Safe or Not? Low Number Springfield M1903
Вставка
- Опубліковано 29 вер 2020
- Are low number Springfield M1903 rifles really unsafe to shoot? Do the receivers crack and explode? Find out here through my first-hand experience with a low number M1903.
Support the channel on Patreon - / highcaliberhistoryllc
Snag some HCH merch - teespring.com/stores/high-cal...
HCH patches & stickers - www.highcaliberhistory.com/store
Be sure to follow us:
Facebook - / highcaliberhistory
Instagram - / highcaliberhistoryllc
Twitter - / highcaliberhist
I personally fired a low number 1903 that actually blew up. Receiver shattered, stock split in two parts and the trigger assembly remained intact on the shattered rear receiver tang. Recovered bolt had the locking lugs sheered off at about a 30 degree angle. The other locatable parts were returned to the owner.
I received damage to my right eye (multiple particles of brass and steel entered my eye {still have 2 pieces of brass in my eye}), laceration of the trigger finger, back of the thumb and a 1/4" X 1/2" section of my nose was carved out. As I am aging, the 'divot' in the right side of my nose is deepening.
This failure occurred in 1968.
Yikes! Glad you're ok, relatively speaking. This is why I returned the one I had and didn't dare fire it. Sure, failure rates are low on ones without cracks, but it's not a risk I'm willing to take.
@@HighCaliberHistoryLLC kinda like being a little bit pregnant, right? 😂
Man your lucky!!! GOD BLESS
I just wanted to let you know this video saved me from a catastrophic incident with my low number Rock Island. Long story but after I watched this video I did an examination and found two cracks. One below the stock line and one on the inside of the receiver.
I can send you some photos of the cracks. Thank you very much for posting this video.
Oh wow! Thanks for watching and for letting me know! You can send photos to highcaliberhistory@gmail.com
I purchased a1903 that had been rebarreled to .308 win for next to nothing. It had been painted with some godawful brown sparkly paint, puffy kinda stuff. When the "bear poop" was removed from stock and receiver, I had the shock that the s/n was 206xx. The shock was like one had married LasVegas in a drunken stupor. After the shock had subsided, I borrowed a copy of Hatchers Notebook from a local gunsmith who adbised me to look at every angle of the issue and carefully monitoring could be a solution. A good friend offered to have it Magna-fluxed at his job, for free no less. The outcome was good, no cracks, voids and all indications of sound steel. I have used it, inspected it after every range session and use the lowest pressure load associated with the bullet used by brand, weight and profile. Does this mean I or anyone else can throw caution to the wind? No,but a careful approach to the problem and continued caution is mandatory. I was absolutely blessed by a good friend and the fact that I took the time and effort to get it right. This should apply to all firearms over 50 years old. I'm the end all or be all, just thought to share my experience. Btw, " Ol' Bear Poop" has couted for the demise of a lot of rockchucks and a few coyotes.
interesting, thanks for the story
Glad you enjoyed it.
Thanks so much for making this video. I've heard and read scary stories about low serial number Springfields for nearly 50 years, but this is the first time I was able to see a photo of one, and this was the very best and most detailed narrrative of how this problem came to be, and how it was solved.
Glad it was helpful! Thanks for watching!
I have a M1903 made by Rock Island Arsenal by checking the serial number made in 1918. Looks like it had a punch mark to check it's hardness I believe to the Rock Well hardness. But it was re-barrelled with a Springfield 1942 4 groove barrel which was common during WWII. The barrels are supposed to take 70,000 PSI at the chamber which far exceeds the M2 Ball ammo. It's still strong and no problems so far. I will only reload or shoot military specs and noting more which it was designed to do. The next problem was the manufacture of M1 Ball ammo from WWI. The cartridge base was thinner which caused over pressure and head case separations. Which Frankford Arsenal and Winchester to thicken the base of the 30-06 cartridge to improve the reliability and strengthen the service round from having stuck cases and ease of extraction during the 1920s after WWI.
