My smith, who I have alot of faith in knows I like the roberts. He showed me one he just put together. Its on a springfield 03 action he has had for years as a 6.5X57. He used that barrel for another project, and put a new douglas on the action, chamberd for .257 roberts , and he stocked in a beautifull piece of unusal walnut.
He did cut the little cocking bolt knob off the bolt witch is to bad I kind of like those.
But what concernes me is that it is a low serial number 1903. He said he has been shooing it for years and not babyed it in the slightest.
Would you be leery of this rifle ???tj3006

63 failures out of 1,200,000 actions...

yeah, i'd shoot it

quote:

Would you be leery of this rifle ?

Not in the least.

Thanks guys. if I do well at the gun show selling my old 270, Not the 1952 FNI just bought
but the 1957 feathweight custom I must have a million dollars into and still shoots like it did when I bought it I just might buy the roberts...tj3006

Go to www.jouster.com and check out the recent discussions on shooting low number 1903s, on the 1903 forum. Last couple weeks there has been a lot of discussion. One collector told how a 1903 receiver broke in his hands with FINGER pressure, another broke when dropped on a concrete floor, etc. And there was a blowup as well. I would not shoot a low number 1903 under any circumstances, a receiver could wear out several barrels as metal fatigue piles up, and then let go. 810,000 is the magic number above which Springfield Armory receivers are safe, as although the improved heat treatment supposedly started at 800,000 a few slipped through. For Rock Island receivers, 285,507. Remingtons, any number is OK, ditto Smith Coronas, but 1903A3 actions altho very strong are roughly made and not as desirable for making into sporters.

ahmm..
anyone who feels that a 1903 receiver (and the whole action is weak, too )...

please send them to ME.. i will take graet care in managing their safe disposal.


on the 1903a3...
guys, give that a rest... 2 hours of work cleans then up VERY well and you have either a built in peep sight or a mechcanical lock for a scope mount in the rear...

jeffe

And if jeffeoso happens to be short of cash at the time contact me...I’ll take all the 1903’s (high or low #’s) and 1903A3’s you have off your hands.

I too get a kick out of people who talk about the work involved in “cleaning-up†an 03A3...but those same people will spend tons of time and money completely surface grinding a Mauser and then spend more time and money having it re-heat treated without a second thought.

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:

on the 1903a3...
guys, give that a rest... 2 hours of work cleans then up VERY well and you have either a built in peep sight or a mechcanical lock for a scope mount in the rear...

Oh you can make an 03A3 look much better than original with some judicuous filing and sanding, but you'll never have as fine an action as an 03.

The rear tang is the worst. It's a huge flat area that is missing the rounded aspect of the 03 that is radiused into the grip. Because it's flat, it also is at a lower plane than an 03. Even if slenderized as Griffin & Howe used to do, it's still not as nice. And it forces a set angle of the top grip plane to the comb nose.

The 03A3 bolts are typically a very rough affair. Machining leaves them in three different radiuses, rather than one long smooth barrel. Very late ones have just a block for the safety lug. The first thing I do is swap for an 03 bolt.

The rear bridge has the dovetail that can't be hidden without major work. Nowhere near as pretty as that of the 03.

Servicable? Yes. I've used several. But the 03 is infinitely more desirable.

GV

I've never been a huge fan of the 1903.
There is something about the firing pin coming apart, sending the bolt back through my face that just doesn't turn me on.

I would not trust a low number receiver to a 348 Wby, but a 257 Roberts should be fine. I sort of think of them in the same way I would consider an 1895 Mauser.

There is a test you can do, it applies mainly to 1917 actions, but should be a good test for early 1903's as well.

Secure the action on a bench, and rap the front ring HARD with a ball peen hammer. If the receiver shatters, you know you got a bad one.

-Spencer

Just so Michael Petrov doesn't have to retype an excellent post he previously entered......

Before anyone starts whacking 1903’s with a hammer there are two things about the early low-number rifles you need to know.

1. Some of them had burnt steel because of the so called eyeballing problem and not using a pyrometer. How these got pass the first proof is beyond me.

2. All the low number 1903’s Springfield and Rock Island rifles are case hardened and ALL will shatter when hit with a hammer. The Krag was made in the same way and if you smack one of these with a hammer the same thing will happen, it will shatter.

A few thoughts on the low-number rifles from the past.
American Rifleman March 1, 1925 By Major Whelen….â€It happens; that beginning with serial number somewhere about 800,000, Springfield Armory adapted a new method of heat treatment for their receivers. This new method gives greater tensile strength than the old method. It is simply progress and improvement, and does not mean at all that previous receivers were defective in any way. As a matter of fact they are not, and from a practical point of view the difference between the two heat treatments means nothing at all. I would just as soon have an old receiver as a new one. In fact the receiver of my favorite Springfield sporter rifle is in the 200,000s, and I would not think of changing it for anything.â€

Small Arms Design & Ballistics Vol. II by Townsend Whelen “All Army rifles which have been “accidentally†injured in service are shipped to Springfield Armory for examination. Mr. A.L. Woodward, Engineer of Test at the Armory for the past thirty years states that in ninety nine percent of the cases the accident has been caused by an obstruction in the bore, or by firing a wrong cartridge, that is an improper or wrongly sized cartridge, or one handloaded to excessive pressure. It is interesting to note that in the majority of these accidents an effort is made to conceal the real cause of the accident, but the evidence is always perfectly plain.â€



