hi I'm new here and I'd just like to say how amazing this forum is, I never expected to find so much information on old sporters in a gunsmithing forum, the lack of animosity in debates is a breath of fresh air too.

I have a question. I'm familiar with the low number Springfield debate, I was wondering if there are any similar concerns about early 1903 bolts, or are they considered as safe as later bolts? thanks

Tim

I believe the early bolts were considered soft. Anyway heat treatment was changed on them also. The way to tell the difference the early bolts come straight down when you are looking at the rifle from the side. The later bolts have a small backward sweep. If you are going to shoot a low number Springfield it's best to change to a later style bolt and get the headspace set as tight as possible by trying several different bolts. They are plentiful and cheap. Bill

Hatcher didn't record any failures of SHT bolts......in fact, routinely reused SHT bolts during overhaul.

This subject is discussed in this thread from the Springfield Rifle Collectors Forum.

GV

http://www.jouster.com/cgi-bin/03/03config.pl?noframes;read=31700

Elmer Keith told of replacing the bolts in low-numbered Springfields at the Arsenal.
good luck!

Altho the SHT bolts apparently are strong enough, they are not as strong as later bolts. Years ago I read reports of tests in which bolts were put into a press, the locking lugs of the SHT bolts sheared before those of later bolts. Might have been in Hatcher, don't recall.