They has 3 types that I know off 02 03 06 I did notice differant case base sizes
I have print I wish in can send you !
@@HDSME I am going to be using S&B, Federal Eagle, and Privi Partisan brass using Winchester 760 ball powder and Privi Partisan 150 grain FMJ. Like the M2 Ball.
This argument has gone on for decades. One school of thought is 'well, if it hasn't blown up yet, it isn't gonna.' That makes perfect sense, except it is false. There is no predicting when a brittle receiver will fail and there is no way to identify those receivers. Also, it didn't fail shooting what? Issue GI Ball? What if you now stick 180 or even 200 grain hunting ammo in your nicely sporterized low-number? I was collecting and shooting 1903s for a long time and my thought was very simple: there is no need to shoot a low-number when you also own a high-number. Also, for ME, snuggling my cheek up behind a potential grenade doesn't make for a fun afternoon on the range. No matter what, that little man is running around in the back of my mind yelling that the damn thing might blow up! You can find tons of guys online who dismiss the problem because they have low-numbers that they have shot for years with no problem. Those were MOST LIKELY the guns that DID get the proper heat treatment. Have a nice day, I'm not playing 1903 Roulette with my face and eyes.
That is definitely the safest thing to do. But did you know there were high number failures too?
@@clintlautner9542 That is true as well and a fact many people don't realize.
I have a Springfield 03 in the 377,000 range I’ve done a very in-depth inspection and didn’t notice a crack I’m hoping I got super lucky and found a low number that can still shoot.
63 rifles out if 1,000,000 rifles had an issue.
And after that issue, Springfield tested a bunch of low number rifles, exceeding the max pressure by 50%, 100% and 125%. Up to pressures of 125,000 psi, with no issues. They normally shoot around 50,000 psi.
So if you believe in that propaganda, that's on you. But if you actually do the research on your own and don't even take my word on it, you'll see that you're worried about 0.000065% chance that a 1903 will blow up.
I truly appreciate your video here. My own Springfield is a Remington-made (Apr 42) Model 1903 numbered 3,125,xxx, and from what I've been able to gather, was never issued. In fact, I don't believe it ever had a stock installed and was only proof fired. My close examination of the bore shows it to be as pristine as I've ever seen on a military rifle. At any rate, your video here reminded me of the old Krag-Jorgensen rifle I purchased about forty years ago. I was very leery of even thinking of firing it until I met a gunsmith who recommended a test called "magna-fluxing" in which the receiver was examined magnetically. No cracks or stress points were found, and I did fire the gun twenty times before finally retiring it to an honored place on the wall of my manacle. The biggest takeaway I got from your video here is that "just because one has never seen such-and-such is not an indication that it doesn't exist." That's a great warning more people should take to heart, and this lesson goes beyond just military weaponry. Thank you.
Thanks so much for watching!
Magnaflux testing is used for turbine blades for cracks. If it doesn’t find a crack with a competent tester, there isn’t one. It will find cracks that haven’t penetrated the surface.
The other option would a Vickers hardness test which is relatively cheap and simple (the equipment required costs between one to two thousand dollars).
Dye penetrant testing is another option - you soak the gun in dye, wipe it off and spray the gun with absorbent chalk. The equipment required costs about $50 to $100 and consists of four spray cans.
Good video. This is a subject that a lot of people get very defensive about.
There are a lot of other videos out there with titles like “Why it’s safe to shoot low number 1903s” and their reasoning usually boils down to “because I think it is”. These are usually accompanied by made up facts like “there is only a 1:100,000 or 1 in a million chance that something could go wrong” or “it’s all the ammo’s fault - all ammo is perfect now”.
First off, if 68 receivers out of 1,000,000 failed, your failure rate is 1 out of every 14,706 (somewhere around the murder rate of San Francisco). Now I do accept that rate estimate is probably too high for the surviving receivers given the lack of recorded failures in the past 80 years but I don’t see anyone else presenting evidence or anything that contradicts previous studies besides wishful thinking.