November, 1921 Arms & the Man ‘Concerning the Strength of the Springfield†by Hatcher (speaking of the new receivers) “The qualities of this receiver are very well demonstrated by a test to which one sample out of every lot is subjected. It is fastened into a vise while a workman takes an iron bar and attempts to break it off by striking it a heavy blow on the weak section over the magazine well. The receivers made before 1917 will fly to pieces like glass when they are treated in this manner.â€


There is some evidence that Springfield Armory was re-heat-treating low-numbers rifles as late as 1925.
November, 1921 Arms & the Man ‘Concerning the Strength of the Springfield†by Hatcher


â€The new treatment started with guns numbered about 800,000, and when guns are repaired at Springfield Armory, receivers with numbers earlier than this are either scrapped or retreated.â€


February 1, 1925 American Rifleman Townsend Whelen answering question about heat treatment of 1903’s. “All rifles now being manufactured and all above No. 800,000 have the new heat treatment. Many of the older ones which have been returned to the Armory for repairs have been re-heat treated.â€


For over fifty years the NRA (With Hatcher as one of the technical Editors) and others all gave the same information in regard to shooting low-numbered 1903 Springfields. That was, use good brass, check the headspace and do not load over service pressure. When did in turn into never shooting them? While reading a 1936 “American Rifleman†it see that the practice of exchanging the low-number receivers for high-numbers when a rifle was sent in by a civilian for work was stopped unless the person requested it. Seems some people did not like loosing these (hard) smooth working actions. This question is not new, from Nov, 1932 American Rifleman, person asking if his low-number was still serviceable. Answer: “These older receivers are safe to use with any standard factory ammunition of old or modern ballistics, providing the cases are in good condition. There should be no grease on the cartridge or in the bore, and the breech space must be no greater than about .005 inch.â€
American Rifleman Feb, 1936
“Fortunately, the law of averages makes such accidents very unlikely. Out of the million old-type M-1903 receivers and every Krag receiver (case hardened in the same way) made between 1892 and 1917 there have been very few accidents for a negligibly small fraction of a percentage point when compared with the total number of possibilities during all the years up to 1936. The sensible thing to do however is to check the old-type actions for headspace or have them so checked. If the headspace is found to be normal or in good condition it should safely handle all standard loads.â€

“Ordnance Went Up Front†by Roy F. Dunlap Samworth 1948 (speaking of low-number rifles) “I saw hundreds of these in the war, used with all types of issue ammunition including armor piercers with a rather high chamber pressures. These low number actions are safe with practically all government and commercial ammunition in .30-06 caliber, with the possible exception of very high-pressured target loads or heavy-bullet hunting cartridges.â€


Bottom line is if you don’t feel comfortable shooting the low-number 1903’s then don’t but PLEASE don’t take that Wundhammer and test it with a hammer.

quote:

Originally posted by ShopCartRacing:
I've never been a huge fan of the 1903.
There is something about the firing pin coming apart, sending the bolt back through my face that just doesn't turn me on.

I would not trust a low number receiver to a 348 Wby, but a 257 Roberts should be fine. I sort of think of them in the same way I would consider an 1895 Mauser.

There is a test you can do, it applies mainly to 1917 actions, but should be a good test for early 1903's as well.

Secure the action on a bench, and rap the front ring HARD with a ball peen hammer. If the receiver shatters, you know you got a bad one.

-Spencer

So if the firing pin on an 03 breaks it also causes the two forward locking lugs and the third safety lug on the bolt to shear off allowing the bolt to fly out the back of the rifle and into the shooters face???

quote:

Originally posted by Rick 0311:

So if the firing pin on an 03 breaks it also causes the two forward locking lugs and the third safety lug on the bolt to shear off allowing the bolt to fly out the back of the rifle and into the shooters face???

No....if the two-piece firing pin or the collar breaks, the broken rear half of the striker can fly out the back of the shroud unimpeded.

GV

I heard about those low number Springfields in the early 50's and never wanted one. I still don't want one. Let someone else have it.

Whoops. I misstated myself.

You gotta give me more credit that that Rick!

What GrandView said, the striker/cocking piece goes through my face, not the whole bolt.

Either way, I wouldn't like it.

-Spencer

quote:

Originally posted by Thomas Jones:
My smith, who I have alot of faith in knows I like the roberts. He showed me one he just put together. Its on a springfield 03 action he has had for years as a 6.5X57. He used that barrel for another project, and put a new douglas on the action, chamberd for .257 roberts , and he stocked in a beautifull piece of unusal walnut.
He did cut the little cocking bolt knob off the bolt witch is to bad I kind of like those.
But what concernes me is that it is a low serial number 1903. He said he has been shooing it for years and not babyed it in the slightest.
Would you be leery of this rifle ???tj3006

Unless there is just something about the gun that tells you "I gotta have it" or it is simply an exceptional buy then my take would be, why settle for a low # springfield when there are so many high # ones around to be had. It may be fine with the little Bob, especially with factory ammo, but when it is time for a new bbl youll be better off with a different action.

Ive got a pair of high # Springfields and like them every bit as much as my Mausers, in some aspects more. The fact that he cut off the knob would also deter me.

