I only had a minute to check this one out. 1903 Springfield from Springfield Army, stock cut but metal is unmolested, 1942 barrel, 1914 manufacture.

It is under the magic number for “low number” Springfields, some of which had suspect heat-treating. Out of about a million, 90 or so cracked the receiver during firing.

I figure if this thing was gonna crack, it would have done so by now, and if Uncle Sugar was that worried about it he wouldn’t have rebarreled it for the 1941-1945 festivities.

I actually kind of like the stock the way it is, but I’ll probably look around for a correct one, so the cool kids will talk to me.

I haven’t bought it, but I’m considering it. I have a 1924 1903 already, but I could always use another.

Thoughts?

Attached Images

	IMG_6045.jpg (19.8 KB, 218 views)
	IMG_6047.jpg (31.2 KB, 143 views)
	IMG_6046.jpg (32.2 KB, 121 views)

__________________
Rule of law, not a man.

If I had spotted it at that price, I would have grabbed it.

__________________
Paul
Salome, AZ

If it feels good do it!

__________________
14 S&W Revs none with locks!

Well, heck ya!

I haven't read either of these sources recently, "Hatcher's Notebook" and "The Springfield 1903 Rifles" by Brophy. There were some very tragic accidents with the low number Springfield receivers coming apart.

They would likely be safe for low pressure cast bullet loads, but I'd use only a Springfield with a receiver number above 800,000 even for mild loads.

I won't own one if I can't shoot it. With THAT SN I wouldn't shoot it. IMHO the price is too high for a wallhanger.

A number of the blown up low number 1903's were grenaded by defective over pressure GI ammo produced by Winchester for WWI. While the risks of metal failure isn't a given in low number SC and Springfields, there still are high number guns of both readily available.

Uncle Sam kept a fair stock of low numbered rifles put back for emergency wartime use. I would imagine the theory was a gun that might be unsafe was better than no gun at all in an emergency.

If I were to buy the mentioned rifle, I would only shoot low pressure handloads through it.

I don’t handload, and I don’t buy guns I can’t shoot. If I get it, I’ll be banging away with Wal Mart .30/06 ammo.

I’ll give it a good lookover tomorrow. My inclination now is that 90 guns out of a million is pretty good odds.

__________________
Rule of law, not a man.

I’d buy it and shoot it. Exc price.


Smith-Corona and Remington made 03A3’s, RIA and REM made the other 03’s.

__________________
I’m your Boogie Man, uh huh.

Yes and no. The price is too high.

No doubt there were a fair number of low number rifles that served well in military units with no failures and continued their lives in civilian hands. I think I've read somewhere (can't cite a verified source) that the Marines did not turn in their low number rifles.

Who knows if this rifle was rebarreled by the military or by someone else.
So, you might be perfectly OK to shoot the one you are considering.

I wouldn't be inclined to pursue this one, but go for it if it appeals to you.

Based on the 14 mfg date the correct barrel and stock will cost you as much and most likely more than their asking price. But , hey its your $$$ so go for it if you want it.

I would be very tempted to buy it and convert it to 22 LR or 22 Hornet.

Kevin

__________________
Unshared knowledge is wasted.

I have a low #03 that was also made in 1914 and rebarrelled with a later dated (I think 1924) SPG barrel. I figured that if it was fired enough to require a new barrel, it must have been shot a lot. 1914 dated SPG's are in a group of years where the failure rate is very low or non existent. Also, some of the failures were attributed to gi's putting 8mm mauser ammo in them and pulling the trigger. that would be catastrophic.

__________________
Ken

Julian Hatcher investigated the accidents with the Low Number Springifelds, found (IIRC) only 2 production years with bad ones-long before WWI, the story that the problems were the result of hiring new and inexperienced
workers is just that-a story.

The Army did not consider the problem to be severe enough to pull the early '03s out of service. Most of the blame is placed on the ammunition, not the guns. You mention Hatcher's Notebook. In it he discusses the situation thoroughly, along with investigative details of many of the failures. I have one in the low 6xx,xxx range, and have fired it extensively with GI Ball ammo with no concern about failure. Once had a friend with a very early '03, I think it was from around 1907, no issues with it either.

I'd put $400 cash on the counter just to see what they say. $450 OTD is about all I'd willingly pay - especially having to source the stock.

__________________
Thread Killer.

That's a good approach. If rejected, up to you to proceed or not.

Buying guns, the process, is fun. I like the back and forth.

I think I'd pass on it unless they reduced the price significantly and you just want it.