I don’t begrudge people who weigh the risks and decide to shoot theirs but I do dislike people saying “it’s just as safe as xxxx” when that’s not an accurate statement.
Honestly, your receiver could have been brittle or it could have had the “good” heat treatment but cracked because the design back then wasn’t as good as later rifles with regards to case support and gas venting. Good thing you recognized the issue before firing it!
A guy at my range had a milsurp blow up before I got there one day (don’t know what kind or if ammo was a factor) but it looked like a bloodbath! I don’t think the injuries were permanent but it’s pretty much dumb luck which way shrapnel will fly.
Thanks for watching and commenting. I certainly don't have the answers to everything. All I can do is comment on my own experiences and research!
@@HighCaliberHistoryLLC you'll like this (im at the 1:14 Mark BUT) it's important to note that a document at NARA was found that was from the army approving the reissue of low number 03's the documents dates to 1944, get in touch with archival research group they are the guys that found it.
@@jacksonthompson7099 I'll reach out to Andrew and see if he'll share the document. Thanks!
High Cal .. thanks for that.. My 03 came from the CMP and its a high number. I do use the 30-06 M1 grand ammo that out there too. I subed ya too. THANKS great video !!
Thanks for watching and for the sub!
The receiver has a Hatcher hole on the left side. They were installed on existing 1903 receivers in the 1930s during Depot rebuild.
It does indeed have the Hatcher Hole, but it's also undoubtedly cracked.
A rifle with a cracked receiver isn’t worthless - it has just become a parts donor (and may actually be worth more as parts than a functional rifle).
Yep, parts guns definitely have their place. Thanks for watching.
I guess I inherited something to look at only. Thanks for the info.
You bet
Great video. Bummer your rifle was messed up
The bigger bummer would have been it blowing up on me! LOL!
@@HighCaliberHistoryLLC yeah indeed. Lol. Thanks for all your hard work
@@kingpin7673 Thanks very much!
Thanks for your research. I been driving my self crazy trying to weed through all the info on line. I'm still lost for my bolt though. Trying to make sure it's safe.
I'm glad you found it helpful. Thanks for watching.
I own a 1903 Springfield built in 1918 that fall into the questionable serial number range. 66**66
The Rifle has a 20x Lyman Targetspot Scope( scope# 23*5)that is USMC marked
Beautiful C-Stock, NM Heavy Checking Buttplate
Barrel dated 10-42
I have had 20 years and have never fired it because of the Serial Numbers issue.
I printed an article years ago, that part of the problem was Gun Power measurement in the WW1 War time Production, over filled, Higher Pressures.
Thanks for watching.
If you're really concerned about it it might be a good idea to just shoot lower-powered ammo like Hornady custom light
Interesting vid! That's honestly really interesting to see a actual cracked receiver! The Gewehr 88 commission rifle was also know to pop and M1917 enfield rifles started having issues with cracked receiver rings when going in for rebarrels along with barrels trying to banana peel at the receiver ring due to poor steel quality, i've seen a gewehr 98 action before with a cracked receiver ring as well. I noticed a Hatcher hole on that receiver, do you remember if it's a marine rebuild rifle? The hatcher hole was designed to fix that issue but ya don't need a case failure to make a receiver crack poor quality ammo will do that or a rifle being in a fire or overloaded ammo.
If I remember correctly, the gun was *not* a USMC rebuild.
@@HighCaliberHistoryLLC gotcha man, i wonder where it is today would be really interesting at least for me to see it in person. Ya earned a new subscriber!
@@jacksonthompson7099 As far as I know, the gun was returned to its owner, who lives somewhere in Virginia. Also, thanks for subscribing!
@@HighCaliberHistoryLLC no problem man, hopefully the owner has kept it for historical reasons i would be stoked to have a defective piece like that since it is a actual example of a problem that popped up over 100 years ago.
@@jacksonthompson7099 Yeah, if money was of no concern, I'd have kept it and bought another to shoot. But, life is full of tough gun choices.
