Це відео не доступне.
Перепрошуємо.
Are low number M1903 Springfield rifles safe to shoot?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 19 сер 2024
- The warnings about low serial number M1903 Springfield rifles and the debate over the veracity of those warnings have been raging for the past century. Are those rifles actually unsafe to shoot? The Redneck Preppy wades into those turbulent waters and attempts to answer that question and whether you should actually chambering rounds into these rifles and playing a potentially dangerous lottery.
The Firearm Blog post - www.thefirearm...
The Redneck Preppy can also be found on Odysee: odysee.com/@Th...
#m1903 #milsurp #guns
I have a 1903 made in 1905 and was rebarraled in 1907 and I shoot it with surplus ammo faithfully. Never had any problems.
Truly great to hear!
Nice. I recently acquired one in the 172,000 serial # range by S.A. made in 1906 but has a "newer" barrel on it dated 11/18. I wonder if mine would be safe to shoot?
Part of the issue was overloaded ammo producing way too much pressure. I put a 35 Whelen barrel on my low number and it has had zero issues.
I own one in the 700ks range. And not knowing shot hot rounds through it. It has a 1944 barrel on it so i presume with it being rebuilt it was used in ww2. I have looked it over and serviced it before shooting. Wonderful piece of history.
As a Professional Engineer that worked in Structural Design most of my career, I did a lot of research when I found out about low number 1903s. My rifle was made a few weeks before 800,000 at Springfield. Higher pressure 30.03 ammo seems to be the major factor in reported failures. A high number rifles failed on testing. High quality steel was not readily available before 1930 except in Sweden. Still shooting an over 100 year old rifle. Newly made rifle fail out of the box today. Yes, their is a risk but the risk of driving to the shooting range is much higher.
Good to have a professional's opinion, ha ha. I hope I didn't make it sound in the video that each low number was essentially a bomb waiting to blow up. My point was, why risk it?
If I had a low number receiver, I'd test it on a Rockwell hardness tester before shooting it. The most common ways to find low number receivers in the states now is via drill rifles. Many were converted to that state, and many are being unconverted now by gun builders. I'd check, and if heat treatment is too hard, annealing it would be something that would be have to be done.
A banger of an idea with the hardness tester -- I don't know why it didn't occur to me. I was being somewhat facetious with the banging the receiver with a hammer comment, I hope no one actually does that, ha ha.
My hunting rifle is a Springfield serial #655xxx. I have fired thousands of rounds through it. It's on it's 3rd barrel. Of the 68 reported accidents with Springfield rifles ( not all were reciever failures) most were due to poor cartridge cases with soft heads.
My low numbered receiver was made in 1914 and has been sporterized. I keep my hand loads pretty conservative and don’t shoot it very often. I don’t worry much about it coming apart but I do know I can happen.
I've seen it happen back in the 70s at a boy scout shoot it was a 1905 i think blew the barrel
I'm glad I saw this video! The first thing I did was tell my Springfield Armory 1903 with a 473,xxx serial number and a 4-11 barrel that it better not blow up on me or I'll turn it into sporterized "bubba" special!
It promised that it wouldn't and kept it's word cause I put over 50 rounds of Remington 30'06 soft point through it almost every year and my face is still ugly and still attached!
Look, this weapon went to France, came home and was used by the soldier my grandpa bought it from in 1928. The first owner was a hunter and so was my grandpa and so am I.
11 rifles burst out of all the low number guns made at the time and as it turned out the brass used was the cause of the issues in most cases. That number includes the weapons tested by Hatcher that had 50 and 100% rounds put through them.
No one wants to get hurt but you have a better chance of being hit by lightning or winning the lottery at this point than shooting a low number 1903 and losing your eye. If you were to look at the failure rate of any modern rifle that has production numbers as high as the 1903's do? there is a lot more than 11 on average.
People running machines make mistakes. I could die tomorrow by getting into my truck and driving to Walmart for ammo. A huge asteroid could fall on me while I am typing this?
Enjoy your life and live.
No one is arguing that the likelihood of a low serial number 1903 failing is anything but small -- I stated as much myself in the video.
But no one can argue either is that there are an unknown number of these rifles out there that will eventually fail, and have failed through the years. Will your rifle be one of them? Probably not.
The chances are higher, however, than that asteroid.
@@TheRedneckPreppy I didn't mean to come across like a smart a$$. It is a correct statement when you say "It could happen?"
Also, by pointing it out to the world once and awhile it keeps people on their toes that own a 1903.
The first thing I did was get mine out and use jewelers glasses under a very bright light and did a quick look-see for any new surprises.
I don't even like surprises on my birthday so I'm pretty sure my face or eye doesn't want one from the bolt of my Springfield either?
Rumor has it the receiver can be magnafluxed at any machine shop that does automotive work if you are concerned about cracks? Never tried it?
