What serial numbered receivers would I want to avoid if I were planning on building a 35 or 400 whelen on one?

quote:

Originally posted by tdobesh:
What serial numbered receivers would I want to avoid if I were planning on building a 35 or 400 whelen on one?

I do not warrant that this information is correct or that numbers higher than this are safe or will not go boom! (But this is the list I used when I bought my rifle on a 1903 Springfield, that and it was put together by a name smith.)

From Firearms Technical Trivia:

quote:

There is no known date when Springfield Armory converted entirely to the double heat treatment process. The change occurred between receivers number 750,000 and 780,000. It is known that receiver number 800,000, completed on February 20, 1918 and all subsequent receivers were double heat treated. Rock Island Arsenal records indicate that by May 11, 1918, and beginning with receiver number 285,507, the double heat treatment was adopted.

quote:

The double heat treatment was continued at Springfield Armory up to receiver 1,275,766, with all subsequent receivers made after April 1, 1927 being constructed of Nickel Steel. Rock Island receivers made from number 319,921 were also nickel steel.

As Charles' post indicates, the accepted "safe" numbers are 800,000 and above from Springfield Armory...........285,507 and above from Rock Island. And, of course, all the 03A3's.

Here's another interesting article for some history. Informational only.....

GV

Some Observations on 1903 Failures

quote:

Originally posted by GrandView:
As Charles' post indicates, the accepted "safe" numbers are 800,000 and above from Springfield Armory...........285,507 and above from Rock Island. And, of course, all the 03A3's.

Here's another interesting article for some history. Informational only.....

GV

Some Observations on 1903 Failures

Great article...and it made me wonder about modern rifles. I recall reading on here sometime back about Sako having some problems with actions coming apart. It would really be interesting to do a percentage analysis like was done on the Springfields to see how they compare as a percentage of the number of those models made.

Not to muddy the waters further, but all Remington model 1903 as well as Remington model 1903A3 are made of Nickel steel also. If it were me on your whelen project I would try to find a good 1903 action. Right now the Remington 1903 may be the easiest and most reasonable of the good 1903 actions to find. Of course if a 1903A3 will suffice there are usually more of them around but it takes more to make them into a nicely finished sporter.

It is believed that a few single heat treat receivers slipped through and were numbered above 800,000 at Springfield despite the official cutoff point, so I use 805,000 as my ultrasafe personal demarcation. Also, FYI, the double heat treated receivers are stronger than the later prewar nickel steels.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Rick 0311:

. I recall reading on here sometime back about Sako having some problems with actions coming apart.QUOTE]

Far as I know the recent sako problems were only in the barrels letting go, which then split the action.
But no doubt some one somewhere has blown a Sako action up. (Prob. a 243Win.)
JL.

quote:

Originally posted by JAL:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Rick 0311:

. I recall reading on here sometime back about Sako having some problems with actions coming apart.QUOTE]

Far as I know the recent sako problems were only in the barrels letting go, which then split the action.
But no doubt some one somewhere has blown a Sako action up. (Prob. a 243Win.)
JL.

JL,

I think any bolt action rifle blowing up (including low numbered 1903’s) is a pretty rare occurrence...but I thought it might be interesting to see how they compared against others as an overall percentage of total rifles produced.

I in no way meant to imply that Sako rifles were not safe and well made, I just think that exploding rifles, bolt handles falling off, people getting killed by dangerous game do to feeding/extractor failures, etc, etc, etc...is WAY overblown in the actual events of the “real world.â€

Custom sporters made on low-number actions are so dangerous that a disposal site has been set up in Alaska to receive them. Save yourself and friends from an accident waiting to happen send them now. Those Wundhammers and Adolphs may look OK but trust me they could go at any moment.

quote:

Originally posted by Michael Petrov:
Custom sporters made on low-number actions are so dangerous that a disposal site has been set up in Alaska to receive them. Save yourself and friends from an accident waiting to happen send them now. Those Wundhammers and Adolphs may look OK but trust me they could go at any moment.

