Springfield 1903 receiver

[ephemeratta]

I have a sporterized Springfield 1903, not an A3, just plain Jane 1903. I checked the serial number and looked up the history and it looks to be in the safe range but it was made in 1911 @ RIA and was in service until sometime in the 50's.

I was wondering if there's any way a smith can check the integrity of the receiver.

I'm concerned with what type of pressures this can handle because it is a well aged beauty; great receiver, barrel, stock(I'll be refinishing this shortly), and a set of lyman peep sights. I want to use this rifle for a number of purposes and I want to make sure I don't blow my face off

Thanks in advance

 

[vellnueve]

What's the serial? Over 800,000 for SA is supposed to be fine. It might be 880K...

Mine's in the 1.4 mil range, very close to the end of the 03 line. I have no qualms about using anything .30-06 in it.

 

[bpm990d]

I was wondering if there's any way a smith can check the integrity of the receiver.

I'm not an expert on the subject, and most of my knowledge comes from Hatcher's Notebook, but it sounds like a low number Springfield. He says that production of RIA receivers prior to Feb 1, 1918 run from serial number 1 - 285,507. If yours was made in 1911, I would not fire it. The problem was with the heat treating of the receivers. They are super hard, but they can also shatter. There is no non destructive way that I know of to check if the things are ok with that particular receiver. Hence the reason they destroyed hundreds of thousands of low numbered Springfield rifles.

The 1918 date is important because Ordinance issued orders to destroy all receivers that had the old heat treating process on March 2nd 1918.

If you want to know more, got to Steve's Pages and download Hatcher's Notebook and read chapter nine.

Sorry,

B

 

[vellnueve]

Doh, I didn't see the 1911 RIA date. That is not a safe rifle to shoot. It may or may not have been properly heat treated, but you can't be sure, which is why they took them out of service.

 

[ScottS]

There's a well-researched and -reasoned article on the low-numbered 1903 problem here. He puts the failures into perspective, and examines the reported causes and fixes.

You shouldn't have dessert before you eat your vegetables, but here is his conclusion (emphasis added):

Conclusions

The problem of Springfield receiver failures was a rare event throughout the service years of the Springfield rifle despite statements to the contrary. It was also concentrated in certain years of manufacture suggesting that an important component of the failure was human error in heat treatment. The heat treatment problems had been present long before the manufacturing pressures of 1917. The receiver failures were also compounded by a design flaw in the support of the cartridge case head in the Springfield rifle, and this problem was exacerbated by uneven manufacturing of brass cartridge cases during 1917-18.

Eleven receiver failures in 1917 prompted an investigation and a change in the heart treatment of the receivers. The decision in 1928 to replace the low numbered receivers as rifles were returned to arsenal for repair was an effort to provide soldiers with a greater degree of safety. The board of officers recommended that the low numbered receivers all be withdrawn from service, but the general responsible for reviewing this decision did not concur with the board's decision, and left most low numbered receivers in service until replaced by the M1 Garand in the early 1940's. He took a calculated risk, and the risk paid off. There were no further receiver failures after 1929.

It also suggests that ammunition manufactured during World War I likely played a major role in receiver failures.

As a reminder, the USMC never replaced their low-numbered receivers at all until the 1903 was replaced by the M1, and there were no receiver failures after 1929.

 

[bpm990d]

There's a well-researched and -reasoned article on the low-numbered 1903 problem here. He puts the failures into perspective, and examines the reported causes and fixes.

An interesting article with much merit.

B

 

[ephemeratta]

Thank you guys for your help. Much appreciated. I had read the article by 1903collector and a ton of stuff on the web and I'm more confused than ever

The 1903 is an RIA with a serial of 425619 but I'm not finding the links I used before to find info and what I am finding now is stating that RIA stopped at 346 000. And, RIA's with serials over 246000 should be fine. Grrrrrr!

my beauty

**ETA** I found my bookmark for one of the sites that gave me some good info and after backtracking over the site... my head hurts worse. Thanks again for your help everybody, sincerely appreciated.
http://home.att.net/~vishooter/m1903.html

 

[bpm990d]

That is a high number Springfield. You should be fine.

B

 

[1903Collector]

I agree, it's well above the cutoff range. BTW; those numbers come right out of Brophy, in my opinion one of the best references on 1903 rifles. If you would like to borrow my copy for a while your more than welcome to.