I probably would if I ever buy another low serial numbered 1903 though? That, or just hand load a huge over pressure round, hide behind a really big tree a few miles away.
Next, after I give my buddy a few free beers and the proof round, have him tie a shoe string on the trigger and give it a yank.
What could possibly go wrong?🤔
This is only my thoughts for me. I have a 1903 - barreled action. For me - I have always ran with reduced loads. Even my handloads for hunting - are tuned to my preference. I forget what the serial is. It matters not. Diligence - is having that attitude of inspecting and asking myself a lot of whys. Why are ports to vent gas away from my face - full of grease? Has anyone even considered this? Have you cleaned it well enough to see? Considered non-destructive testing of the action? Magnaflux was the old term and process to check for integrity.
I found handloading some 40+ yrs ago. I was the gun nerd kid. With that start - All of my rifles are Mil. My oldest is 110 yrs old. All have been rebarreled - over the years, because a truly shot out bore - has tell-tale signs. My youngest - is a 1954 manufacture. There is one way to proof the firearm. Blue-Pill it. In a remote rest.
TRP - Thank you for a redress on a subject that "New shooters" need to consider. History - in my day, was in books and magazines. Printed documents. Be safe - be well!
Thanks and a great comment!
When I was looking for an M1903 (which took a few years before I found the one which I bought....) all I ran into were low SN M1903s. (Even a Rock Island one...) So my experience was that there were more low SN M1903s out there on the market than "high SN." For me, my understanding is that the CMP doesn't allow low SN 1903s in competition. So that's why I waited until I found a high SN at an OK price. But 03A3s seem to be more widely available and at lower prices, compared to 1903s. So they're a good option, unless you just must have an M1903...
I'm surprised to hear that from your experience with 03s that there are more LN than HNs out there. Given the production numbers and that the military withdrew them, you'd think HN predominate. That said, if all that's out there are LNs I guess that speaks to collectors avoiding them over the years.
@@TheRedneckPreppy Yes; just my non-scientific observation. But I was looking for one, locally, very hard for a solid 2 years. I ran into several low SN at shops. Had to get my high SN at a show... If the barrel was in good shape, I personally would buy a low SN just for the barrel. Would make a good replacement barrel. Per the old books on the Springfield rifles, WW2 1903/03A3 barrels are much inferior in quality to barrels made in the 1930s and before. My M1903 from 1921 with its original barrel will easily outshoot my Feb 1943 03A3 (in unissued condition...). With handloads and M2-ball duplicate ammo...
Didn't they switch to a 2 groove rifling from a 4 groove rifling in the 1930s to expedite spare barrel production? That may be why the older ones are more accurate.
@@shockwave6213 Could be. I'd have to pull out the books to get the exact reference/quote; but my recollection is that contemporaneous testing showed no loss in accuracy between the 2 and 4 groove barrels. Between the pressures of war-time production, the switch from 4 to 2 grooves, and just a quick comparison of the quality of 1903 rifles made pre-1940, compared to the WW2 Remington 1903s and the 03-A3s, it seems intuitive that the pre-WW2 barrels would be regarded as "higher quality."
The ammo back in WWI, WWll, Korea and Viet Nam were of lower pressure than commercialy loaded ammo. It ain't worth the risk folks.
Not true according to what I have read. Some of the ammo produced during that era was producing up to 87,000 pressures. That’s not a light load.
Very interesting. I have a Rock Island 1918 low serial number receiver with a dimple below the receiver ring and has an almost good replacement Springfield Armory 1942 barrel on it with a replacement stock which many were refurbished during WWII. When I bought mine it still had cosmoline automotive grease on it. The action was Parkerized green and the bore was still good from the 4 groove SA 42 barrel. From the action and stock looks like it has never seen combat during WWII. The muzzle crown still has some Parkerization on it. I only shoot Mil-spec M2 Ball in it which never pushes it's limits. No problems so far because military 30-06 is hard to come by now a days. It has been accurate and never have changed the sight zero when I first bought it. My rifle is still zeroed for the last soldier who shot it using surplus ammo and some old Golden Bear Russian 30-06 45 grain ball from 100 to 200 yards on a 10 inch bullseye target. The spread is 12 inches elevation, 9 inches windage, and favors left by 2 inches left of center at 100 yards. At 200 its almost the same but at 1 1/2 inch lower at a 13-15 inch group using a sand bag at a shooting bench with original battle sights using the peep sight. The old timer vets told me to use the peep sight during qualification because before WWII began every infantry unit wanted to have better marksmanship scores than speed shooting. This came from an old WWII veteran who was stationed in Hawaii in 1936-39 in the 25th Infantry Division. He went from Private to Sergeant and got out. Went back in after Pearl Harbor with the 2nd Infantry Division in Europe after D-Day. He loved his M1903 that he fought with it from training again from Normandy till V-E Day in Czechoslovakia 1945. He told me that firepower was not putting more bullets at your enemy. It was knowing where he was at and putting bullets on him or very close to not shoot at you then close in for him to make a mistake or run from you. He was more of a hunter than a soldier. I am going to get more ammo for my rifle. I took his advice with me for Iraq during 2006-08 and is proven well.