FWIW.

quote:

Originally posted by GrandView:

quote:

Originally posted by Rick 0311:

So if the firing pin on an 03 breaks it also causes the two forward locking lugs and the third safety lug on the bolt to shear off allowing the bolt to fly out the back of the rifle and into the shooters face???

No....if the two-piece firing pin or the collar breaks, the broken rear half of the striker can fly out the back of the shroud unimpeded.

GV

Okay, the collar breaks (which just happens all the time ) What sends the cocking piece back into your face...and how many instances of this happening have you ever witnessed or heard of?

I sometimes wonder if all the US Dough-Boys in WWI knew they were in such grave danger every time they fired they’re 03’s at the bad guys. Remember, all of the 1903’s used in WWI were low numbered...as were the vast majority of the 03 sporters made by G&H and most of the other gunmakers of that time.

The offer still stands for you guys that want to get rid of those low-numbered “hand grenadesâ€...I’ll take them off your hands!

Funny you should ask how many instances there have been of this happening.

I have heard at least 2 or 3 stories from old guys at boot camp, training with Springfields.

They were shooting along, when all of a sudden they were yelled at to get down and bury their faces in the dirt.

Sure enough in each case, some ways down the line a young man was being carted away with a broken piece of rifle where their eye once was.

Ouch.

Only reason I really even have the one I do is because it was free.

-Spencer

Well, that pretty much settles it, it must be true!

I don't get it Rick. You say you don't reload because to many bad things happen to reloaders, but... you'd put your face behind one of these? What am I missing here?

Terry

quote:

Originally posted by Thomas Jones:
...Would you be leery of this rifle ???tj3006

Hey TJ, I'm leery of any previously owned rifle, simply because I rarely have any idea about how it was treated by the previous owner(s). When I do rarely buy a used rifle, here is what I ask myself about it. And if other folks are happy buying the unknown, that is fine by me too.
---

Here are a few questions you might want to consider asking before buying a “used†rifle:

1. Do you know the previous owner(s) and how he cared for the firearm? Not the obvious external rust and termites, but rather how is the Throat or Lead?
2. Speaking of rust and termites, have you looked for rust with the stock removed?
3. Have you had the Bolt apart to see what condition it is in?
4. Did a previous owner shoot it as fast as he could while the barrel was too hot to hold?
5. Did a previous owner “Lap the Bore†to remove/hide pits?
6. Was a previous owner a reloader that believed it was OK to use Over-Loads?
7. How is the Headspace?
8. Has the barrel been set-back a thread?
8a. Why?
9. Has any portion of the firearm been re-blued?
9a. Why?
10. Has the termite food stock been re-finished?
10a. Why?
11. Is the Recoil Pad in complete alignment all the way around?
12. Does the Front Sling Swivel stud make contact with the Barrel?
13. Is the Rear Sling Swivel in proper alignment?
14. Is the barrel completely Free Floated?
14a. Did it come that way from the factory?
14b. If it is different from the way it was shipped, why?
15. Has the stock been Bedded differently than as it left the factory?
15a. Was it done to repair or hide a split in the termite food?
15b. Does the termite food Warp in changing environmental conditions?
16. Is the Trigger original?
16a. Any rust, built-up trash, or residue within the Trigger recesses?
17. Does the Safety work properly?
And last but most certainly not least,
18. How much “Cumulative Metal Fatigue†does it have from all the previous years of use?

If you DO NOT HAVE good answers for those questions concerning the specific rifle, then they become reasons a person should consider not buying.

quote:

Originally posted by TC1:
I don't get it Rick. You say you don't reload because to many bad things happen to reloaders, but... you'd put your face behind one of these? What am I missing here?

Terry

Well, Terry...to start with my posts about reloading were meant to get a “rise†out of all the reloaders out there (you, know...a joke!)...which in your case seems to have worked pretty well!

Secondly, other than the ridiculous stories being told how many instances of 03 blow ups (due to the heat treating process) do you think actually happened, and how long ago did they happen? I’m not even going to attempt to answer these idiotic stories about guys in boot camp with 03 cocking pieces sticking in their eyes.

There were a couple of posts on here not too long ago showing pictures and telling the stories of a Sako blow up and a M1A blow up. I’ve also seen a recent picture of a Savage blow up (sent to me by a person who posts on here) where 3/4’s of the front ring was just gone. Not cracked, not bulged...GONE!

In the case of the Savage, I would bet you that as a percentage of total rifles built that would give Savage a worse failure rate than the low numbered 03’s.

quote:

Rick 0311: I sometimes wonder if all the US Dough-Boys in WWI knew they were in such grave danger every time they fired they’re 03’s at the bad guys. Remember, all of the 1903’s used in WWI were low numbered...as were the vast majority of the 03 sporters made by G&H and most of the other gunmakers of that time.

I've always wondered if most of the blow-ups were the result of trench mud in the muzzles.

Funny, I don't remember ever getting a "rise" by anything you've ever written. It was just a question.

I have no proof to back it up, but I'd bet you're wrong about more Savages giving up the ghost than Springfield's.

Have fun,
Terry

quote:

Originally posted by Rick 0311:
Okay, the collar breaks (which just happens all the time ) What sends the cocking piece back into your face...and how many instances of this happening have you ever witnessed or heard of?

Only personally aware of it happening once in my lifetime......and not to me. And let's be realistic here. The broken part doesn't come flying back with the energy of the fired shell. It comes back with the energy of the uncoiled spring around the striker......which has likely been extended at firing time anyway. That's a far cry from other accidents. That's not to be dismissive of potential harm, just putting it into perspective.