 

[vellnueve]

Not necessarily.

There have been cases where a number was added before the five or six digit serial number to make a low-number rifle appear high.

 

[bpm990d]

All else being equal, I'll go with it being a high numbered Springfield.

B

 

[ephemeratta]

Not necessarily.

There have been cases where a number was added before the five or six digit serial number to make a low-number rifle appear high.

Are you trying to make me eat a whole bottle of Tylenol

Thank you very much everybody for your input. Very much appreciated.

I think I'm going to work some light loads through it tomorrow or Friday.

 

[Pilgrim]

That is a very high number RIA. Shoot the snot out of it... It's actually one of the last made.

It would have been assembled by Springfield armory using leftover RIA parts that were transferred to SA after WWI. If it has an original barrel, it would probably be marked SA and probably dated in 1928-30 range.

SA assembled several thousand using RIA receivers and SA parts.

I have RIA #403xxx which was assembled in 1927 with a barrel marked accordingly.

I think the highest of these MUTTS is numbered in the low 430,000 range.

These oddball mixes of RIA/SA bring a small premium over straight RIA or SA units.

It is definitely as safe to shoot as any 1903.

 

[ephemeratta]

That is a very high number RIA. Shoot the snot out of it... It's actually one of the last made.

It would have been assembled by Springfield armory using leftover RIA parts that were transferred to SA after WWI. If it has an original barrel, it would probably be marked SA and probably dated in 1928-30 range.

SA assembled several thousand using RIA receivers and SA parts.

I have RIA #403xxx which was assembled in 1927 with a barrel marked accordingly.

I think the highest of these MUTTS is numbered in the low 430,000 range.

These oddball mixes of RIA/SA bring a small premium over straight RIA or SA units.

It is definitely as safe to shoot as any 1903.

YAY!!!!! Some good news. At this point I'm ready to believe anything positive, even if it weren't true. I was bashing my brain over this one.
The barell has a stamp with a bomb and below the bomb is a 2<space> 44. It looks like there are some markings under the front sight that poke out a little but not enough to make out. The front sight might be an aftermarket, it's a nice redfield.

 

[1903Collector]

YAY!!!!! Some good news. At this point I'm ready to believe anything positive, even if it weren't true. I was bashing my brain over this one.
The barell has a stamp with a bomb and below the bomb is a 2<space> 44. It looks like there are some markings under the front sight that poke out a little but not enough to make out. The front sight might be an aftermarket, it's a nice redfield.

The 2-44 is the barrel date, the flaming bomb is a typical stamp. If it's the original sight the markings my be an A, B, or C on the sight blade. The rifles were sighted at 200yds and the letters corrospond to different blade heights and this is how the zeroed the elevation. If you ever have to change the front sight blade you should replace it with the same letter.

oops, sorry did not read the post carefully enough. I don't recall ever seeing any markings under the front sight and I have owned quite a few 03s.

 

[Pilgrim]

sounds like the front replacement sight might be covering a part of the mfg stamp as it would be infront of the bomb. A 2-44 date would mean that the barrel has been replaced.

YAY!!!!! Some good news. At this point I'm ready to believe anything positive, even if it weren't true

It most definitely IS true.

 

[ephemeratta]

It most definitely IS true.

Wouldn't even insinuate otherwise. Just stating this has been exhausting

Does this make clearer my description?

Thanks again to all of you for your help.

Here's another monkey to throw in the wrench... does anyone think I should restock it with an original style stock?

 

[Pilgrim]

compare it to this and you'll see that your sight covers the Mfg marking

If you're going to keep the original sights on it, I wouldn't restock it, but I wouldn't keep those sights, so I would restock it.

It's worth considerably more original.

It really depends on what you want to do with it. If you want a target gun, then you have a good one. I collect Military stuff and I'd want it correct, for the historical aspect and financial considerations.

Don't hold me to a fire over this but I'd guess your rifle, as is, is worth about $300, tops. Put back to original, $500-700, depending on the condition of the parts you add.

 

[m44]

I say return it to military configuration, not only is it worth more. But it also looks a heck of a lot better.

 

[ephemeratta]

Pilgrim, Thanks for the info.

What do I do with this peep sight if I go back to original?