Great stuff mate!
By 1918 the issues of bad heat treatment had been solved by better instrumentation.
Excellent presentation and information.
Thanks. 👍☕😎
Very kind of you sir, thank you!
I have a low number Rock (180k range) and it did develop two cracks in the receiver. I've had the rifle for well over 20 years. Maybe the cracks were there all along but who knows.
I drank the kool-aid about the myths. I'm just lucky I didn't get hurt.
It's not an ammo issue at all.
Sorry to hear about your rifle but like you said, at least you personally didn't get cracked!
@@TheRedneckPreppy I can send you pictures of it you would like. It broke my heart but more importantly didn't break my face 🤣🤣🤣
Just a thought...if you decide to keep a low s/n rifle as a wall hanger, plug the bore at the breech end. Guaranteed fact, if only the muzzle is plugged, someone will put a round in it and shoot without checking the bore.
If a new batch of Remington 700s reported defects in metallurgy which could lead to shooter fatalities, would it be due diligence on the part of Remington to round up all Remington 700s manufactured from that batch and exchange them for safe rifles, scrapping all the receivers with potentially defective and lethal metallurgy? Even if there were 0 instances of reported receiver failures, most certainly. In the case of these 1903s we are talking about receivers manufactured with outdated standards of metallurgy which were deemed hazardous even in their time. Metal fatigues with time. These low number 1903s would be good candidates for .22 LR conversions perhaps. Anything else is tempting fate.
The point star comment had me🤣🤣🤣
Just stick to m2 ball ammo and you'll be fine.
Exactly how does M2 Ball mitigate a weakened receiver that could shatter firing a round?
Not really. You explained it very well !!
I think substandard ammo was found to be at fault much of the time, at least around ww1. I’m still on the fence about shooting my low number nra Sporter.
Just get it checked out by a good gun smith.
I just bought one at a show thats a "low serial number" its a Rock Island, serial number 272×××. I've read and have been told that after serial number 260,000 at RIA some receivers were double heat treated and some were eyeballed. So... idk really. Mine has a 1940 replacement barrel and it was used in the marine corps. It has marine corps markings. It was used in the meantime by the gentlmen I boyght it from. He told me he had shot it and emjoyed it in his time. He knew as I did that it was a low serial but since he's still alive and well that its probably fine. Also I've seen and been told by many, many guys that they have low serial numbered 1903s and they work just fine. So again.... who knows, as you say. I'm going to be testing firing it 1st with a string just to see what it does. Will be using commercial ppu 30-06. if everything turns out fine then I'll shoot it at my leisure. But not all the time, ammo's still expensive!😅
Best of luck and I hope she shoots well!
@@TheRedneckPreppy it shot really well actually! I was really impressed😁
@@Nick_792 Awesome!
I just found a low serial 1903 that according to internet research the receiver was made in 1918, but the barrel has a 5-08 date with the SA and flaming bomb. Very interesting, a WWI receiver but a pre WWI barrel??? Im preplexed on that.
That is an odd one, ha ha. I'd love to know how that worked out.
Possible rebuild post WWI? The stock is a Scant stock, those were used in rebuilds WWII. So the rifle was rebuilt sometime. Now is it safe to shoot is the question
@@stevenh.390 That's my guess as well -- as far as I know there were never issues with the barrels and if you got them lying around, why not use them?
As for its safety -- get ye to a gunsmith, ha ha.
@@TheRedneckPreppy the receiver starts with 789, right before SA started the double heat. Im definitely going to have a Smith look it over.
If you gun was made in 1918 the receiver number would be over 800,000.
I put about about 100 rounds through mine before I even knew about the low serial number controversy. According to “The Model 1903 Springfield” by Joe Poyer, anything below 800,000 should be considered low numbered. Mine is literally 100 digits below the 800k mark. In the book it notes that those found acceptable were marked with one or more punch marks on the bottom of the receiver. Those that were not, were withdrawn from service and the receivers presumably destroyed. I haven’t taken it apart to search for these punch marks yet. It also has a WWII refurbished barrel so I wonder if they did any additional testing then.
I hadn't heard of those marks -- how did they determine if they were good to go?
@@TheRedneckPreppy No idea! In the whole 300 page book on the 1903, it spends only 2 pages going over low numbered receivers.
@@GarandGuy2553 That seems like something you'd want to address in at least one sentence, ha ha.
I'll have to check some other other books, but I thought most "low-SN" 1903s made it into USMC service, vs. being destroyed. ... I only avoided a low SN 1903 because they're prohibited in CMP matches. I would have no issue shooting reasonable handloads in one, personally.