You don't show the entire rifle in the one pic, but I suspect that 24" barrel looks disproportionate for the stock. Most of those that were sporterized had the barrels shortened or replaced.

I don't think any money spent to "improve" it will ever be recouped. That said, if you want a project "just because", it's not a whole lot of money and it's your money.

Its a consignment gun. I doubt it will go below $500 until it sits there for a while. Its been there less than a week, but the shop is almost all black plastic stuff so it could be there for months.

I already have a really nice 1903. I think I’ll look at it tomorrow, see what the bottom line is and most likely let it sit. Maybe I’ll see something shiny to buy instead.

I appreciate all the input.

__________________
Rule of law, not a man.

The 03s were made by Springfield and Rock Island Armory. Both had receivers that had a single heat treatment process of the receiver that left them brittle and subject to cracking. The heat treat process was changed to a double heat treat that drew back the steel to a less brittle and tougher metal. The serial number of both manufacturers when this was done is well known. The problem is real and not an ammo or employee problem. Why buy one when there are lots of good milsurps to be had? Want the best and safest milsurp available? Buy a large ring 98 Mauser with a good bore.

Remington also made 03’s, here’s mine.

__________________
I’m your Boogie Man, uh huh.

I would only buy a low-number as a display item. This one does have a high-number bolt - the swept-back handle is the clue, IIRC. That would be some help if the action failed. The low-number bolts had the same defective heat treatment and were prone to failure that could badly injure or kill the shooter.

I’m in the camp of better to find a higher serial number/safe example. Where the stock’s been cut makes that decision a no-brainer, in my opinion.

If you’re concerned about the money aspect of things, you also have to think about when you go to sell the rifle down line, and what is going to be more attractive to the next buyer.

__________________
NRA Life Member

Most potential buyers will avoid the low number Springfields regardless of how cheap they are. Not easy guns to sell.

The Remington 03s were actually pre 03A3s made during WW2 and not original 03s made back in the WW1 time frame.

Never heard the Remington 03s called that before. To me, if the rifle has a barrel mounted rear sight, it's a plain old 1903 pattern. I'm not fussed where or when it was made.

__________________
Release the Kraken

Learned something new today. This article spells it out pretty well.

The Remington M1903 Rifles | An Official Journal Of The NRA

__________________
Rule of law, not a man.

Joe Poyer's book, "The Model 1903 Springfield Rifle and Its Variations" provides about every tiny detail you would ever want to know about all variations of the '03 Springfield, from beginning to end. Plus all accessory items for them, including a complete treatment of all bayonets and ammunition. It even discusses the Pedersen devices and .22 gallery versions. A necessity for anyone who wants to know the complete 1903 story. Poyer mentions the changes made in receiver heat treating during the WWI era, but does not say a great deal about it, aside from mentioning the receiver failure problem was attributed more to ammunition than to the receiver heat treatment used. Note that there were apparently few to no 1903 receiver failures recorded prior to WWI.

Remington was contracted by the Army to make more M1903 rifles well before it developed and produced the 03A3s. Ladder13's rifle is obviously one of them. Very desirable to us 03 nuts.

It would be a pass for me as well.

All the back and forth over Low# '03's aside (pick your side of the century old argument)...
But consider that todays OTC commercial (30-06) rifle ammo is loaded to higher PSI than what the cartridge was loaded by the Arsenals and Commercial loaders back during the Wars.
10k to nearly 15k psi higher today.
Add that to the chance risk of running it through one of the brittle recv'rs .

That's exactly what they are,,glass hard brittle in laymans terms ,, as they were case hardened but not in the sense of a true 'Case' of a few .000" deep hardened surface.
But instead the extreme hardened surface went much too deep and being from all directions on the part sometimes left little or no soft inner core to the part as was expected of a Case Hardened surfaces.

The 'Big Fix' of Double Heat Treating the recv's and Bolts was nothing more than doing the exact same process as before but with some better control(s) to temp and times in furnace.
Then a second heat treatment session of the part to draw some of that extreme hardeness/brittle nature out of it.
Draw it back a bit from being brittle hard but leave it still tough for wear and strength.

Once in a while one of the old L# 03's still gives it up.
A couple yrs ago a L# Rock Island rifle that had been built into a classic sporter back in the 20's by a very well known 'smith was being shot at a Vintage Rifle Match.
The rifle had been shot all those yrs after being built, still in 30-06. Several owners documenting the loads. The rifle could be traced by collecors and match shooters through all the yrs. Loads carefully listed, ect.
In the middle of a particular match, after firing a number of rds, mild cast bullet target rounds, the rifle just about disintegrated.
The shooter suffered some injuries. The recv'r blew into small shards of metal, stock shattered, ect.
No fault could be found in the load or loads. No defects, no reason to list as a possible fault other than the low#.