I have both a low number Springfield and Rock Island 03. I got them for my collection. They are part of American military history. While I have shot them from time to time I don't make a habit of it. I don't want to destroy them or injure myself. I have both an 03 and 03A3 that I do shoot, neither of these are low number receivers. I also have a 1917 Eddystone Enfield. Those are the rifles that tended to have their receiver's cracked when re barreled. Mine has a 1942 Johnson Automatics barrel. The receiver has no cracks. I also have both a Remington and Winchester 1917. Both of these have their original 1918 barrels. The bottom line is heat treatment techniques have changed in 120 years. 95% of these rifles will live forever if taken care of. The other 5% can be destroyed and cause serious injuries or death. Why roll the dice over this. Shooting is supposed to be a fun hobby.
my 27K looks fine. do they magnaflux gun barrels to check for cracks?
I have seen a number of low numbered 1903s that were rearsenaled during WW2 with barrels dated 43 or 44. Do you know if the receivers were somehow checked and then reused?
A small number received a double heat treatment, but most did not. It is my opinion that the ones that have WWII era barrels on them were done simply because of the need for weapons - ANY weapons - was outpacing any potential safety issues.
The only low serial number rifle I’ve shot is my 1913 rock island that has a WW2 1942 replacement barrel I figured if it had to have a replacement barrel it must have shot out it’s old one and therefore be safe and it was
Could have been shot out, or just part of a standard arsenal overhaul.
Two things. Julian Hatcher was not in charge of finding out the issue with the M1903s, nor was it ever a fault with the heat treating. It's unfortunate that most of the information on this subject comes from Hatcher's Notebook, but most of what is stated is just information that he compiled and not everything he compiled was that good.
The actual problem, what was being "eye balled" by the workers, was the forging temperature. That is done at much higher temperatures. You can't "burn" steel at heat treating temperatures, nor could you "eye ball" it since the receivers were inside of clay pots mixed with bone and charcoal. The change to the heat treating process was more of Springfield not exactly knowing what was going on and just trying something. This is also why we don't have an accurate serial number cutoff for Springfield. Either way, the change to the heat treating method was more coincidental.
In clay pots with bone and charcoal? REALLY? And you say YOU know more then Hatcher? Clay pots with bone and charcoal is for color case hardening and was not used on 03 rufles
@@kirkstinson7316 Brophy's book on the M1903 lists how the heat treating is done on single and double heat receivers. Single heat treat receivers were case hardened.
Subscribed! I have a low # I got about 4 years back and I've shot it a couple times before I knew about the controversy. It's a Springfield that is 100 numbers below the 800,000 serial number range that is recommend. Mine was also WWII refurbished and dated to about November 1918. Could it be okay to shoot? Probably but haven't shot it since. A couple months ago I was browsing a gun shop in Upperville, Virginia and came across a low SN 1903 that was on the rack. The owner said the person they sold it to had noticed a crack in the receiver and brought it back. I inspected it and sure enough it had a cracked receiver. That was the first time I had seen one in-person myself.
Holy cow! That's the gun! I'm the guy they sold it to and brought it back!
@@HighCaliberHistoryLLC Small world, eh? I assume no one would really want it now unless a collector would use it as an example piece of a cracked receiver. They had it with a big warning label not to fire but the price tag was still kinda high. Did you ask them who the previous owners were and if they noticed the crack? I wonder why it hadn’t been documented previously when passed from owner to owner.
@@GarandGuy2553 Small world, indeed! I was told the gun was on consignment and that I was the first person to notice the cracks. I was told that they would be returning it to the owner because they couldn't sell a cracked gun in good conscience. Apparently that evolved into selling it with a warning label. Also, I'd be surprised if they even discounted the price at all from what I paid.
@@HighCaliberHistoryLLC Yeah, I think the tag was close to 750 I believe. Someone will find use for it and I’d even suggest to them putting the firing pin the butt so no one accidentally hurts themselves. Are you based in the area?
