M1903 rifles, straight drop handle or with its later modest rearward rake, had handles with specific downward angle. I don't have access to a M1903 and, also, no access to United States Rifles and Machine Guns (Colvin and Vial) that has the dimensions I seek.

I am trying to use that bolt handle drop-shape for a circa 1920s-era sporting rifle that will not be using telescopic sight.

PM me your address and I'll ship you a stripped bolt.

Ok, the shape of the handle has nothing to do with scopes on standard 1903 Rifles. The straight turned down handle was used on the low number, single heat treat rifles, below serial number 800000. These were deemed to be unsafe, several blew up, (I have one cracked in two places), and the heat treatment was changed in 1918 to "double" process.
That is when the bolt handles were turned/swept back a bit.
I would not shoot a turned down bolt; they are for collecting only. As are the rifles, below 800000. I know, many do, and the Marines never pulled them from service. They drilled gas release holes in them.
So any rifle made after 1918, and above serial number 800K, came with the swept back handle.
Only the 1903A4 has a true scope modified bolt handle.
Just curious; if you don't have a 1903, why do you need a bolt?

The so called "golden age" 1903 hiogh end sporters were many times original handles forged for scope clearance.

Not sure anyone does that now...takes a set of special blocks Years ago, I made a set for both 03 and 98...don't know what happened to them.

Point is, that when done properly, really looked pretty classy

quote:

Originally posted by dpcd:
Ok, the shape of the handle has nothing to do with scopes on standard 1903 Rifles. The straight turned down handle was used on the low number, single heat treat rifles, below serial number 800000. These were deemed to be unsafe, several blew up, (I have one cracked in two places) , and the heat treatment was changed in 1918 to "double" process.
That is when the bolt handles were turned/swept back a bit.
I would not shoot a turned down bolt; they are for collecting only. As are the rifles, below 800000. I know, many do, and the Marines never pulled them from service. They drilled gas release holes in them.
So any rifle made after 1918, and above serial number 800K, came with the swept back handle.
Only the 1903A4 has a true scope modified bolt handle.
Just curious; if you don't have a 1903, why do you need a bolt?

I don't need bolt itself - just its drop-shape. . . . Never should've traded the book.

Top picture; L to R; 03A4, 03 swept back, early straight 03

Middle picture: L to R: early straight, swept back, 03A4.
Bottom Pic: L to R; Early straight, swept back, 03A4.
Only the 1903A4 is designed for a scope.
Still not sure what you are seeking....

I think he is looking for something along the lines of G&H, maybe Hoffman, etc.

this is custom. Smith is named Albuquerque.

MAN, i still love springfields over all military rifles, with second being a split between the 1936 mexican mauser and the SVT 38 or 40

The 1903 Springfield was one of the biggest design and manufacture abominations to ever get into production. The US needed a new Infantry rifle, and what did we do? Copy the 1893 Mauser, but change it enough so as to avoid paying royalties. Which didn't work; we had to pay anyway.
Everything we changed on the 93 was for the WORSE!
Added to that was the fact that we didn't know how to heat treat low carbon steel.
I like them too and have a dozen or so, but from a design standpoint, they are not good.
If they were so good, why was the #1 rifle we carried into WW1, the 1917 Enfield? More were produced in 3 years than in all the production of the 03.

Tom, your posts are getting worse and worse.

Stick to the helpful part like you did above. That was helpful.

quote:

Originally posted by dpcd:
The 1903 Springfield was one of the biggest design and manufacture abominations to ever get into production. The US needed a new Infantry rifle, and what did we do? Copy the 1893 Mauser, but change it enough so as to avoid paying royalties. Which didn't work; we had to pay anyway.
Everything we changed on the 93 was for the WORSE!
Added to that was the fact that we didn't know how to heat treat low carbon steel.
I like them too and have a dozen or so, but from a design standpoint, they are not good.
If they were so good, why was the #1 rifle we carried into WW1, the 1917 Enfield? More were produced in 3 years than in all the production of the 03.

sure sure .. but the enfield is UGLY, as issued
we paid royalties on the stripper feeding portion -

the rifle, as issued, is gorgeous, the action smooth (and yes, i like the 93 too) and brought the wonderful 1903/06 cart

i mean, Ferraris are, to some people, gorgeous (not to me, but meant to be a far afield example) but mechanically, it's a nightmare

