This one is always guaranteed to get the old juices flowing and tempers flaring.

Just a few tid bits to ponder when engaging in the debate.

1. Teddy Roosevelt used a low numbered ( serial #6000) Springfield 1903 sporter to kill over 300 big game animals on three continents. It was one of his favorite hunting rifles.

2. The Marine Corps fought in Hati, Cuba, Nicaragua, France, and a few other little wars, with low numbered rifles.

3. All of the 1903 rifles used in WWI were low numbered rifles.

4. Major John Hession shot his low numbered( serial # 264,631) 1903 Springfield in the 1908 Olympics, Camp Perry in 1908,1909, 1913,the Pan American games in 1912, North American Sea Grit in 1913, New York State Championships in 1911-12-14, the Wimbledon cup in 1919, and the Caltrow Cup in 1920.

Rick, some people are just lucky !!!

quote:

Originally posted by vigillinus:
Rick, some people are just lucky !!!

I guess so...and so many of them too!

I'm far from a "low-numbered" expert, but my understanding is that the heat treating method tended to make SOME earlier Springfields too hard and thus somewhat brittle. The brittleness may tend to show up after the process of rebarreling, which places some stress on the action that it wouldn't encounter in simply shooting with the original barrel.

So, brittleness affects some percentage of early Springfields, and as it is difficult (even with a Rockwall C test) to predict which will potentially experience a failure, hence the general warning against "low-numbered" Springfields.

quote:

my understanding is that the heat treating method tended to make SOME earlier Springfields too hard and thus somewhat brittle.

Not exactly. The metal was heated too hot and irreprably damaged. They were heating the steel by eye and overcast days vs. sunny days have a much different "eyeball pyrometer" reading. The affected steel is not a homogenious cohesive substance. It is more like sand grains that are not well stuck together. Maybe analgous to crumbly steel.

Very few were actually bad. The odds of getting a surviving bad one is pretty remote. I think most would have shown up as bad or broken in the past 90 years.

Ok, is your low number rifle dangerious? Probably not. Remember this problem showed up when match shooter were greasing their bullets. The idea was to combat cupro-nickle fouling. Obviously some of the grease got on the case body and increased bolt thrust. Pretty abusive treatment for any rifle, In my opinion. Second, it probably would have broken by now if it were bad.

So, if you are worried about it you could test the receiver to see if it is maluable. I would propose wacking the edge of the recoil sholder with a hammer. Wack it good enought to bend it a little. If it bends you are ok. If it shears off you have a suspect receiver. This is what I would do if I wanted to shoot one. It is my off the cuff idea on how to spot a bad steel receiver. I think it will work. I would not do this to a collectable rifle, I just would not shoot it.

I’m sure that Michael Petrov can address this better than I...but several of the “classic custom gun makers†never saw a “high numbered†1903 Springfield. Wundhammer died in 1919, a year after they started double-heat treating receivers.

If the story of “eye-balling†during the heat treating process is in fact true, then one would have to assume that these guys were ALWAYS wrong in determining the correct color and temperature. If we assume that, then we must also conclude that all of the other rifles built by Springfield were also improperly heat treated and would be prone to blowing up.

Do you imagine that any modern machinery used for heat treating ever gives a false reading which might result in a few improperly treated parts?

Rick: I can't put my finger on the list right now, Is my Springfield 03 Serial Number 2917419 a low number? I have a note tha it is nickel steel but am not sure where I came up with that info. My old mind is not working right today, I have been up for 4 days with my wifes surgery that did not go so well nd I can't think clearly an much but the pointy end goes in first and the wood end goes agains the sholder before the bang.
I aske about the kid in another thread, but if ou dont see it --- give him my reguards and tell him to keep safe. Thats an order (LOL)
The best to you also
Bill Brower

"If we assume that, then we must also conclude that all of the other rifles built by Springfield were also improperly heat treated and would be prone to blowing up."

When the problem came to light pyrometers were installed. So, later receivers were not prone to this.

