1903 Spring and Modern Ammo

[Aaron1971]

A question for the experts, I own a 1903 made in 8/1918 which was rebarreled 8/42. She's light on the trigger and a joy to shoot.

I've only put about 80 rounds through it so far. I'm shooting Remington ammunition, as it's the cheapest I can find.

The wife and I went to the Crossroads gun show this weekend where I was told that some of the ammo brands may create too much pressure and pose a safety issue due to the age of my rifle.

Other than having a qualified gunsmith examine the rifle (had that done right after I bought it), what are some of the possible issues I need to consider?

[highpower790]

Ammo being to high in pressure will rarely be the problem with the 03,its the brttleness of early receivers due to poor heat treatment
If your rifle is a low numbered receiver ,I think below 800k?,you might have a problem.
Google low numbered Springfield,something will pop up.

[kendog4570]

Gun show urban legend make-it-up-as-you go BS. Any high numbered 1903 in safe to shoot condition is OK with anything available across the counter. The M1, not so much.

[Sutcliffe]

Really early production had heat treat issues

Left them dangerous due to brittle receivers. The facts of your rebarrel would suggest you have no worries about damaging your gun.

[Milsurps]

HXP Garand ammo for my 03a3's.
Softer shooting, and I have Garands.
YMMV

[jon94520]

Gun show urban legend make-it-up-as-you go BS. Any high numbered 1903 in safe to shoot condition is OK with anything available across the counter. The M1, not so much.

Agreed
The 1903 can handle any factory ammo offered in 30-06. The rifles action is so strong it is not uncommon to see a sporterised 1903 rechambered in a caliber hotter than 30-06.

[smle-man]

Left them dangerous due to brittle receivers. The facts of your rebarrel would suggest you have no worries about damaging your gun.

The government rebarreled a lot of low number 03s during WW2. There was a war on. It was a calculated risk on the part of the services. The bad WW1 ammunition was out of the inventory by then and the chance of a cartridge case base failure which was the primary method of wrecking low number receivers was pretty remote.

The OP needs to check the SN of his receiver. If it is a high number then the receiver is strong enough for any commercial ammunition as long as the chamber is in good shape and the bolt isn't a WW1 bolt.

[slamfire1]

Shooting anything from the World War one era is a calculated risk. The primary problem with these old receivers is metal fatigue. The materials used in the single and double heat treat receivers are so cheap and low grade that today it is used for rebar and railroad spikes. Also, plain carbon steels harden erratically just due to the nature of the material. Material advancements were extremely rapid, paralleling in improvements, the advancements made since the semi conductor revolution. For example, how long ago were phones 3G? Anyone still using a flip top phone? Just how long ago was that?

The Army did a great job creating a misdirection that still stands today, over a century later. They kept on emphasizing the heat treat when the problem they had was much larger and much more serious. The whole affair shows serious incompetence, and by the Army Officer Corp, total negligence in the management and operation of Army Arsenals. The single heat treatment would have produced acceptable receivers, though the double heat treatment was a superior heat treatment just as described by Hatcher. The single heat treatment consisted of a heat and a quench. There should have been a draw but there was not. The problem was not the heat treatment. There were three real problems with the single heat treat receivers, the first was the lack of temperature devices in the forge shops or the heat treat ovens. The only pyrometer was used in heating springs. Else where, human eyeballs judged temperature. The Army was too cheap to buy the latest instrumentation and equipment and the end result was inconsistent heat treatments. Just watch the show “forged in fire”. Experienced knife makers, put under time constraints, frequently over heat their billets. Early on in the show cracked blades were tested, but so many came apart with sharp pieces flying around, that they won’t test a blade with a crack anymore. An Army board in 1927 estimated that one third of the first one million rifles would fail in an overpressure situation and recommended scrapping all of the single heat treat receivers. This was not done because it was cheaper to injury a Soldier, Sailor, or Marine, than to scrap and replace one million suspect rifles. I don’t consider this a calculated risk, I consider it immoral behavior. They knowingly issued known defective product to their work force. I am aware of one report of someone who died because of a single heat treat receiver failure, there are existing reports of military personnel who lost half their face, undoubtedly military personnel lost vision, hands, etc.

This second issue with the low number receivers was the inconsistent materials used. Springfield Armory did not have an incoming materials inspection and so, vendors probably learned to ship their crappiest steel to the Army because Springfield Armory would buy it. As a part of the product process upgrades, Springfield Armory hired ten full time staff and created a Metallurgical department. It is likely the steels purchased during the single heat treat period were still being put into the production line, we just don’t know.