My posts are getting worse? But I am trying harder to be nice.
I am just reporting facts so others can learn.
More facts; the patent suit covered more than just the clip; it included the extractor and dovetail extractor attachment, follower spring attachment, magazine box, three position safety to name a few as well as the stripped clip.
We paid until WW1, then stopped, then resumed because a court ruled that the seizure of the Mauser patent as war reparations was invalid.

quote:

Originally posted by dpcd:
The 1903 Springfield was one of the biggest design and manufacture abominations to ever get into production. The US needed a new Infantry rifle, and what did we do? Copy the 1893 Mauser, but change it enough so as to avoid paying royalties. Which didn't work; we had to pay anyway.
Everything we changed on the 93 was for the WORSE!
Added to that was the fact that we didn't know how to heat treat low carbon steel.
I like them too and have a dozen or so, but from a design standpoint, they are not good.
If they were so good, why was the #1 rifle we carried into WW1, the 1917 Enfield? More were produced in 3 years than in all the production of the 03.

Yup, the Springfields are pure junk, for sure.

You are correct for the single heat treat ones; below serial number 800000 and below serial number 286K for RIA 03s
For collectors; not shooters.
Of course, not junk in workmanship; just safety.

On the plus side, the low number actions make into a marvelous 22 hornet. There's a quiet mini industry out there doing just that

Or a great cast bullet gun.

IIRC, Michael Petrov had a kaboom with a low # Springfield shooting cast bullets.

The information you are seeking may possibly be able to be found in these images.





Hope that helps.

John

quote:

Originally posted by p dog shooter:
Or a great cast bullet gun.

My understanding is that is exactly how one of the low number guns was blown up. A double charge shooting low powered cast bullet loads.

John

quote:

Originally posted by gasgunner:

quote:

Originally posted by p dog shooter:
Or a great cast bullet gun.

My understanding is that is exactly how one of the low number guns was blown up. A double charge shooting low powered cast bullet loads.

John

A double charge of fast powder could wreck any gun.

quote:

Originally posted by gasgunner:
The information you are seeking may possibly be able to be found in these images.

Hope that helps.

John

Many thanks, John, for these "on point" inspection drawings.
*****
Mr. Wiebe:

You appear to describe altering the existing bolt handle by reforging?? it or putting bolt body into a complex fixture and "beating" handle to identified dimensional change?? While I'm showing everyone that I have no idea on how to achieve result wanted, how difficult would the job be if a bolt handle were welded to result wanted?

No one forges bolt handles any more; that is from 1965.
We use TIG welders now; precise and doesn't heat too much of the bolt body.
So, depending on how you want to alter the handle, for sporter/scope handles on a military bolt; we make a now handle and use a TIG welder to attach it.

quote:

Originally posted by dpcd:
I am just reporting facts so others can learn.

You have about the same ability to report facts as a bureaucrat and politician. Disingenuous at best.

Have you done any research or reading about the 1903 that has been published in the last 50 years? Gone to SPAR? Read any primary documents?

Might want to give it a try, there's a whole world out there.

N.....WEll.,.,. didn't mean to start a fight in a phone booth...I was simply making a historical observation Yes, does need special forging blocks...and yes I'm sure TIG process could be used to attain same visual result THERE..... everyone happy?

I have some old forging blocks laying around if anyone has a need/use for them. They are stamped Numrich.

We made forging blocks for the 1903/1903A3 and Mauser in GS school. I'll keep mine, as I still occasionally use 'um. If you've got a bolt in hand you have a pattern to make your own.

quote:

Originally posted by kendog:

quote:

Originally posted by gasgunner:

quote:

Originally posted by p dog shooter:
Or a great cast bullet gun.

My understanding is that is exactly how one of the low number guns was blown up. A double charge shooting low powered cast bullet loads.

John

A double charge of fast powder could wreck any gun.

Sounds like a re-loaders problem not the firearm.

The first 800K from SA and the first 286K from RIA were single heat treated and some were brittle. How many? Who knows? Of course most are fine and the USMC did not pull them from service like the Army did. Then they changed to double heat treat, then to nickel steel; then to CM steel for the O3A3.
For all you guys who trust the low numbers; fire away.
Just remember that they were made for M1 Ball Ammo, and some failed. And please, no more personal attacks.
Here are pics of low number receiver made at RIA (I used to work there, although not for RIA; I worked in TACOM.)
This rifle was never in civilian hands, and it was never used for firing anything but service ammo.

I always thought if low #s were gonna blow, they would all have been blown by now. But on second thought ...

Were not these 8K guns mostly referenced to Rock Island Arsenal??