Springfields are my favorite action. I use them more than any other. I'm aware of their strengths and difficiencies. Many of their features are harmless and lovable oddities......the bolt stop, safety lug, and high rear bridge as examples.

However, from an engineering and design standpoint.....and some cases safety.....as a Mauser copy, virtually every change they made to produce the Springfield laid an egg. And they still ended up paying Mauser for the privilage of the copy.

From a pragmatic standpoint, the decision to use an action......in original guise or modified.....is certainly up to the individual. I think it's better to do so from an informed position.

GV

Hey Rick, Just read today of the first RUM blowing up I've heard of. The young guy it happend to was VERY QUICK to point out it was a "Reload Problem"(overload), not an issue with the rifle.

He had his left hand laying atop the scope and when he fired, his left thumb was destroyed and his Right eye damaged. Medivaced to UofL where they put the thumb back together as best they could and then on to Nashville to get his eye worked on.

It looks like he will be the best High School Archery shooter in KY this year. Still hunts and still uses his Right eye as the Master eye.

quote:

Originally posted by TC1:
Funny, I don't remember ever getting a "rise" by anything you've ever written. It was just a question.

I have no proof to back it up, but I'd bet you're wrong about more Savages giving up the ghost than Springfield's.

Have fun,
Terry

Read my statement again...I said “as a percentage of the rifles made.â€

I doubt very seriously that Savage has produced over a million and a half of the model that blew up.

I also stated “due to the heat treatment process†when referring to the low numbered 03’s.

Hatcher investigated all of the supposed instances of blow ups and a good portion of them were due to barrel obstructions, wrong ammunition being used, etc.

My point is that this whole issue of low-numbered 03’s has been overblown to the point of being ridiculous, and the stories (fables?) of accidents and injuries have taken on a life of their own and seem to get bigger and more gory with each telling.

Silly topic...if someone doesn’t want to own or shoot a particular rifle then who the hell cares?

quote:

this whole issue of low-numbered 03’s has been overblown to the point of being ridiculous,

I share this opinion as well.

OK, Even percentage wise. I still think you're wrong.

"Silly topic...if someone doesn’t want to own or shoot a particular rifle then who the hell cares?"

This I'm in total agreement on.

Terry

Let me clear up a few points about the particular rifle in Question. The previous owner
is my smith, and he shot it for a long time as a 6.5X57 AI. He just rebarreld the action to .257 roberts and restocked it. The reason I am considering the rifle is cause I like the round and the stock alot.
MY smith cut the mushroom knob off the back of the bolt, witch to me is to bad cause I like the way they look, but i bet there is a replacment in the shop some where.
I happen to have an 03A3 barreled action
That was polished and blued beautifully by someone many years ago.
Unfortunatly he also ground the rear of the reciever down to fit a peep and I am haveing to pay 130.00 to have it buit up and a scope base mounted. I will decide what to do with that action when I get it back. If it shoots real good as an 06 I think it will stay an 06, but I just think a 03-a3 in 35 whelen would be really cool.
I am also thinking of starting over on my pre 64 featherweight witch is now a custom .270 that while not a bad shooter is a bit of a dissapointment. I could just have ir rebarreld to .257 Robert AI. If I went with say a 22 inch Douglas tapperd to .600 at the muzzle, put a williams floor plate on it I would probably have a real sweethart of a deer antilope rifle, don't you think? ...tj3006

Thomas,

I think its pretty safe to assume that if that rifle was going to blow up that it would have done so by now.

You can buy 03 cocking pieces at Sarco, Numrich, and at just about any gun show for just a few bucks if you want to go back to the knob style. I agree with you, to me that knob is what makes an 03 and 03!

quote:

My point is that this whole issue of low-numbered 03’s has been overblown to the point of being ridiculous, and the stories (fables?) of accidents and injuries have taken on a life of their own and seem to get bigger and more gory with each telling.

I agree 100%

I wouldn't dismiss the Springfield entirely because of one weak link in the design, and you are right when you call the story I posted as being 'idiotic' and I'm sure whatever I've been told has been exaggerated.

To the point at hand... if you like the rifle, buy it and you will be happy.

-Spencer

Funny you should mention "seeing" the event on a GI rifle range. I was witness (range officer) to an exploding Garand on a Navy range in the summer of 1965, the Marines there called it a "rapid disassembly" where in the Garand actually split the stock and ejected the bolt and trigger group. No injuries, just a lot of surprised people. The post mortem revealed the cause to be a cracked receiver. The entire batch of range rifles was scoped and tested, finding 5 more cracked receivers, all with 5 digit 5 digit serial numbers. I think this puts more points on the case for using the old low number M1903s carefully. These 5 digit Garands probably had more rounds thru them before the accident than any surviving low number M1903. Just my two cents worth.
LLS

quote:

Originally posted by ShopCartRacing:
Funny you should ask how many instances there have been of this happening.

I have heard at least 2 or 3 stories from old guys at boot camp, training with Springfields.

They were shooting along, when all of a sudden they were yelled at to get down and bury their faces in the dirt.

Sure enough in each case, some ways down the line a young man was being carted away with a broken piece of rifle where their eye once was.

Ouch.

Only reason I really even have the one I do is because it was free.