@@cash3c I’m not sure really. According to the source mentioned above, they marked the safe ones and then destroyed the receivers they deemed bad. As an additional precaution they may have just re-issued the non destroyed but marked safe low # 1903’s to the Marine Corps.
I don't think you are properly describing the failure mechanism for the brittle 1903 receivers. They don't fatigue to failure over time with use. They fail catastrophically (literally the receiver breaks into large pieces) when there is high pressure/impact applied directly to the receiver. So hitting the receiver with hammer will do it, but the almost universal cause of the failures was an over-pressure event in the chamber that dumped high pressure gas into the receiver. There were significant problems with ammunition quality in WWI which made case head separation/failure more common and this was the likely origin of many of the field failures. Accidentally trying to fire 8mm Mauser ammunition would also cause an overpressure event and a case rupture and would lead to a shattered receiver. Hatcher (IIRC) lists both of these as documented causes of failure.
Modern commercially manufactured brass has an extremely low failure rate for case-head separation, so the risk of receiver failure using good modern ammunition is no higher than that failure rate.
Reloaded ammunition becomes more of a question. An overloaded cartridge is always a risk in any rifle, just more so here. There are ways to minimize case stretching for properly loaded ammo, but eventually all cases will be at risk for a head separation if reloaded too many times. Even using cast bullets and light loads may not be a fool-proof safety measure, but it probably offers the safest way to shoot a low-numbered rifle.
As a practical matter, I believe that the CMP has a flat out rule that they do not allow any low numbered 1903 rifles to be used in their sanctioned shooting events.
I could be wrong with how some of the failures to occur -- I assume, just based on lay person "knowledge", that you can stress the metal over time to the point that a failure is inevitable even without the scenario that you described. That said, I am not a metallurgist so I could be talking out my rear with that.
At any rate, great comment and much appreciated!
@@TheRedneckPreppy I am sure that over very long usage all receivers may fatigue to failure, but that number must be in the 100s of thousands of rounds. The improperly heat treated 1903s that didn't fail upon test firing with the original 70 psi proof cartridge are likely to survive that same 100K+ firings SO LONG as the high pressure stays in the chamber and the bolt thrust remains even. Their metallurgy was not stressed by such "normal" activities, it was primarily when a particular kind of overpressure failure happened that they could shatter.
Not my experience. Shot some 15 times at a deer and finally killed it. Couldn't figure out what happened. Went to the range and still couldn't figure out what was up until I grabbed it by the barrel. The barrel was loose and we found a crack in the receiver. The failure happened while I owned it. It went from fine to not fine. All rounds were factory. Didnt blow up, just cracked. Probably mid 1980's?
@@bryanturner683 you are a lucky man, but I think you are still describing the kind of brittle failure the overheated receivers evidenced. I am assuming you had fired nothing but known "good" ammo through the rifle before you noticed the accuracy disappear and then found the loose barrel and receiver crack. The majority of the reported failures were caused by overpressure events and not normal cartridge discharge.
Is it possible the barrel was replaced by the previous owner (or an arsenal) and the receiver was stressed by that operation?
@@kibbeystovall7546 No on someone installing a new barrel. We sporterized it or I should say my dad. Im sure it was related to improper hardening, it just didnt fail in a catastrophic manner. The gun shot fine at the range. I have no idea when it cracked just know that it cracked while we had it. I didnt reload at the time so everything we shot was factory. Mostly Remington but I recall my dad liked Norma ammo. Like you said, the majority were caused by overpressure , but not all???
Wonder if the Rockwell hardness method would work
Others have brought it up -- I would love to see results from known rifles to compare against others.
I’m surprised that wasn’t part of the testing method. We use it on engine parts. I assume it would work with steel receivers
Im currently looking at a Springfield 1903
684xxx the shop dated it to 1917. I want it really bad but I want a shooter.
@@thegobblerproject2363 If I recall correctly, the Rockwell test came after the rifles were manufactured. That said, they could have tested them after the fact.
And they did and removed rifles that came back for work, etc. (well, most branches did that -- I think it was the Marines that kept them in service until the end of the war). That's why a lot of them became drill rifles or destroyed.
I don't know what test they used though.
@@thegobblerproject2363 Let your conscience be your guide :-)
Depends on if the bolt was sent back to be case hardened. Some were and some were not. During WWl when some started having catastrophic failure in the field due to not handling the cup pressure of the 30-06sprg M2 ball round they started switching them out and most got sent back to have the bolt case hardened and inspected for damage incase a new bolt would need fitted to the reciever
So, what I'm hearing is my 4 digit ser.# , HS 11-44 barreled 1903 is unshootable. Damn.
That's a judgment only you can make and agreement isn't universal. I just err on the side caution.