Me too, Mike!

I’ll take all those unsafe rifles off peoples hands for them.

In the litigation happy society we now live in you’re not going to find anyone advocating shooting the low-numbered 1903’s, myself included. However I think it’s interesting to take a look back in history on the subject.

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€

“Question & Answer Handbook†NRA 1959 Julian S. Hatcher “As to safety, there were about 800,000 SA, 285,000 RIA made, or over a million in all, and they were continued in service until superseded by the M1 rifle. From 1917 to 1929 inclusive, records were kept of all accidents to receivers of Springfield rifles, and during that time of the 800,000 low-numbered Springfields there were 33 reported burst or about 1-24,000. Of the 285,000 RIA LN receivers there were 24 reported burst or about 1 in 11,800. There were 9 cases of sever injuries; no one was killed, and in most cases there were no injuries or only minor ones. From the above, the user of one of these rifles can judge whether or not he cares to continue firing it or not. The chance for an accident does exist though it is slight.â€

“Pressure and Safety†by Townsend Whelen American Rifleman April, 1931.

“Take the Springfield rifle, for example. Originally, it used only the model 1906 cartridge with 150-grain bullet, muzzle velocity 2,700 fps. The maximum allowable pressure was 49,000 pounds, but the actual pressure seldom exceeded 47,500 pounds. These pressures were well within the strength of the cartridge case. Even when the pressure was raised by extremely hot weather, the case would invariably stand the pressure without a trace of failure. Malfunctions and slight or serious accidents were almost unknown. The accidents that did occur could almost invariably be charged to obstructions or grease in the bore, or to changing the bolt in the rifle, and thus getting excessive head space.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€


When the USA started drafting men by the hundreds of thousands the training system was just overwhelmed. There was both a shortage of cadre and experience officers with firearms training. The most common cause of action failures during these times was bore obstructions. Although there was a rash of model 1917 action failures at the same time these are now overlooked. All the 1917 action failures were attributed to bore obstructions. A.L. Woodworth (Not Hatcher) did the actual hands-on investigation at Springfield Armory of the 1903’s wrote a report for “Army Ordnance†“The Bursting of Rifles in Service†. Which was reprinted, later in The American Rifleman of December, 1929. In regard to the 1917’s blowing up I would suggest you read “The Price of Carelessness†by S. Trask Arms and the Man May 4, 1918.
Sorry....MP

send me all your low numbered 1903's...

after all, what on earth do you think the army did with it's first 80% of a MILLION rifles?


email me for the address to send these "weak and unservicable" items

and just when you thought our military never had a sense of humor
...Knowing the french and the likelihod of one of these ever firing an intentional round

quote:

In 1942-44 the United States also equipped the Free French Army of Charles DeGaulle with low numbered Springfields.

which was thought to be an insult to have them thrown down in surrender

So...

Could I assume, based on this discussion, that as long as the rifle is in serviceable condition and I wasn't firing a hot/magnum load, I could safetly use it?

It just seems a waste to discard these old actions. Could they stand service as a cast bullet rifle perhaps?

tex,

I think what most are saying is that as long as you have a rifle that is carefully and properly head spaced, and as long as you use factory loaded ammo with pressures within the ranges that have been stated, then the chances of turning your rifle into a seven or eight pound hand grenade is not all that great.

quote:

Originally posted by Tex21:
So...

Could I assume, based on this discussion, that as long as the rifle is in serviceable condition and I wasn't firing a hot/magnum load, I could safetly use it?

I would certainly endorse Michael Petrov's opening statement:

"In the litigation happy society we now live in you’re not going to find anyone advocating shooting the low-numbered 1903’s, myself included."

There is history of the failures.....
There are statistics developed of comparitive risk.....

Is there any necessity or even great emotional appeal to shoot these guns? There are plenty of high-numbered copies still available.

It's an easy decision for me.