-Spencer

So I guess that all older rifles with lots of rounds through them should be retired?

quote:

Funny you should mention "seeing" the event on a GI rifle range. I was witness (range officer) to an exploding Garand on a Navy range in the summer of 1965, the Marines there called it a "rapid disassembly" where in the Garand actually split the stock and ejected the bolt and trigger group. No injuries, just a lot of surprised people. The post mortem revealed the cause to be a cracked receiver. The entire batch of range rifles was scoped and tested, finding 5 more cracked receivers, all with 5 digit 5 digit serial numbers. I think this puts more points on the case for using the old low number M1903s carefully. These 5 digit Garands probably had more rounds thru them before the accident than any surviving low number M1903. Just my two cents worth.
LLS

Not disputing this. Another major problem the Navy had with their basic M1s, was the chamber sleeves used to convert them from 30-06 to 7.62 would pull out leaving a super case of excess head space for the next round. Somethines a disaster, sometimes not. When I went through in '67, they would not let me shoot lefthanded because shortly before, thishad happened and the shooter was injured because "he was lefthanded". As if it wouldn't have messed up a RH shooter!

In keeping with the origional intent of this thread, I have to take Rick's side on this. Older rifles are fine; if they have been examined and found functionaly safe and the cartridge is kept in the same pressure parameters as origionaly designed for.

From what I have read of all the information on this subject over the years it would appear that “some†receivers got over cooked due to the eye-ball system of determining temperature at Springfield used by “some†of the workers. Not “all†receivers...â€some†of the receivers.

Any weapon has the potential of blowing up due to any number of factors, and that’s a risk that we take when we choose to use firearms.

There are numerous instances where brand new, modern made rifles have come apart. Some pictures of these have been posted on this forum in the past.

Bottom line, for me anyway, is that this is much-ado-about nothing. The chances of even finding a low numbered 03 is not all that good. Of the hundreds of 03’s I’ve seen over the years I have seen a total of two low-numbered ones, and one was in a museum and not for sale.

Perhaps Michael Petrov could answer this question...Are there any recorded instances of any of the low numbered 03’s, used by the early custom gunmakers, blowing up?

Just one more thing to consider...

Right or wrong, the PERCEPTION out there (among many/most people) is that low numbered receivers are unsafe, so if you buy this rifle, resale will likely suck...unless Jeffe or Rick are in the market.

Link

Some Observations On The Failure
Of U.S. Model 1903 Rifle Receivers
Joseph L. Lyon, M.D., M.P.H.

Purpose of this Paper

I collect and shoot the Model 1903 Springfield. Since I purchased my first Springfield in 1992, a chrome plated beauty made in 1930 and obviously used, but not abused, by a color guard, I've heard of the low numbered Springfield receivers and the terrible danger they pose to a shooter. (Low numbered receiver are those with serial numbers below 800,000 made at Springfield Armory, and below 286,506 made at Rock Island Arsenal.) Some have stated emphatically no rifle with a low numbered receiver should ever be fired under any circumstance because of the risk of serious injury or death, but that high numbered receivers are perfectly safe.

My training is in medicine and medical research and I specialize in epidemiology, a discipline that looks at why bad things (epidemics) happen to people. As such I have a considerable amount of training in statistics. Whenever I heard emphatic statements about the safety of something such as a low numbered Springfield receiver my training and natural inclination are to get the numbers and put them into perspective with other risks we face on a daily basis. This is why I wrote this paper. I have attempted to put the risk of Springfield receiver failures into prospective using simple statistics, thus permitting the interested reader to make his own decision about the safety of the Springfield rifle receiver.

History of the Problem

The U.S. Model 1903 rifle, commonly called the Springfield, was used by the U.S. Military between 1903 and 1945. When the United States declared war on Germany in April 1917 there was a marked increase in the use of this rifle for training. Between July and December 1917 eleven rifle receivers shattered, causing one severe and 10 minor injuries to the soldiers using the rifle. Despite the intense demand for rifles caused by our entry into the war, production at both Springfield Armory and Rock Island Arsenal was halted in early 1918, and an investigation launched to determine the cause of the problem.

It was determined that the workers responsible for heat treating the receivers had used an "eyeball" method that relied on the color of the heated metal to determine if the steel had been heated to the correct temperature. Unfortunately, according to General Hatcher, the officer in charge of the investigation, "... it was quickly found that the ‘right heat’ as judged by the skillful eye of the old timers was up to 300 degrees hotter on a bright sunny day than it was on a dark cloudy one" (See Hatcher, Julian Hatcher’s Notebook , Third Edition, Stackpole Books, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, 1966, page 215). Heating to the higher temperatures led to crystallization of trace elements within the steel, making it too hard, and rather than deforming under high pressure, the receiver shattered, often permitting the bolt to exit the receiver, causing injury to the shooter. Between 1917 and 1929 three soldiers lost an eye to receiver failure, and six more had unspecified injuries consider serious. An additional 34 soldiers received minor injuries from receiver failures. There were no deaths reported from the failure of a Springfield receiver.

The heat treating method was immediately changed to a double heat treatment, and pyrometers were used to determine the temperature of the heated receivers. The change in heat treating was instituted between serial number 750,00 and 800,000 at Springfield and by serial number 285,506 at Rock Island Arsenal. Rifles manufactured after these serial numbers are referred to as "high numbered" receivers and are commonly stated to be safe to shoot.