Before that we had Krags. I have a Krag. It makes me very nervious. I only shoot low pressure cast bullets in it. I have never heard of it but some Krags may have had the same problem. But then again were the receivers made from a machined billet or a forging? Dunno....If it was a forging the possiblity exists. The Springfields were over heated during the forging process. They heated them up and smashed them in a die with a giant hammer device. Krags were case hardened so, the manufacturning and heat treating was different.

Bottom line, there are so many rifles to shoot why get mixed up with Krags and low number Springfields?

How was R.F.Sedgley able to re-heat treat his low number 03 actions if the steel was burnt during the initial treating process ? In Mr. Petrov's excellent book on Custom Gunmakers of the 20th Century, he states in Part IX about Sedgley buying low number 03 actions, inspecting, annealing, grinding the markings off and re-heat treated and proof tested to 80,000 psi. This re-heat treating service was also offered to the NRA members. Everything I've read in the past 50+ years said the low number 03's could not be re-heat treated.
Bob

If I was a Springfield fan (and I'm not) I wouldn't hesitate to use a low number gun as is in the .30-06 chambering for any use I wanted to.

quote:

Originally posted by JudgeSharpe:
Rick: I can't put my finger on the list right now, Is my Springfield 03 Serial Number 2917419 a low number? I have a note tha it is nickel steel but am not sure where I came up with that info. My old mind is not working right today, I have been up for 4 days with my wifes surgery that did not go so well nd I can't think clearly an much but the pointy end goes in first and the wood end goes agains the sholder before the bang.
I aske about the kid in another thread, but if ou dont see it --- give him my reguards and tell him to keep safe. Thats an order (LOL)
The best to you also
Bill Brower

Bill,

Depending upon whom you believe the “bugaboo†serial numbers are somewhere below 800,000 for Springfield and 285,507 for Rock Island recievers.

All my 1903’s are “high numbers†but I also have two 1898 US Krags and I wouldn’t hesitate to shoot any of them with factory ammo. Of course, I also don’t shoot hot hand loads in any of my rifles (even the new ones) as I really see no reason to do so with all of the factory loadings out there.

My best wishes and prayers to your wife...and I will pass along your kind thoughts to my son...he’s doing well.

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 Rick 0311:
If the story of “eye-balling†during the heat treating process is in fact true, then one would have to assume that these guys were ALWAYS wrong in determining the correct color and temperature.

Not necessarily. The weather and the available sunlight affected the appearance of the color the heat treaters were looking at.

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"

The problem this over-heating created was manifested by the action shattering. There were other failures that are likely due to other problems.......ammunition or barrel obstructions. However, the unsafe actions can't be identified. Nor is there any way to establish a "mean time to failure". Evidence suggests the failures came after a number of rounds were fired through the rifle.

GV

This question is debated rather often and like most arguments nothing is ever settled. I liken it a lot to the Remington trigger debate. Yes, some receivers failed but not anywhere near all of them did. Yes, some Remington triggers are reported to cause rifles to fire when they aren't supposed to but not nearly all. So in both cases nothing is really settled and never will be.

I don't worry much about either of these situations because I don't put myself in them. If others want to, far be it from me to tell them they are foolish to do so. It's their problem if something goes wrong. All my Springfields are either double heat treated or Nickel steel models and all Remington rifles, which number one presently, in my safe have Shilen triggers. This doesn't mean I would never own a low number Springfield or a Remington 700 with a factory trigger but I just don't see the need to at present.

If I was to have a low number Springfield I would look for one made in the years where there have been no reported failures. Such information can be found on different web sites and in Hatcher's notebook. But why use one when there are still plenty of high numbers to be had?

If the story of “eye-balling†during the heat treating process is in fact true, then one would have to assume that these guys were ALWAYS wrong in determining the correct color and temperature. If we assume that, then we must also conclude that all of the other rifles built by Springfield were also improperly heat treated and would be prone to blowing up.