@@GarandGuy2553 Well then they came down about $150 or so. I used to live about 20 minutes from there for years and years, but moved out of state a little over a year ago.
What do you know about Sedgley Springfields? I think all of them were low numbered and were reheat treated and Sedgley claimed they made them safe to shoot. I have one that is a beautiful rifle. I have shot it and it shoots great but one wonders if they really are safe?
Hi! I just found a Springfield 1903 with serial number 807411. The reciever is stamped with it and I'm going to the gun store next week to check on it before I buy it. Do you think it would be safe to fire since it's 7411 above the "low serial" number? I'm planning on getting it with a hunting license to hunt boar, elk, etc. Also just having it in my collection is fine.
Thanks for the video aswell!
As long as it's above the number cutoff, then it's been properly heat treated and is safe.
You can Magnaflux the receiver to detect cracks and have an uncracked receiver properly heat treated.
Why would you do that just get a modern rifle
@@craigleibbrand7761 Just think of all the history that's happened since that rifle was built, where it's been and what the soldiers or Marines who carried it experienced.
You could reheat treat a rifle, that is correct. What isn't correct is that the heat treating was the problem. The problem occurred in the forging. No amount of heat treating will ever fix that and that is no way you can non destructively test to find one that was overheated in forging.
A. Gun shop has 1, don't know what the serial is- now i'm curious because I want one
Definitely worth taking a look!
Gun was probably worth a lot more with the crack. Probably should have kept it as a collector piece only
🗣Can someone please tell me the CUTOFF DATES for the M1903 from both Springfield and Rockisland?
I am headed to the local Gun Show this weekend. Thanks. SEMPER FI 🇺🇸🤠
Have a 1903 with a 4 digit serial number that I’m thinking about buying. I just wanna know if it will still be able to shoot.
You'll have to use your best judgement based on the gun's condition, etc.
Given the fact that a very low portion of the rifles actually shattered, I'd surmise that a very large portion of low numbered receivers that are still around, are probably the ones that were heat treated correctly, since they made it this far along without cracking. Hence, you found a needle in a haystack. Probably should have kept it just for a very rare example.
If I hadn't been in the market for a shooter, I'd have kept it. At that time, I couldn't afford to buy something I couldn't shoot. Today, though, I'd buy it in a heartbeat.
I own an ott-6 Springfield with a serial # well below the 500.000 mark. Also, I reload for it and use 46.2gr of Dupont 3031 powder 165gr projectiles. I've had one problem with it.
I chambered a round that was difficult to close the bolt on. I knew the pressure wasn't dangerously high, so, I touched it off and was pelted with fragments of something. (Wear your safety specs) Upon opening the bolt, I discovered the primer was GONE!! The primer pocket was much larger! Well, that was exciting! I don't know what happened, any thoughts on this, please advise.
According to the serial#, this rifle was built in 1911.
First off, I'm glad you're safe after that incident! Second: thanks for watching and commenting. Third, in answer to your question: I'm no reloading expert, so I can't say what happened, but I can say that if a round is ever difficult to chamber, then you shouldn't shoot it. Difficulty in closing the bolt is a sign of a problem, and it shouldn't just be forced into submission.
Did you get another low-number gun? Honestly unless I bought the gun specifically to be a shooter, the cracked receiver kinda makes it more interesting, as it is the living proof embodiment of the history in this video. I would have considered keeping it, or maybe asked for a partial refund since the gun wasn't safe to shoot.
I ended up getting an 03A3 because I wanted a shooter, not just a collectible. Honestly, if money were no object, I'd have kept it, but surplus stuff isn't getting any cheaper.
Traducir
How do I know if my rifle a 1930, 1903 is a A3 or a four
Your receiver will state what it is.
So, 1903 A3s (in good shape) would be considered "safe"?
Yes, this only applies to the M1903, not the M1903A3.