The last issue with Springfield Armory was that it is obvious the production line was out of control. There is a 1917 Watertown report, in it there are metallurgical tests of single heat treat M1903’s, and at least one made it out the door with a receiver that was never heat treated! It blew up later. This shows non existent process controls and I really doubt things got better as Springfield Armory, in fact the whole Army, has an unjust culture. They don’t want to know about their failures, they will shoot the messenger rather than figure out why they were making bad product. You can see this in Hatcher's Notebook. Springfield Armory knew that it had a problem, and instead of figuring out why they making bad rifles, they simply raised the proof pressures at the end of the production line. Tacitly they had to understand that some rifles would pass the higher pressure proof test and still fail in the field. Many here probably work for companies with unjust cultures. The way to find determine the culture of your company is raise a problem to management. Hopefully it is a problem that involves safety or compliance to law. If they retaliate negatively or fire you, but do not fix the problem, then the company has an unjust culture.

There are known blow ups of double heat treat receivers. In spite of all the hoopla in Hatcher’s Notebook about the double heat treat receivers being the end of history, they are in fact, old receivers made out of inferior materials, in factories with suspect process controls. A nasty way to describe the Class C materials used in the single and double heat treat receivers is to say: "no matter how much you polish a turd, it remains a turd". The materials used in the nickel steel receivers are superior to the Class A and C steels used in the double heat treat receivers and depending on when they were made, they are likely cleaner. At least Springfield Armory had a Metallurgy group conducting material property tests. But, these are all generalizations, without actual metallurgical tests, it is impossible to know exactly the quality of any of these old firearms.

I recommend reloading for these older rifles. Keep the pressures around 40,000 psia, which as it turns out, was the pressure for most of the issue ammunition. The 50 kpsia was a not to exceed, was set early in the century, and so was the velocity requirement which was 2750 fps +- 50 fps. In time gunpowder improvements allowed the velocity to be met at much lower pressures. A load of 47.5 grains IMR 4895 with a 150 will just duplicate the service load and pressures will be low.

[Flouncer]

Shooting anything from the World War one era is a calculated risk.

You mean Springfield 03 . . .. . . Not Mauser, Mosin Nagant etc

[smle-man]

If shooting anything from the World War one era is a calculated risk I'm glad my Martini Enfield rifle originally built in the 1870s and modified to .303 in the early 1900s predates WW1. Looks like I am safe

[usmcchet9296]

I have a 1903A3 and I only shoot very mild reloads out of it same with my M1
early low number 03's have been known to fail but with any C&R firearm I wouldn't probably try to mad out your loading

[WMG]

My dads been shooting any and all manner of over the counter '06 longer than I've been on the planet

[russ69]

...I recommend reloading for these older rifles. Keep the pressures around 40,000 psia, which as it turns out, was the pressure for most of the issue ammunition....

I think this is the smart choice.

[Milsurp Collector]

From the CMP:

WARNING ON “LOW-NUMBER” SPRINGFIELDS

M1903 rifles made before February 1918 utilized receivers and bolts which were single heat-treated by a method that rendered some of them brittle and liable to fracture when fired, exposing the shooter to a risk of serious injury. It proved impossible to determine, without destructive testing, which receivers and bolts were so affected and therefore potentially dangerous.

To solve this problem, the Ordnance Department commenced double heat treatment of receivers and bolts. This was commenced at Springfield Armory at approximately serial number 800,000 and at Rock Island Arsenal at exactly serial number 285,507. All Springfields made after this change are commonly called “high number” rifles. Those Springfields made before this change are commonly called “low-number” rifles.

In view of the safety risk the Ordnance Department withdrew from active service all “low-number” Springfields. During WWII, however, the urgent need for rifles resulted in the rebuilding and reissuing of many “low-number” as well as “high-number” Springfields. The bolts from such rifles were often mixed during rebuilding, and did not necessarily remain with the original receiver.

Generally speaking, “low number” bolts can be distinguished from “high-number” bolts by the angle at which the bolt handle is bent down. All “low number” bolts have the bolt handle bent straight down, perpendicular to the axis of the bolt body. High number bolts have “swept-back” (or slightly rearward curved) bolt handles.

