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.
“Low number” Springfield 1903
- Thread starter sigp220.45
- Start date
SnidelyWhiplash
Member
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.
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.
Last edited:
DWalt
Member
But there is no way to tell what the cause was.
SnidelyWhiplash
Member
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.
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.
smoothshooter
Member
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 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.
charlie sherrill
Member
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.
pantannojack
US Veteran
I heard or read of a explanation for some receiver failures as the possibility that some GI's may have found 8mm ammo in the mud in the trenches and fired them in a low supply situation. That would cause a spike in pressure.
Heard a similar story, but this one had some of the first blow-ups happening on occupation force ranges where captured German weapons were fired alongside US ones. Some troops grabbed German 8mm ammo by mistake when reloading Springfields, and....
DWalt
Member
Hatcher's Notebook covers exactly that possibility in detail. In fact, it is likely that a significant number of '03 blowups reported have resulted from soldiers forcefully jamming 8mm ammunition into them and pulling the trigger. Note that there were no '03 blowups reported prior to WWI. And many simpleton WWI solders had no idea that there were any differences between American and German rifle ammunition. It is difficult to do that, but fools are often very ingenious.
I have always believed that the danger of firing low SN '03s is somewhat overstated. And remember that the U.S. Army never decreed that there was a blowup hazard serious enough to pull the early '03s out of service.
Last edited:
LVSteve
Member
The overall length of loaded 30-06 and 7.92x57 rounds is only 3 mm and the case diameters are essentially identical. I could imagine in the stress of combat and not being able to compare one with another that it is easy to mistake the German ammo for the correct stuff.
DWalt
Member
I have personally not tried that, but I imagine that squeezing an 8x57 cartridge into a .30-'06 chamber would take significant force to close the bolt and would probably result in pushing the 8mm bullet far down into its cartridge case. Hatcher also said that some WWI .30 GI cartridges were made with weak or thin brass resulting in case rupture/splits at the base. I have not seen any such .30 case ruptures, but I suppose that it could occur. However I have personally seen several M16A2 and M4 blowups due to cartridge case failure, one of which did severe damage to the upper receiver. Somewhere I have pictures of that destroyed upper, but no idea where they are, as it happened back in the late 2000s. We could never come up with a plausible reason that explained how it happened. And we studied that M16 rifle a lot.
BLACKHAWKNJ
Member
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2006
- Messages
- 6,155
- Reaction score
- 6,556
I recall the controversy over the problems with the M-16 in Vietnam 1966-1967, in 1940 or so there was adverse publicity and news coverage over the "7th round stoppage" with the M-1 Rifle, that was traced to a manufacturing shortcut. The stories about GIs trying to use 8MM Mauser ammo are new to me, though like all the GIs who tried to fire rifle grenades with ball ammo, I'm sure they occurred. If there had been serious problems with the M1903 there would have major investigations, Congressional hearings, etc. By late 1918 75% of the AEF was equipped with M1917s, not because of its superiority but because the 3 factories could produce them more rapidly. I have a 6 digit-600,000 s/n range M-1, made in May 1942, I have read the later war units usually got the newest equipment, it would be interesting to know when the number of M-1s in service exceeded the number of M1903s.
And how would that explain the receivers that have been broken by a little tap from a mallet? Amazing that people seem to want to deny the reality of the risk from firing low numbered Springfields. Forcing an 8mm ctg into a 30/06 chamber would require a considerable amount of force.
smoothshooter
Member
The barrels weren’t the issue. It was the actions.
Where the Sedgley Springfields were built using low-numbered surplus guns to convert to sporting rifles after one of world wars, they kept a large, heavy leather cowhide in the shop to lay over the barreled actions when proof testing to protect employees from flying chunks of action material when one failed. They reportedly swept up a lot of shattered action pieces off of the floor each month.
Last edited:
deadin
US Veteran
The one thing I don't understand is this thing about wanting to shoot a low numbered '03? There are plenty of later ones available........
SnidelyWhiplash
Member
There are photos out there of a 1903 or ‘03A3 that had mistakenly been fired with ball ammo. Yes…the soldier that did so was killed.
Similar threads
- Locked