 

[1903Collector]

I say return it to military configuration, not only is it worth more. But it also looks a heck of a lot better.

The only problem with restoration is you may end up spending more than what you paid for the rilfe, and believe me I know what I'm talking about here. If your going to restore it with hope of making money then chances are you will be very disapointed. If your going to do it and keep the rifle then go for it. It is very gratifying to restore any milsurp but it can get VERY expensive. My advice FWIW, if it's a good shooter keep it the way it is, if you want one in original configuration, then get one that way as you can still find them at fairly good prices. Just looking at your pic you need a stock with all the metal, complete rear sight, sight collar and a complete front sight, and if that peep sight is drilled and tapped into the reciever that is going to seriously affect value.

 

[Pilgrim]

1903Collector is correct in that if the rear sight is mounted by drilling into the receiver, you should just leave it alone.

As I said previously, whether you 'revert' it or not depends on what you want...a shooter / hunter or a military piece.

Historically accurate pieces will continue to grow in value, a bubba'd piece, not so much. Depending on what you have already in the gun and if the receiver is not drilled for the rear sight, I think you could revert it without breaking the bank.

Remember someone once said that you never pay too much for a gun, you just sometimes buy it too soon.

 

[1903Collector]

Pilgrim, Your correct. The key factor for me in any restoration would be how much I paid for the rifle to begin with. Personally for a sporter I would not pay more than 3 to 4 hundred if my plan was a restoration project.

 

[ephemeratta]

Man, thanks for your guy's input on this. Truly a clinic and very practical at that.

Some points on this -
The sight base is drilled and tapped into the receiver.
I'm happy I have a shooter with this barreled action's history so I think I'll just refinish the stock and leave it in it's current config; I'd like to use it as a range shooter and woods gun - I love peep sights

I paid $125 for it so I have room to buy parts and work it but I saw that CMP has some remingtons for $500 so... I may end up with a true original. But that poses another issue.

my garand has, as of today, relocated to live with my father so if I bought an original config '03 then I'd have to get another Garand, k31, couple of Mosins, Mausers, Oh yeah, then my C&R license before I get all those to keep my new '03 company. It just seems like a real slippery slope.

I think I'll clean this one up and shoot the h*ll out of it and spend my time and money on different components for loads specific for this rifle.

 

[1903Collector]

I paid $125 for it

That is a great price...I'll bet she's real accurate to.

 

[Pilgrim]

That is a great price...I'll bet she's real accurate to.

+1

my garand has, as of today, relocated to live with my father so if I bought an original config '03 then I'd have to get another Garand, k31, couple of Mosins, Mausers, Oh yeah, then my C&R license before I get all those to keep my new '03 company. It just seems like a real slippery slope.

and the problem is ....?

good luck with it...enjoy !

 

[1903Collector]

It just seems like a real slippery slope.

Yea....but it's fun on the way down

 

[ephemeratta]

and the problem is ....?

good luck with it...enjoy !

I have the packet from BATFE for the license and I've held off specifically because I view C&R like the crack cocaine of the firarms world; inexpensive, insanely addictive, and you can never get enough. I don't want to end up a C&Rack Ho.

Yea....but it's fun on the way down

Time and money fly when you're having this kind of fun

Thanks again you guys for your input on this. MUCH appreciated

I'll post my results for any that are interested.

 

[WILDCATT]

1903

do you reload??? I have a low number springfield made in 1914.I shoot it but with cast bullets and it shoots great.311291(170gr) 13 gr red dot.a number of cast bullet shooter use that load.and the barrel will never wear out.by the way that barrel you have is made of better steel than the original one.
and that rear sight is about $70

 

[rlphil]

Gents,

I just recently posted on the early serial 1903s on another thread and just wanted to make a point on these early models form my peronsal experience. I have a great 1910 model 185,2XX shooter that was passed down in the family and it's great...accurate and no issues after 101 years of annual shooting. Three generations of successful and safe hunting, plinking and varmint hunting. I would say an early serial with a "history of shooting" should be considered a shooter. Our 1910 has placed a great deal of deer on the table for three generations without a hiccup.

I also like to point out to folks that the army and the govt investigating the early 1903 receiver issues and a great deal of the final concern focused on the poor ammo of the day. Just my two cents. Thank you and good shooting to all.


RL