In a very LGS I once work in, we had a shattered into pieces Low# 03 glued to a display board anging on the wall.
A souvenier of the gun range out back from the late 60's when someone fired it with surplus ammo and it let go.
That ammo was likely $1 /per 100rd at the time and rifle sold for $25.

As many pieces as possible were recovered and made a display of. The shooter un-hurt I was told.

If the Low# 03 is glass hard on the surface (recv'r) I wouldn't shoot it at all,,even light loads. As some 'light loads generate psi in 20K+ range and that's plenty to blow apart a brittle chunk steel.
There isn't much at all to a bolt rifle recv'r as far as thickness and mass.

IF the 03 is soft enough to cut with a file, I will shoot it and have done so. I still have a Sedgley Sporter L# '03 I shoot regularly. But still with cast loads.

They (Low# 03's) were orig CAse HArdened, so they were orig HARD and a file will not bite into them.
If I can cut them with a common sharp fine file, they have been annealed or drawn back and I do not have fear of them to shatter.
Sedgley routinely did this (annealed) to the thousands of L# 03 recvr's they bought as surplus/scrap from Unc'a Sam and built sporters on them.
But that's just my take on it all.,,and my fingers and noggin'.
I sometimes still shoot damascus bbl'd shotguns w/smokeless loads as well.

If you don't want to deal with any of this, just get a High#/Nickel Steel 1903, or a WW2 era Remington 1903 rifle and save yourself all this worry
and concern.

An old family friend had 2 consecutive numbered '03s. Four digit serial #s. Never shot them due to the heat treating issues. He was a USMC vet, Guadalcanal and Iwo Jima. His son has them now.

__________________
No baby we aint

Remington 1903's were made in 1942. Serial range 3000001-3348085

Remington 1903A3's also began in 1942 with serial ranges:

3348086-3607999
3708000-4707999
4992001-5784000

Remington made 1903A4's in 1943 with serial ranges:

3407088-3427087
4992001-4997045
Z4000000-Z4002920

Total production: 1,084,079

The rifle in question has been bubba-fied. We know bubba likes to shoot his latest latest creation. So, it's been shot. If there are any issues, they'd have shown up by now.

__________________
Thread Killer.

I've owned several dozen 1903, 1903A3 and 1903A4 rifles over the years...down to only a few now. Finding a genuine, unaltered 1903 is difficult due to so most going through arsenal rebuild programs.

It's much easier to find a nice, original 1903A3 than a 1903 as fewer went through the arsenal rebuilds or those that did often didn't receive all the replacement of parts the '03s required. The '03A3...while a bit cruder...is actually a better combat rifle if for the sights alone.

I have what appears to be a correct...possibly original...Rock Island Arsenal made 1903 including a Rock Island bayonet. I've had it since the late '70s or early '80s. I also have an original 1903A1.

I used to own one of the very few 1903 rifles Hatcher had converted to .45 ACP in the early 1920s by the Springfield Armory. Selling that covered a year's college tuition for my daughter so I don't regret letting it go.

The 1903 rifles are a fantastic collector item...a collector's dream as there were far more variations than most know of.

There was an article in one of the early issues of\ "Rifle" Magazine where they looked into this somewhat. The took several 03 actions (low number and high number) and literally whacked them with a screwdriver handle. No high number ones failed but with the low numbers the results ranged from a cracked receiver rail to actually breaking.

I won't use a low number one; there is no good way to tell if it's safe or not.

__________________
Sceva
OGCA SWCA NRA

I recall the article and probably have it in my stash of RIFLE magazines. Seems like some of the receivers broke almost as if they were glass.

Enfields are also more varied than most realize. There are different factories, build standards, and oddities like prototypes rebuilt into issue guns. See here. WWII Unicorn rifle

That said, for real variety, the Mosin Nagant takes the cake, although I suppose you could say the same for all those contract Mausers out there.

__________________
Release the Kraken

This is a summary of information regarding the low SN M1903 rifles. Interesting that there are no known reports of Springfield rifle receiver failures prior to WWI. Information On M1903 Receiver Failures

The WW2 Remington 03s were never officially designated as pre 03A3s. Just my label from the position of looking backwards in time of the development of the 03A3s.

The early WWII Remington 1903 rifles were just that...1903 rifles...the same as Rock Island and Springfield Armory. They were made on Rock Island tooling that had been stored and was not in good physical condition.