A few straight-bent bolts are of the double heat-treat type, but these are not easily identified, and until positively proved otherwise ANY straight-bent bolt should be assumed to be “low number”. All original swept-back bolts are definitely “high number”. In addition, any bolt marked “N.S.” (for nickel steel) can be safely regarded as “high number” if obtained directly from CMP (beware of re-marked fakes).

CMP DOES NOT RECOMMEND FIRING ANY SPRINGFIELD RIFLE WITH A ”LOW NUMBER” RECEIVER. Such rifles should be regarded as collector’s items, not “shooters”.

Some - not all, some - low numbered receivers are brittle from poor heat treatment. Some will break just by hitting them once with a hammer. The problem is you can't identify the bad receivers without destructive testing.



These receivers fractured just by dropping them on a concrete floor.





Brittle receivers combined with defective ammo caused some catastrophic failures that caused some injuries. The injured were not wearing eye protection as is common today.

The rifles were fine as long as you didn't have a case head separation or pierced primer. That's why there are so many anecdotal reports of "my grandfather shot his low numbered 1903 for a hunnert years and never had a problem." As long as the ammo didn't fail there was no problem. But if the ammo did fail, there was a problem.

Loading "low pressure" ammo doesn't save you if the case fails. Even "low pressure" ammo can have a case failure if the brass is defective or worn out. If the case fails there will be enough "low pressure" gas to fracture the receiver. A normal pressure load won't cause a problem as long as the brass holds together. But if the brass fails there is no safety margin.

The Army decided to gradually remove low numbered 1903s from service after World War I although the Marines kept using them. The Army put theirs into storage for eventual disposal. But as smle-man explained, right after Pearl Harbor there was a panic to re-arm, so the low numbered M1903s were brought out of storage and refurbished. That's why so many low numbered M1903s have 1942 dated barrels. Having a 1942 barrel doesn't mean a low numbered M1903 is safe.

Usually it's the people who have only one M1903 - a low numbered one - who rationalize shooting a low numbered M1903. I have three low numbered M1903s but I will never shoot them, because I have more high numbered M1903s and three 03-A3s that I can shoot. I don't see any reason for me to shoot one of my low numbered M1903s.

If your only M1903 is a low numbered one and you insist on shooting it, use only top quality ammo, eye protection, gloves, and make sure you have health insurance just in case.

[smle-man]

From the CMP:



Some - not all, some - low numbered receivers are brittle from poor heat treatment. Some will break just by hitting them once with a hammer. The problem is you can't identify the bad receivers without destructive testing.



These receivers fractured just by dropping them on a concrete floor.





Brittle receivers combined with defective ammo caused some catastrophic failures that caused some injuries. The injured were not wearing eye protection as is common today.

The rifles were fine as long as you didn't have a case head separation or pierced primer. That's why there are so many anecdotal reports of "my grandfather shot his low numbered 1903 for a hunnert years and never had a problem." As long as the ammo didn't fail there was no problem. But if the ammo did fail, there was a problem.

Loading "low pressure" ammo doesn't save you if the case fails. Even "low pressure" ammo can have a case failure if the brass is defective or worn out. If the case fails there will be enough "low pressure" gas to fracture the receiver. A normal pressure load won't cause a problem as long as the brass holds together. But if the brass fails there is no safety margin.

The Army decided to gradually remove low numbered 1903s from service after World War I although the Marines kept using them. The Army put theirs into storage for eventual disposal. But as smle-man explained, right after Pearl Harbor there was a panic to re-arm, so the low numbered M1903s were brought out of storage and refurbished. That's why so many low numbered M1903s have 1942 dated barrels. Having a 1942 barrel doesn't mean a low numbered M1903 is safe.

Usually it's the people who have only one M1903 - a low numbered one - who rationalize shooting a low numbered M1903. I have have three low numbered M1903s but I will never shoot them, because I have more high numbered M1903s and three 03-A3s that I can shoot. I don't see any reason for me to shoot one of my low numbered M1903s.

If your only M1903 is a low numbered one and you insist on shooting it, use only top quality ammo, eye protection, gloves, and make sure you have health insurance just in case.

If you have this happen in your low number 03 from shooting WW1 U.S. ball, some lots of PS headstamped Korean ball, French or Austrian ball all of which are known to have base failures, or use salvaged cases with a hairline crack through the base your 03 has a very good chance of looking like the receivers in the quoted post. In a high number 03 this failure will blow the floorplate off the magazine well and possibly crack the stock but the rifle will be ok.

Hang those low number 03s on the wall!