A second problem that Hatcher found was the hardness of the brass cartridge cases, and the design of the Springfield chamber-bolt interface. He states:

"One thing made evident by these tests is the fact that the weakest feature of the modern military actions is the cartridge case itself. In the Springfield rifle the head of the cartridge cases projects out of the rear end of the chamber a distance of from 0.147 to 0.1485; in other words, there is a space of well over an eighth of an inch where the pressure is held in only by the brass." (See Hatcher p 205.)

During the 1920's officials within the Ordnance Department investigated the problem more thoroughly, including destructive testing of receivers. Three rifles with low serial numbers were fired with cartridges that produced known levels of pressure starting at 70,000 pounds per square inch. One receiver failed at 80,000 pounds and the other two at 100,000 pounds. All of these receivers withstood pressures well above that experienced with military ammunition, yet none failed until pressure was raised between 50% to 100% above normal operating pressure. In 1926 24 high numbered receivers were subjected to pressures up to 125,000 pounds per square inch. None failed. (See Hatcher pp 227-229).

On December 2, 1927 a board was convened by the U.S. Army to look into the problem, and determine how to identify the brittle receivers and determine if they could be strengthen by re-heat treatment. The board made the determination of where the problem had occurred in receivers, and its from their deliberations that we use the 800,000 serial number for Springfields, and 286,506 for Rock Island receivers. They also concluded it was not feasible to re-heat the "low numbered receivers", and that they should be withdrawn from service.

To discard approximately 1,000, 000 receivers would create a political problem of major proportions for the U.S. Military, especially at time when military was funded at an extremely low level. The decision also has be questioned from a numeric standpoint. There had been 58 reported receiver failures when the board made its decision. To suggest that 1,000,000 other receivers were defective because of the failure of 58 is extrapolating well beyond the available data. On February 7, 1928 after considering all the factors the Chief of Field Service, U.S. Army,, General Samuel Hof, made the following policy for the United States Army:

"Our ammunition is getting worse and accidents may be somewhat more frequent. On the other hand, some of these early rifles have been in use for many years and undoubtedly some of them have worn out several barrels. I do not think the occasion merits the withdrawal of the rifles of low numbers in the hands of troops until the rifle is otherwise unserviceable. On the other hand, I do not think we are justified in issuing such rifle from our establishments. I recommend that we instruct our Ordnance establishments to no longer issue rifles with these questionable receivers, that such rifles be set aside and considered as a war reserve and the question of the ultimate replacement of the receivers be deferred. When rifles are turned in from the troops for repair the receivers having these low numbers should be scrapped."

Hof’s decision meant that low numbered receivers would not be issued, but that those already issued would remain in service. The Army was small enough that new troops could easily be issued high numbered rifles, but low numbered rifles already issued would remain in service.

The U.S. Marine Corp, because of an even more limited budget than the Army, did not follow this recommendation and never retired any of its low numbered receivers until they were replaced with the M1 rifle about 1942. The desperate need for rifles caused by World War II, saw many of the low number receiver rifles taken from war reserves and issued to U.S. and foreign troops. In 1942-44 the United States also equipped the Free French Army of Charles DeGaulle with low numbered Springfields.

The Director of Civilian Marksmanship (DCM) Program provided surplus military rifles to qualified civilians before and after the Second World War. During the 1960's the DCM offered to replace low numbered Springfield receivers with high numbered receivers. It is not known how many receivers were replaced.

Rate of Receiver Failures

Between 1917 and 1929 there were 68 burst receivers. Of the 68 no serial number were available for 11 receivers, four of those that failed in 1917. Two of the 68 were made at Springfield Armory and had serial numbers in the 950,000 range. Of the remaining 57 receivers 33 were manufactured by Springfield Armory and 24 by Rock Island. Hatcher provided the serial number and the date of failure for all 33 Springfield Armory receivers, and the same data for 22 of the 24 Rock Island receivers (see Hatcher, pp 442-447). This information was used in the analysis that follows. The overall failure rate by 1929 was 68/1,085, 506 or 6.3 per 100,000 receivers. The failure rate varied by site of manufacture, and each manufacturer is discussed separately.

Springfield Armory Receivers.

The overall failure rate of the 33 Springfield receivers was 4.13 failures per 100,000 receivers. This is shown in table 1 and figure 1. The failure rate was variable by year. Of the 15 years between 1903 and the end of 1917 when the heat treatment method was changed, there were no failures in five of the years (1908-10, 1912, 1915).

The highest rate of failures occurred among the receivers manufactured in 1904 (8.71/100,000), followed by 1911 (8.53/100,000), 1916 (7.53/100,000), then 1907 (7.26/100,000). The belief that the problem with brittle receivers was caused by inexperienced workers overheating the receivers in 1917 is not supported by the data. Only one of the 11 receivers that failed in 1917 was made in that year. The other ten were made before 1917, two in 1904. The distribution of these rates by year suggests that the problem of overheating the receivers was present during ten of the 15 years of manufacture, and was worse before 1917, especially in the earliest years of production, with 10 of the 33 known receivers being made before 1908.

The absence of receiver failures in some years suggests that the problem may have been specific to some workers who only worked during some years. At Springfield Armory the worst three years for receiver failure were 1904-1907 with 1905 being an exception. Receivers made in these four years account for nearly 45.5 % (15/33) of all the receivers that failed. The absence of failed receiver among those produced in 1908-10, 1912 and 1915 suggests that the problem was not caused by hastily trained war time workers unfamiliar with rifle manufacturing requirements.

