Printable View
New to the 03 world. I have read a lot about the low s/n range receivers blowing up. Without stirring up a firestorm, I would like you 03 experts to answer a simple question--Would you feel safe firing such a rifle that was in good condition with reduced loads? I am talking only about firing less than 20rds. per year if that.
Everyone has opinions, I would like to hear yours.
daveboy
You're going to get a LOT of opinions on this subject, so I'll start out with mine.
As I've said many times before, I'm not a member of the "Shoot a low numbered M1903 even once and you'll die"-school. Most low numbered M1903s are probably safe, especially with reduced loads. On the other hand, I'm not sure I'd like to be around one if something "bad" happens in the chamber, like a case separation. I agree with Bruce Canfield, who said in his '03 book that there is a small, but present chance of something bad happening. I choose not to shoot my low-numbered M1903s - I have several high numbered '03s I can use and just don't see the point.
I may be treading on thin ice, here, but it also seems to me that someone knowledgeable said that the type of powder you use in reloads is important, not just the "quantity". You might want to check that out, if you decide to go ahead.
The other side of the coin:
I find there no be no safety hazard with LN Springfields and fire them indiscriminately with ball ammo and handloads. I fire thousands of rounds a year as I have my own range. I believe these rifles to be safe with the load for which they were designed. Most LN Springfields have worn out multiple barrels, which is many thousands of rounds. I have experienced case head separations with no problems (too many reloadings), as the rifle diverted the gases as it was designed to do. I have never experienced a problem with the LN Springfield. I have blown up a 98 Mauser (overload) and my bestest friend blew up a Ruger 44 mag with an overload (I can still hear the pieces zingging through the air). If you fire weapons long enough, you will experience some sort of problem along the way. There is an inherent danger in the sport - period.
LN Springfields were made like most other rifles at the time. I do not know any standard of acceptance of a weapon as being successful as having them literally wear out barrels and numerous other parts and still be firing. They have outlasted the Shuttle in time of service.
Accept them for what they are, and if it makes you nervous, don't fire them. I might point out that you might also want to add MANY other rifles of that period and earlier that no one seems to hesitate to fire to that list.
I have never had a friend injuried in any way by a LN Springfield. I have had friends killed on motorcycles, car wrecks, airplane crashes, horses (an ex-girlfriend is a vegetable due to a horse rollover), had a friend killed trimming a tree, one killed roofing a house, a friend run over and killed by a police car, I was shot while playing pool for money, I had a high school buddy choke to death on a chicken leg, and I had a friend crippled for life playing high school football and another crippled when he fell off a fence backwards into a 55-gallon steel trash drum and broke his back. He was a bull rider waiting his turn in the chute. Go figure. Those who worry about LN Springfields must have little else to do.
Oh yes, I momentarily forgot all my classmates and close friends killed in RVN and my neighbor crushed by his Model T in his driveway when it rolled off the jack (his wife was watching from the kitchen window). By now you probably realize that I believe the relative risk of a LN Springfield to be so much lower than other probabilities of injury and death that I think I will take one out tomorrow and blast away at some paper targets. I have been firing a LN Springfield since I was a teenager, and I now qualify for Social Security; so if that bugger is going to fail and get me, it better hurry!
Oh yes, my only time in Intensive Care was when my then twelve-year old daughter's Arabian jumper kicked me in the chest. It was ungodly painful for weeks after I regained conciousness (when I opened my eyes, the horse had his muzzle in my face - he knew I was badly hurt and he wasn't going to leave me). I liked that horse and he died of old age in the pasture without ever kicking anyone again.
Your choice - watch TV or go make some loud noise with a LN Springfield!
Jim
I grew up in Hawaii and recall many years ago a Hawaiian gunsmith who would buy Low Number '03's mail order. He would sporterize these rifles by rechambering them into .308 Norma Mag. I spent many an afternoon at Koko Head Range and saw many of his sporters being shot. I never heard of one blowing up. I did manage to break a low number in half when I rebarreled one and used too much force with my receiver wrench.
As I understand the problem, the forge house at Springfield (RIA, also) would take the molten steel up to temperature by eye, using no pryometers to test the melted steel temperature. Let's say on many days they were perfectly correct. Well, you have a well made low number and it will be a very safe rifle. However, on many days they were wrong, so good luck to you. As luck may well be a necessary element.
Any rifle may fail, but the way the LN 1903's fail sets them apart.
Thanks for the replies so far.
As I understand it, Springfield and the Ordnance Dept. discovered early on that these rifles could be unsafe and changed the heat treatment technique at around SN 800K or so. But, if the Ordnance Dept. truly believed them to be unsafe why weren't these early rifles pulled from service?
Understandably we were at war (or soon would be), but during the years between WW1 and WW2 why didn't the Army pull them from service? When the Army demobilized after WW1 they had to have a huge surplus of rifles so wouldn't that have been a great time to make the problem go away?
Is it because the Army didn't truly buy that they were unsafe?
I'm sure that I am not the first person to be perplexed by this.
daveboy
Another way to state the problem is that some - not all - LN receivers are brittle due to being overheated during manufacture. When assembled, they were proof tested & accepted into service. They will work fine as long as they stay withinh their design limits. When thinks occur outside their design limits such as bore obstructions, the wrong ammunition or failure of a case or primer releaseing gas into the action, the receiver has no margin of strength & shatters. The later rifles, the so called High Number or Double Heat Treatment (vs. your Low Number or Single Heat Treatment rifle ) or even later Nickle Steel receivers is that the DHT & NS rifles can stand much, much more pressure (but are not indestructable.) Since there is no practical way to distiguish between a LN receiver that has been burned & one that has not, all are suspect.
the issue.
not that it will fail out of the blue.
its how the receiver handles a failure.
i shoot my SHT rifle, i dont recomend that anyone else do so, if you choose to do so, practice range safety, and dont shoot next to to other people that dont know whats going on...
Buy a copy of "Hatcher's Notebook" to get the complete story on the low number 03.
You can then make an informed decision on whether to shoot yours or not to shoot it.
Personally, I shoot mine once in a while.
Daveboy,They kept them because the military was a penny pinching out fit before WW11.They had LOTS of M1917 rifles,but didnt ever really like them,and got rid of them by giving them to any country that needed rifles.They keep the 03 because it was their rifle of choice.The brass was willing to risk the odd failure which might not cause harm.Ever see anyone with stars on their collar at the range?Me neither.A big part of the failure was bad WW1 brass.With good brass there may never be another Ln failure ever,but who knows?