At a certain point the Remington made rifles took some approved shortcuts and were referred to as 1903 (Modified) rifles. Once more approved shortcuts were made the rifles became the 1903A3 rifle and made by both Remington and Smith-Corona. I own examples of both and consider the Smith-Corona rifles better in many respects.

Always post this pic when this subject comes up, bought this blowed up 03 at Nashville flea market years ago for $50, barrel date was SA 09

Attached Images

IMG_2983.jpg (55.3 KB, 48 views)

But there is no way to tell what the cause was.

Is the manufacturer's name still on it as well as serial number? That looks like a casting rather than a forging. Post-WWII there were several companies making cast receivers and assembled with surplus GI parts and were not as strong as originals.

When the L# Springfields were casehardened too deeply and made brittle, and because of that 'letgo',,the insides of the broken metal in the recv'rs looks for all the world to many like a casting.
Rough coarse grain, sometimes a shine to it, sometimes not.

Looks can't tell you the whole story.

But if you take one of these rifles that has been destroyed in this manner, and seemingly has no other reason for unwinding than it it being one of the 'Low# Springfields),,give a simple hardness test to those inside surfaces now exposed.

If the rifle recv'r had been casehardened correctly , the depth of the actual 'Case' (surface hardening) should only be a few .000" Less than .010"

Every Pre 98 MAuser & 98 MAuser recv'r made WW2 and before no matter the factory was HT'd the same way.
All LowCarbon Steel.
Some cracked, yes especially through the thumb cut. but very few.
Some 'set back' in the locking lugs from being too soft. But they didn't crack recv'r rings and blow the rails and ring off of the recv'r.
The soft inner core of the CAseHArded piece made for a strong & safe assembly. Not a overly hard and brittle piece like solid glass or ice.
No disintegrations that I've heard of.

No issues with the US Krag. Same HT by the same people in the same Spfl'd facility using the same steel.
Yes, it's only a 40K psi cartridge. The 30-06 in WW1 was a 46k I believe.
So a L#03 is safe with 40K psi ammo?,,No IMHO if the HT is bad.


The L# are of low carbon steel and will not through harden no matter how hot they are heated and what they are quenched in.
But, if you Case Harden then too deeply, then you have the problem for the brittle case structure which builds from all sides duing the process making the soft inner core less and less existant.
Locking shoulder/lugs can be glass hard nearly all the way through. The recv'r ring can be hardened all the way though.
Not good at all.
A big piece of very brittle steel is what you now have.

Ever worked with case hardened stuff, that you have actually case hardened?
How about worked over L3 03's and seen how deep some are case hardened while others seem to have little and some NO case at all.

They are all over the place in their HT.'ment.

A soft core reciever is safe in my estimation.
A slightly soft surface even better.
I still won't push either with OTC loads of today.

If you cannot figure out how to find out which is which, then hang the thing on the wall and stare at it with thoughts of Doughboys and Sgt York's 1917.

There was an article written years ago in one of the gun magazines where the author removed the barreled action from the stock of a low-numbered Springfield. Holding the barreled action close to the muzzle, he proceeded to break the action into small pieces using a wooden mallet.

The procedure of shattering a L# 03 springfield action with little more than mallet or tool handle strikes has been done over and over.
I just keeps demonstrating that SOME of these were case hardened much too deeply and created a piece of brittle hard steel with little soft core remaining to resist shock.
They should have been skin deep case hardened with the soft core of the orig low carbon steel remaining unchanged.

Which ones are and which ones are not is the gamble if you don't know how to check for it.
Then the next step, if you don't know how to or trust yourself or someone else to reduce the brittle feature to a safe level of toughness/wearability vs the orig dangerous very deep glass hard brittle structure that some exhibit.

I am interpreting your last comment to mean something can be done to fix the low numbered receivers. Is that so? Where could I find info on that? I don't have one, but I'm just interested. I remember an article I read years ago about the Spanish state arsenal (Oviedo?) re-doing the heat-treating on old 7mm small ring Mausers they were converting to 8mm in the 30s.

I've got a Remington 03 circa 1942 and a Smith/Corona 1903A3. Both are great shooters and I've taken deer with each. My brother bought a low number 1903 almost 60 years ago for $50.00. He shoots it at least once a year with whatever he has laying around and has never had any problems with it. When I was a teenager and just getting into deer hunting (I'm 76 now) many of the club members were WWII and Korea vets. There were a lot of 1903's taking deer, most with open sights. Some had M1 carbines. I took my first deer with a Winchester M1 carbine that my uncle brought back from Normandy. My first cousin once removed still has it, and no, he won't sell it to me.