I have a 1903 made in 1930 no cracks and I have also a 1903 made in 1918 Mark one
Your gun from 1930 is good to go. The one from 1918 will depend on the serial number, but given that it's a Mark 1, my guess is that it's fine.
I have a Springfield 1903 mark1 made in 1918. It is a pederdson rifle and the serial #1115420 just wondering if it is ok or not. No visible cracks. What do you think excellent bore.
@@chrisengledowl6258 Your Mark 1 in the safe range.
My Rock Island 1903 produced in 1917. Serial number 250xxx. It was remarried with a High Standard barrel in 1944. I figure that if it was shot enough to justify rebarreling 27 years after original manufacturing, it should have failed long ago if it was going to. The government was not going to spend the money rebarrel a rifle if it didn't need it. So I have to ask how many shots did it take in that 27 years to just t if rebarreling and still no catastrophic failure plus how many shots from 1944 to now. I feel as safe shooting this rifle as I do any other in my collection.
Just curious why would you blur out any serial number on a firearm. And especially this one, I would want every viewer to be aware of this 03’s serial number just in case they happen to run into it they will remember this video and steer clear of that rifle. You never know what some scrupulous seller would do to cover up these cracks to to get a firearm sold. But back to the first sentence, I have never found any where, where someone was able to use a SN# to do whatever it is ,that guys that block them out, think people can do, lo, if that makes sense.
173935
@@HighCaliberHistoryLLC Do you happen to know what the gun shop did with it? In that kind of shape it would be probably best to destroy it sadly.
As of a couple months ago, it was still in the shop for sale, but now it has a big warning tag attached to it that mentions the cracks and that it cannot be shot.
That’s wild, they must have a little too much in it to toss it. I just bought a RIA 1903 manufactured in 1908. Still has original barrel and stock with nice cartouche and it’s a single screw stock (that’s reason enough not to shoot it) , over the years the stock has been cleaned up more than I would like. Beggars cant’t be choosers I guess. They are rare as hens teeth and prone to cracking, the stock that is. I pretty much just collect now a-days anyway because of my back and leg issues.
@@Flatline74 They don't have anything in it - it's there on consignment.
63 rifles out if 1,000,000 rifles had an issue.
And after that issue, Springfield tested a bunch of low number rifles, exceeding the max pressure by 50%, 100% and 125%. Up to pressures of 125,000 psi, with no issues. They normally shoot around 50,000 psi.
So if you believe in that propaganda, that's on you. But if you actually do the research on your own and don't even take my word on it, you'll see that you're worried about 0.000065% chance that a 1903 will blow up.
Believe what you want to believe
MasterDebater_Yoda.... I recently picked up a 1903 S.A. mfr. Serial # in the 172,000 range made in 1906. So it's definitely in that spectrum. But the date on the barrel is November 1918. So I'm guessing a new barrel was put in it as the original one must've been shot out. So I'm guessing had there been any issues it would have happened already right? My bore and rifle overall are in very nice shape. Q) would you be afraid to shoot it? Thank you
@@jonathanhudak2059I was in a similar situation as you. Low number Rock Island 1910. Rebarrelled with an Avis 2/18 date. Mine also has a N.S stamped bolt. I've had this rifle for over 20 years.
I had bought it before having any knowledge of the potential issues with the low numbered receivers.
I have recently found two cracks in my receiver. One below the stock line and one inside of the receiver. I have only shot Lake City M1 ball and reloads that reproduce the pressure of the M1.
I'm not saying don't shoot yours but there is no way to know.
Just because it appears to have been arsenal refurbished doesn't mean it was done by a qualified person/armorer.
It could have been done by some crack pot looking to make a quick buck.
There have been numerous companies over the course of the last 100 years that have bought military parts and had them reassembled and resold as original. It's still going on to this day.
I think that the percentage of failures is grossly inaccurate. I don't think the government would have gone through the steps of pulling rifles out of circulation if the failure rate was that low ESPECIALLY in the early 1900s. I also wouldn't trust the government to ensure all the receivers were destroyed and disposed of.