Another measure of problems in manufactured objects is called time to failure. This is the length of time from manufacture till the product fails. It was possible to calculate a time to failure, expressed in years, using the serial number data on year of production, and the tables from Hatcher’s book (pp 442-447). Of the 33 Springfield receivers that failed, the time to failure in years ranged from one year to 22. The average time to failure for all 33 receivers was 12.48 years. Hatcher reports no receiver failures after 1929 suggesting there were no further receiver failures, (or the military no longer recorded the problem).

Because we lack data on the number of rounds fired by each rifle it is impossible to adjust the time to failure by actual number of rounds fired before failure. The demands of World War I undoubtedly increased the use of every available rifle, and rifles that had likely been fired once a year were now being fired weekly. The time to failure for the 1917 manufactured rifles is less than for those made in 1905 ( 16.4 years compared to 11 years). And while this might reflect poor heat treatment in 1917 it more likely reflects the much heavier use of the 1917 manufactured receiver compared to the 1905 receivers. It also suggests that the receiver failures were associated with the number of rounds fired.

I have already mentioned Hatcher’s observation that many of the receiver failure problems in 1917-1918 were due to brass cartridges cases that had not been hardened to the right degree. He provides no numeric data on which to judge this problem, but says it was recognized as a serious problem by the spring of 1917. Hatcher states that four of the receiver failures were due to accidentally firing an 8 mm Mauser round in the Springfield rifle. This causes pressures in excess of the 75,000 pounds per square inch proof pressure use to test the receivers.

Rock Island Receivers.

The overall failure rate of the 22 Rock Island manufactured receivers was 7.71/100,000, nearly double that of those manufactured by Springfield. (See table 2 and figure 1.) Rock Island produced rifles for 11 years, starting in 1905 and ending in 1914, and then during most of 1917 and early 1918, There were no receiver failures of rifles manufactured for five of those 11 years (1905-6, 1913-14, and 1917), a higher percent of years than Springfield Armory (33.3% compared to 45.5%). Receiver failures occurred in rifles made between 1907 to 1912, with the peak rate occurring in 1912 at 20.27 per 100,000, about two and half times the peak rate for any of the years of manufacture for the Springfield Armory rifles.

The average time to failure for Rock Island receivers was 11.6 years with a range from 5 to 23 years. While the range is narrower than that for Springfield receivers, the average years to failure were similar (12.48 years compared to 11.6 years). Of the 22 receiver failures in 1917-1918, 11 were made at Rock Island and seven at Springfield, and four were so badly damaged the manufacturer could not be identified. Rock Island receivers likely accounted for the majority of the receivers that failed during these two years.

Receiver Failures with Double Heat Treated Receivers

The failure of 11 receivers in 1917 was believed to be due to human error in the heat treatment process of the receivers, but after the change to double heat treatment there were four receiver failures, three Springfield manufactured receivers, and one Rock Island manufactured receiver (Hatcher does not provide the serial number). All four receivers were definitely double heat treated. In no cases did the receiver shatter as was the case with the low numbered receivers, but the failed receivers did bend.

The failure rate for the double heat treated receivers up to 1929 was slightly less than 1/100,000, for Springfield manufactured receivers, and 0.5/100,000 Rock Island receivers. The double heat treated receivers did fail, but at a much lower rate than the earlier receiver, and did not shatter, and so had less potential to seriously injury the shooter. Those who state that the double heat treatment method solve the problem generally ignore this evidence

I am aware of one receiver failure of a high number receiver about 1987-88 in Salt Lake City, Utah. The rifle was made by Springfield Armory and the serial number was over 1,000,000. The ammunition was said to World War II military ball ammunition. A piece of the receiver was blown off and there was evidence of crystallization along the fracture line. The stock and magazine were wrecked. The shooter sustained minor injuries, and sued the seller. The seller of the rifle found evidence the rifle had been fired with the bore full of grease. The seller's insurance company settled out of court.

Expected Failures after 1929

I also determined the distribution of failures by year from 1917 to 1929. Since the failure rate of receivers is a rare event, we assume that a receiver failure follows a Poisson distribution, and that the standard deviation is identical to the mean number of failures in a year. The number of failures by year for each manufacturer is shown in figure 2, and figure 3 and the combined rate in figure 4. Springfield Armory receivers had their highest failure rates in 1917 (5), and again in 1929 (5). The range of receiver failures per year varied from zero to five with no failures in 1919 and 1922 with an average of 2.64 failures per year.

The failure rate per year for Rock Island receivers varied from zero (1919, 1924, 1927-28) to seven in 1918. The average failure rate per year was 1.69.

Hatcher reports no receiver failures after 1929, but if the rates experienced between 1917-1929 continued up to 1939 there would have about 43 additional receiver failures. Or if all the low numbered rifles were withdrawn from service and replaced by high numbered rifles we would have expected up to 12 receiver failures through 1939. This provides a range of expected failures for this time period (12 to 43). An unknown number of low numbered rifles were reworked and put into service during World War II. There are no reports of receiver failures with these rifles.