GV

If you have a low numbered 03 and are that afraid of it...pick up a bolt, barrel, and magazine (yes they are available) and make it into an M2 .22LR practice rifle. 24,000psi certainly ain’t gonna blow one of them apart, and you’ll have a really nice, man sized .22 rifle.

quote:

"In the litigation happy society we now live in you’re not going to find anyone advocating shooting the low-numbered 1903’s, myself included."

I do not personally own any Springfields, but as sometimes happens, curiosity got the best of me and I had to ask. I further agree that there are enough safe rifles out there to roll any dice. But I have no stake in this issue so I'll digress. Thanks for answering my question.

Tex

Apparently the panic hoodoo over low numbers (with which I agree) did not get really under way until after WWII and, my guess, the publication of Hatcher's Notebook in the late 1940s (I think, I am not at home and don't have my copy to check) with its photos of busted receivers. Certainly I have seen low number 1903s that were given the full custom treatment between the World Wars by Owen, Niedner and Sedgely, that I remember. I don't recall a G&H low number job but often the serial number disappeared in their receiver matting. So evidently some of the top custom builders didn't worry about the problem ........ but I do, and I still won't shoot one.

For whatever it’s worth...Hatcher’s Notebook does have two pictures of blown up low numbered 1903’s.

One was a rifle fired with the barrel full of cosmoline (page195)...and other was accidentally fired with a 7.9mm German service cartridge that resulted in a pressure of over 75,000 psi (page 213).

His book also shows pictures of other weapons that blew up in either testing or regular firing. They include two 1911 pistols, a 1917 Enfield, and a couple of high numbered 1903’s.

FWIW, also from from Hatcher's Notebook;

"During the years from 1917 to 1929 inclusive, there were 137 accidents to the US Rifle, cal .30 M1903 reported and made of record..."

"All but two of these accidents definately ocurred with receivers having the old heat treament used in Springfield and Rock Island so-called low numbered receivers; that is, below # 800,000 and 285,507, respectively"

So, over a 13 year period there were 135 “failures†for how many rifles?

I think that’s a better safety record than the friggin space shuttle has!

It probably is a better record than the space shuttle, but it only takes one time, especially when you're in the driver's seat.

That said, I lean towards the theory that all the low #'s that were gonna blow have all blown by now. The metallurgists out there will surely disagree and I surely won't argue with them one bit. But I'm still gonna pass on any offer to fire a low # Springfield, thank you very much.

quote:

Originally posted by Michael Petrov:
Custom sporters made on low-number actions are so dangerous that a disposal site has been set up in Alaska to receive them. Save yourself and friends from an accident waiting to happen send them now. Those Wundhammers and Adolphs may look OK but trust me they could go at any moment.

I assume you are the "curator" of the disposal site??

Thanks for all of the information and discussion so far! It's been quite useful and informative. Any other thoughts or comments keep 'em coming!

quote:

Originally posted by Rick 0311:
So, over a 13 year period there were 135 “failures†for how many rifles?

I think that’s a better safety record than the friggin space shuttle has!

Don't forget though that these rifles were ordered pulled from service as they made their way through the armorers. You also have to wonder how many that disassembled themselves outside of controled environments weren't counted? How many were lost on the battlefield?

quote:

Originally posted by Poleax:

quote:

Originally posted by Rick 0311:
So, over a 13 year period there were 135 “failures†for how many rifles?

I think that’s a better safety record than the friggin space shuttle has!

Don't forget though that these rifles were ordered pulled from service as they made their way through the armorers. You also have to wonder how many that disassembled themselves outside of controled environments weren't counted? How many were lost on the battlefield?

Yeah, and how many blew up from mud in the barrel, and how many blew up from bad ammo, and, and, and, and................

If a guy is worried about this the answer is quite simple...don’t shoot one, and don’t stand next to someone at the range that shoots one.

Of course, when at the range you also never know if the guy next to you is trying out some of his new whiz-bang, hot hand loads either.

In the mean time just send me all the low numbered 1903’s since the postage will be less than sending them to Michael in Alaska!