“Low number” Springfield 1903

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.
 
Last edited:
Remington also made 03’s, here’s mine.


IMG-2115.jpg
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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.

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

It would be a pass for me as well.
 
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.

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

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
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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.

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.
 
Last edited:
.

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

Enfields are also more varied than most realize. There are different factories, build standards, and oddities like prototypes rebuilt into issue guns. See here. https://smith-wessonforum.com/firea...519-wwii-unicorn-rifle.html?highlight=unicorn

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.
 
Back
Top