The lack of receiver failures after 1929 may have occurred because the rifles with the most brittle metal had been eliminated in the 1917-1929 period. Another important factor is the exhaustion or retirement of soft brass cartridge cases manufactured during the crisis of World War I and still being used up to 1929..

Additional evidence for this explanation comes from the experience of the 1st Marine Division on Guadal Canal The Marine Corp made no effort to replace their low numbered Springfield rifles, and these rifles saw heavy use on Guadal Canal between August 1942 and February 1943. No receiver failures were reported in the training period before the battles, and during the four major battles that occurred in the seven month period in 1942-43. While it's not possible to estimate the exact number of rifles involved, up to 7,000 would have been in use by the three rifle regiments of the 1st Marine Division, Based on the failure rates of 1917-1918 between one and two rifle receivers would have been expected to fail.

Injuries Causes by Receiver Failures

Hatcher had data on the injury caused by the receiver failures for 43 of the 68 accidents. Three men lost an eye (7% of the total accidents) and 6 more (14%) had unspecified injuries considered serious or severe. The remaining 34 failures (79%) caused minor injury. The risk of serious injury from the failure of a low numbered Springfield receiver would be about 0.7 serious injuries per 100,000 rifles manufactured.



Putting Risk Into Perspective

It's hard for people to personalize risk to their own situation. The following are some risks of dying with common place activities that are of similar magnitude to serious injury from the failure of a Springfield receiver.

Risk of One Death per 100,000 population in a Single Year Caused By:

Riding a bicycle 100 miles

Smoking 14 cigarettes

Living 20 months with a smoker

Traveling 1500 miles by automobile

Traveling 10,000 miles by jet aircraft

Conclusions

The problem of Springfield receiver failures was a rare event throughout the service years of the Springfield rifle despite statements to the contrary. It was also concentrated in certain years of manufacture suggesting that an important component of the failure was human error in heat treatment. The heat treatment problems had been present long before the manufacturing pressures of 1917. The receiver failures were also compounded by a design flaw in the support of the cartridge case head in the Springfield rifle, and this problem was exacerbated by uneven manufacturing of brass cartridge cases during 1917-18.

Eleven receiver failures in 1917 prompted an investigation and a change in the heart treatment of the receivers. The decision in 1928 to replace the low numbered receivers as rifles were returned to arsenal for repair was an effort to provide soldiers with a greater degree of safety. The board of officers recommended that the low numbered receivers all be withdrawn from service, but the general responsible for reviewing this decision did not concur with the board's decision, and left most low numbered receivers in service until replaced by the M1 Garand in the early 1940's. He took a calculated risk, and the risk paid off. There were no further receiver failures after 1929.

It also suggests that ammunition manufactured during World War I likely played a major role in receiver failures.

Notes

I've used the detailed information that Hatcher provides in his notebook, and supplemented this with information from Campell and Brophy, and Ferris’ book on the Rock Island Arsenal Model 1903's (The Rock Island ‘03. Published by C.S. Ferris, 1992). There are some minor problems in Hatcher’s book for example see the table on pages 446-47. He lists receiver by date of failure, and the list is consistent until 1923 when he lists three failures, then four in 1924, then four in 1923, then three more in 1924. I checked his dates against the detailed report of the failures (see pages 448-482) and concluded his dates were correct, but his sequence was wrong. I have grouped them by the reported year of failure in the table.

Hatcher reports 24 Rock Island Arsenal receiver failures but only provides serial numbers for 22 (see page 443). One Rock Island receiver, number 445,136 is said to have failed in 1918, but Rock Island did not reach this serial number until 1919, after double heat treating was instituted. There was obviously an error in reporting the serial number, or the date of failure.

There are also two Springfield receivers (numbers 946,508 and 951,718) included in the low numbered receiver table, and counted among the 68 said to have failed. These I used to estimate the rate of failure for high numbered receivers.

Brophy has an error in his table of serial numbers on page 445. His table gives the beginning serial number for Springfield Armory for 1913 as 531,521, but the beginning number for 1914 as 510,561. I chose to use the serial numbers provided by Campbell for 1913 to 1917.

I also included the early 1918 receivers manufactured at Springfield Armory in the 1917 tally. Since Rock Island Arsenal had not been manufacturing rifles since 1914, I place their 1917-1918 rifles in a separate category.

I made no effort for allocate the 11 receivers to either manufacturer, or calculate an overall rate. If the failures were all from one arsenal or the other, then it would change their relative positions. If the failures were distributed similarly to the current allocation, then rates of each manufacturer would rise, but their relative position would stay the same.



Bibliography

Brophy, W.S. The Springfield 1903 Rifle. Stackpole Books, Mechanicsville, Penn, 1985. See pages 425-427.

Cambell, C.S. The ‘03 Era. Collector Grade Publications, Ontario, Canada, 1994.

Ferris, C.S. The Rock Island ‘03. 1992.

Hatcher, J.S. Hatcher’s Notebook. Stackpole Books, Harrisburg, Penn, 1962. See pages 205, 215, 221-223, 227-229, and 442-482.

Yeah...what he said!

I've seen that article before and it sure seems to point a finger at something other than the receivers heat treatment as the root cause of the failures. The double heat treated recievers are undoubtbly tougher (not as brittle), but there is no way to go back and analyze the ammunition that was in use at the time of the failures with modern methods.
Is it possible that at least a portion of the blame for the reputation of the low numbered '03s lies with the ammo manufactured prior to a certain point in time?