For what it's worth as to why some failed and some didn't it is my understanding that it is believed some folks who were heat treating these receivers had more problems seeing the proper brightness of the heated metal on different days than some others did. An overcast day versus a bright day could throw some off. I do know that that would be the case with me as I definately see things that I am heating with a torch much clearer on an overcast day.

Bottom line is, this is an individual choice and I choose not to use them at the present and perhaps always will. Your mileage may vary.

Wow, I guess I type awful slow.

Good info from the two posts ahead of me.

When did the last low # Springfield blow up??? Is there any verifiable reports of metal failure, not due to high pressure overloads, in the last 50 years???

Hog Killer

I am curious, Vapodog why don't you like springfields? Come on, every american sportsmen and gun lover should at least want one good springfield sporter.

I have a high number, a double heat treat, and another high number receiver that I think I have a bolt to up at my friend's house, along with mag and floorplate.

I have a question about one of my stepfather's though, it is the Mark I, or whatever with the peterson device. Where do those fall in the heat treating methods? Thanks guys.

Red

quote:

Originally posted by Hog Killer:
When did the last low # Springfield blow up???

Of the referenced articles and studies, the last known failure was 1929.

quote:

Is there any verifiable reports of metal failure, not due to high pressure overloads, in the last 50 years???

As the problem surfaced when these rifles were in use by the US military, that was the entity that recorded and analyzed the data. It is unlikely that any comprehensive data has been recorded in the last 50 years. Nor is it likely there was any great use of these low-numbered rifles and/or actions in that time period.

GV

Failure of 1903 Springfields

I know where a nice Rock Island is at for sale serial number 700,000 it has been sporterized thinking about getting it. For 229 bucks can't go wrong.

quote:

I am curious, Vapodog why don't you like springfields? Smiler Come on, every american sportsmen and gun lover should at least want one good springfield sporter.

The only value in a military rifle to me is the ability to sporterize them. I'm just not a lover of militaria of any kind. The mauser affords itself to great sporters and the P-17 can be a fabulous one as well.....a lot of work maybe but the end product is a beautiful sporter.

The Springfield just don't make a good sporter....it's not suited to the sleek lines of the Mauser. In and of itself the Springfield is a great American tradition, a fine rifle but will always be a military weapon in it's appearance.

I have nothing against the Springfield......they just don't fit my taste in appearance.

A lot of military bolt actions are like this...among them are the british enfields, the Japanese Arisaka, the Carcano, the Krag (30-40) 1898 Springfield, the Ross, Schmidt-Rubin and many others.

Having said that, if I was to choose a military rifle to use "as-is"...I'd pick the Springfield over the Mauser or the P-17 as it's a far superior rifle IMO than either of the others.

quote:

Originally posted by vapodog:

The Springfield just don't make a good sporter....

quote:

....it's not suited to the sleek lines of the Mauser.

quote:

In and of itself the Springfield is a great American tradition, a fine rifle but will always be a military weapon in it's appearance.

I believe I will respectfully disagree. Even the ugly 03A3's can be be turned into "good sporters" with a bit of effort.....and low cost.

GV

323

I know where a nice Rock Island is at for sale serial number 700,000

I Think you must mean a Springfield Armory with a serial number of 700,00 as Rock Island didn't even make 500,00 rifles to my knowledge.

Grandview, that’s a beauty...I wish mine looked that good.

quote:

Originally posted by Rick 0311:
Grandview, that’s a beauty...I wish mine looked that good.

I agree...it's among the nicest looking Springfields I've seen.

Here's a couple more lacking sleek lines.

Most low number Springfields were blown by the
use of 8x57 cartridges. A 8mm will not chamber in most 30/06's but it will in a 03, and a Winchester 95. I assume these have larger throats to ease extraction (but I really don't know). It sin't the oversize bullet that causes the problem. The chamber neck will close down on the shorter 8x67 and jamb the bullet in the case. Some brittle actions have shattered by firing blanks. The old military blank powder was orange colored and pretty violent.
Good Luck!