Low # 1903 RIA "Springfield "

[sam2002]

Posted in other forum have a low numbered sporterized 1903 my grand dad used to hunt with on his prop up in Placerville area . Was given to my dad many years ago he never shot it . He gave it to me awhile back . Had family over a few days ago and brought out the gun for conversational purposes , told the family what I had learned about it . Receiver was made in 1905 , barrel was made in 1918 gun probably was in service during WWI and maybe even in WWII although this all speculative .Was converted to civilian use with modified stock , redfield sight , etc . My brother chimes in and says when we were kids back in the 70's he "borrowed" the rifle on more than one occasion and took it out and shot it , without incident .
I now have a low # 1903 that has been shot without incident . What say the experts in this forum would you or would you not feel safe maybe taking it out to the range and sending a few downline ?
Thanks for any help you can offer

[Enfield47]

Read the notice on the CMP page for the 1903's and you will see that don't recommend firing one with a low #. Why take the risk? No point in possibly winding up with a permanent injury. http://www.odcmp.com/Sales/m1903.htm

[gunboat]

I understand the issue but the USMC disagreed, they never removed their low number springfields from service.

[mosinnagantm9130]

An unknown low number I wouldn't shoot, but one that's been shot plenty of times it's probably one of the good ones. I have a low number I shoot on occasion with light reloads.

[the_tunaman]

Having seen some of the resultant photos, would it really be worth it?!? Not to me, based on the evidence of damage I've seen.

If you so choose, at least make sure you use reduced hand loads.

[Crunch130]

The science of fracture mechanics is uncertain. If you want to proof test that gun to be safe to fire, find a proof lab that can make a proof load of TWICE the standard operating pressure of 30-06 and do a 1-time test at that. If it survives, it's good to go. That's what a 1-time test requires to certify something as safe at a nominal stress level through many repeated cycles.

If you just shoot it at the nominal stress level and it holds, you just know it didn't break THAT TIME. You don't know that it is safe for a large number of stress cycles. You haven't proven it has a margin of safety for general use. You know you are starting with something with questionable structural integrity.

I'm a mechanical engineer with 26 years of experience, just in case you're wondering.

Your face is worth a lot more than that rifle.

Crunch

[.22guy]

I understand the issue but the USMC disagreed, they never removed their low number springfields from service.

Was that more an issue of they needed the rifles to put into service?

Similar to the OP, I have a sportered 03 that belonged to my grandfather. Pretty nicely done sporter job, with a scope. He hunted with it like that for years and years, but I haven't worked up the courage (or stupidity) to fire it, yet.

[gunboat]

When was the last DOCUMENTED failure of a low number springfield?

[the_tunaman]

Does it really matter? If you're so inclined, and it sounds like you are, the go for it. Likely the odds are with you, and sometimes in life it pays to gamble.

[mosinnagantm9130]

When was the last DOCUMENTED failure of a low number springfield?

The vast majority of the failures occured with 1917 or 1918 dated Frankford Arsenal ammo IIRC. The failures also seem to be clustered around a few years of manufacture, but that's probably just coincidence.

I find it interesting that I can't find any reports of low number springfields failing in Marine hands during the early part of WW2. They saw heavy action in 42...

[Eljay]

Personally, with a family gun like that I'd be tempted to shoot one set of five rounds through it, but even then I'd probably just put it away after. You don't know what stresses are building up. And I'd wear unusual levels of eye protection, gloves, whatever. And the whole time I'd be thinking "You know, I really should have had a gunsmith do this, or at least have gone to BLM and done the first round or two with a long string. I'm really an idiot. BANG!"

If it doesn't kill you let us know how it went. Or have your next of kin post or something.

[Crunch130]

I find it interesting that I can't find any reports of low number springfields failing in Marine hands during the early part of WW2. They saw heavy action in 42...

What ammo were they using? M2 Ball (designed for the Garand) was not exactly the hottest 30-06 load out there.

And lack of reports may not mean lack of failures. If there WERE failures, and they were short of rifles, they probably thought they had MORE to lose by eroding the Marines' confidence in their rifles.

And in the battles for Wake Island and Guadalcanal, they may have had bigger things to worry about than extra paperwork.

Crunch

[Eljay]

Oh, speaking of which, I'd shoot M2 ball and not some modern hot hunting load.

[Flyin Brian]

It's been a long time since I read up on it, but I remember reading an article saying one of the causes of the receiver failures was due to the Cupro-Nickel jacketed bullets in use at the time. The Cupro-Nickel was known to foul the bore very quickly, so the quick solution was to lube the bullets. Shooters started dipping the ends of the rounds into a jar of grease and it helped to prevent the fouling from effecting accuracy. Unfortunately it's very difficult to keep the grease from getting in the chamber and onto the cases and once the chamber was greased, the case no longer grips the chamber and pressure is increased.... BOOM.

[mosinnagantm9130]

What ammo were they using? M2 Ball (designed for the Garand) was not exactly the hottest 30-06 load out there.

And lack of reports may not mean lack of failures. If there WERE failures, and they were short of rifles, they probably thought they had MORE to lose by eroding the Marines' confidence in their rifles.

And in the battles for Wake Island and Guadalcanal, they may have had bigger things to worry about than extra paperwork.

Crunch

They knew about the problem in WW1 and reported it plenty then, why not WW2?