I also have it on good authority that a Remington bolt handle actually caused hurricane Katrina!

Just read a report on this same question this year but now cannot find it. I think it was on the Springfield collectors forum. It was a VERY detailed report done in the 20's/ 30's I believe by Hatcher and further evaluation by others. Very detailed case by case report of all known reported military failures of low number actions. If my memory serves me (and it often doesn't at this age) the basic conclusion was not to worry and again if memory serves these low number actions were never withdrawn from service. This was an official ordance study and seemed pretty conclusive. I really would like to find it again and reread it.

zimbabwe,

All of it was reprinted on this forum about two months ago.

The bottom line, as you have stated, was that rounds kept within original pressures are safe to shoot. Also, many of the military “failures†on record were due to bore obstructions and bad ammunition. I forget what the actual percentage of “failures†were, but it was a tiny fraction of a percent of the rifles in question.

Found the report I was looking for. It is at http://m1903.com/03rcvrfail/
Pretty well details the fact they really aren't too unsafe to use with normal loads.

Wow...that was exactly what I was looking for. Thanks for the report Zimbabwe...and to the others for their two cents. I think I'll just keep shooting her with somewhat reduced loads.

quote:

I also have it on good authority that a Remington bolt handle actually caused hurricane Katrina!

Actually Hurricane Katrina was caused by the winds from shoppers leaving Wal-Mart after the unveiling of Remington's 710.

quote:

Originally posted by vapodog:

quote:

I also have it on good authority that a Remington bolt handle actually caused hurricane Katrina!

Actually Hurricane Katrina was caused by the winds from shoppers leaving Wal-Mart after the unveiling of Remington's 710.

You know, I have always found it extremely despicable that not one single firearm manufacturer has ever contacted me for my personal preferences prior to their coming out with a new model... How Ruuuuuuuuude can you get?

quote:

Originally posted by Rick 0311:
You know, I have always found it extremely despicable that not one single firearm manufacturer has ever contacted me for my personal preferences prior to their coming out with a new model... How Ruuuuuuuuude can you get?

How DUMB can that be! (That they wouldn't find a few average Joe's like us to ask first.)

The 788 wasn't exactly a thing of beauty either and the extractor (what extractor?) stunk, but at least it would shoot like crazy!

Dear 6.5 Gibbs,
I , too, have a low number Springfield. It belonged to my dad and is in 308 Norma Mag! He shot it for years and died of old age at 87 yrs and not of "Bolt in Skull" disease. I remember Ackley saying back in 72 or so that if the rifle [my dads] has lasted this long and been to as many places as it had, it was probably safe to shoot. I don`t shoot it anymore but that is because I am a confirmed 6.5 nut and don`t use the .30s anymore but if I needed a big 30? You would bet your bippy I would grab the old rifle.

Aloha, Mark

quote:

Sooo...did the early Springfields have soft metal or brittle metal or ??? Did they start off ok, then develop headspace issues??? Any help here would be appreciated too. I assume those that were going to "blow up" probably already have.

The problem with some (very few, actually) of the low-numbered Springfields is that the heat-treating temperatures were judged by eye, and some were heated too hot and then quenched, resulting in a brittle condition. A few were so brittle, they could be shattered like glass by a relatively mild hammer blow. However, if you believe the statistics kept by the Army on this condition, the great majority of low-numbered Springfields were issued and used by the troops for several decades with very few failures. Some of the failures of early Springfields were caused by bad ammunition, usually too-soft brass, so not all accidents were even due to a hard receiver.

IMO, your assumption that those that are going to blow up probably already have seems pretty valid to me. At least, this reasoning appears applicable to the rifle you own-it has pretty well survived a long period of "proofing"!

I don't believe ANY of the low-numbered Springfield problems entailed "growing excessive headspace".

quote:

Originally posted by vapodog:
Remington actually made some of those Springfields and they too had trouble with the bolt handles coming off.....especially when using SMKs for hunting and after rechambering to .30-06AI and raising velocities to 3,100'/sec with 180 grain bullets.....but of course there was no pressure signs at all.

Remington DID NOT MAKE any of the "low-numbered Springfileds!" Remington did not ever make a Springfield at all until WWII, and no low-numbered Springfield was made after 1919! ALL the low-numbered rifles were made by Springfield Armory and Rock Island Arsenal......
(And, I wish people would stop referring to the 1903 Springfield as an "03A3", which is a cat of a different color! And a lot less desireable than a real '03!)

(I realize your remark is tongue in cheek, but some may not!)

quote:

Originally posted by zimbabwe:
Just read a report on this same question this year but now cannot find it. I think it was on the Springfield collectors forum. It was a VERY detailed report done in the 20's/ 30's I believe by Hatcher and further evaluation by others. Very detailed case by case report of all known reported military failures of low number actions. If my memory serves me (and it often doesn't at this age) the basic conclusion was not to worry and again if memory serves these low number actions were never withdrawn from service. This was an official ordance study and seemed pretty conclusive. I really would like to find it again and reread it.

Covered completely in Hatcher's Notebook, including a listing of reported individual Springfield failures in the hands of troops.

quote:

Remington DID NOT MAKE any of the "low-numbered Springfileds!" Remington did not ever make a Springfield at all until WWII, and no low-numbered Springfield was made after 1919! ALL the low-numbered rifles were made by Springfield Armory and Rock Island Arsenal......

yes...you are correct and my comments was definitely an attempt at humor..

Thanks for the clarification

quote:

Originally posted by vapodog:

yes...you are correct and my comments was definitely an attempt at humor..

Thanks for the clarification

If you need to explain that to anyone I think they are way beyond any help they could get on this forum.

quote:

(And, I wish people would stop referring to the 1903 Springfield as an "03A3", which is a cat of a different color! And a lot less desireable than a real '03!)

I reread this entire thread several times and didn't see a single "03A3". ????