The bottom line is proceed at your own risk. I hope your rifle is safe and provides many more years of enjoyment for you.
@Odyssey_Weapon_Systems thanks for reaching out to me on this, much appreciated! 👍I wonder if yours developed the two cracks In the receiver as a result of you shooting it or could they have been there all along and you just noticed it? Interesting and you made some very good points on it being impossible to catch them all. Likeable friend of mine told me When I mentioned that the barrel had been replaced. So if anything would have happened by now I mentioned. But as he reminded me, the barrels weren't the problem. And the barrel wouldn't be the thing to let go it would be the receiver. And the only way you would notice the crack towards the stock line is if you completely disassembled the rifle, right?
Thank you again! 🙂👍
I usely say fack it but after this i ont bye or shoot a low number the numbers i knew were under 500 000 400 000 but ill take your advice
Glad you found the video helpful. Thanks for watching and commenting!
So far, this is just an anecdotal observation of one rifle. Wouldn't it be more scientific to actually take thid receiver and have it tested to determine its actual hardness. That would be much more interesting.
I didn't have a hardness test file set at the time to do that, but even if I did, it would have been a moot point because the receiver was clearly cracked. Thanks for watching, though, Michael! I really appreciate you checking out the video and commenting on it.
@@HighCaliberHistoryLLC yes its cracked, but can you say 100% that the almost 100 year old receiver could not have possibly cracked for some reason other then heat treatment issues. Other firearm receivers fracture for various reasons. I understand the history, but consider the opportunity to actually apply modern scientific forensic analysis and add to the body of technical knowledge about these receivers.
It's not fair to say that it's just one rifle. There's also the documented history of heat treatment issues in the literature (which Logan also provides here); we know that the faulty rifles weren't recalled per se, so a minority will still be out there.
@@skepticalbadger I'm not saying it's just that one rifle. I'm aware of the documentation. I'm also aware of documentation from Springfield Armory about GIs carelessly using 8mm in 03 rifles with disastrous results. It's very interesting to find a crackedexample. I'm just saying maybe its an opportunity to add something new to the decades old information.
The problem isn't the hardness, so a hardness test is of zero importance here. The process over-cooked the steel. Which essentially cooked the carbon out of the steel receivers and made them brittle like glass. Only way to test, is destructive to the part so kind of pointless to test working pieces. For example, there are documented cases where guys dropped them on the shop floor and the receiver shattered. That is the situation with an overcooked receiver. And why it's near impossible to "test" a given sample unit.
Why? The cracks are observable. What else needs to be said? They're antiques.
Yes, the cracks are observable on this one. They may be below the woodline on others. The bigger issue is that they're prone to cracking because of how they were made and their age - but they're not antiques, well, not legally anyway.
here's my low number in action Sprinfield:
ua-cam.com/video/At5yMW_XXUI/v-deo.html
Just shoot proper ball ammo, 150 grain, 2,700 fps.
I wouldn't shoot a low number gun, just to be safe. But if I were a betting man, I'd say this 1903 fell victim to a sloppy reloader.
How, oh How, in the name of historical research " and 1.5 million youtube views," did you not tie that rifle to a table, point a high-speed camera at it, and pull the trigger with a string from behind a barrier? The first ever opportunity to document what happens when a flawed low # 03 goes boom....and you take it back to the dealer? Dude......you blew it
Well, if I could have afforded to throw away the money I spent on the gun, then I would have done it. Alas, I didn't have money to - literally - blow.
@@HighCaliberHistoryLLC Damn, that's too bad. Everyone has heard of brittle 03 receivers, but I've never seen one till your video or know of anyone else who has. Wonder if a firearms museum such as the NRA museam or Cody or even the Springfield Armory museum would of paid a premium price for such a rare piece.
I worked for the NRA Museum for 5 years and I'm friends with the current and former curators at Cody. There's not an interest in them.
Forget the military rifles and get a modern rifle
You've missed the entire point of the video.