Low serial number Springfield

I have come into possession of a US Springfield Armory Model 1903 with serial #685XXX. On the barrel by the front sight are the letters RA, below which is a flaming bomb and under that is the date 1-42. The wrist is straight with no pistol grip. I see cartouche marks of SA. On the top of the butt stock is the number 1087. I have been told that in Springfields with serial numbers under 800,000 the heat treatment was improper and asa result I should never shoot this weapon. Can anyone tell me where to find out about this issue and where to find out about this particular rifle? According to one of the serial number stickies on the site, this piece was made in 1917. Any guidance is greatly appreciated.

An RA barrel on a low number is unusual. I need to think about that. Most guys do not shoot low numbers Springfields. However, some guys do! This is a hot button issue. Good luck with this one.

I will make an effort to post pics tomorrow. I'm hopeful that will help in that regard. Thanks.

I had 239027 with a 1918 barrel and I shot it regularly. No ill effects. Finally sold it to a collector.

Thanks for telling me that, browningautorifle. I wanted to put up some pictures but my camera does not take a satisfactory close up. I read somewhere that one of the issues with the low-numbered Springfields "blowing up" in the shooter's face was that the loads were heavier than the standard military load. How that was determined I do not know.






Regards,

Mike

Springfield Armory M1903's with serial numbers generally under 800,000 were all manufactured using a technique described as a Single Heat Treatment (SHT). (NB: The same technique was used at Rock Island with a slightly higher incidence of problems but of course with a separate range of serial numbers.) While the basic SHT process was adequate in a small percentage of cases the receiver steel was "burned". This resulted in a receiver that was outwardly OK and could very well provide good service for years until it 1. spontaneously let go or 2. some other factor such as a bad cartridge case released gas into the reciever ring; the wrong ammunition was used (8mm Mauser in several cases).

During WW1 Ordnance addressed the problem by changing the manufacturing process to a Double Heat Treatment (DHT) process which resulted in a receiver with a substantially higher margin of safety. These changes were introduced about s/n 800,000 and is what accounts for the general guidance cited in your original post. Ordnance also went to private industry and fulfilled most of the WW1 rifle requirements with the M1917 (which used a nickle steel receiver).

During the 20's Ordnance studied the issue of the low numbered receivers in detail. Keep in mind every rifle that made it to the field had been subjected to an over pressure proof test followed by a function test. I don't know what percentage of low numbered rifles were destroyed in testing. But reading between the lines in Hatcher presumably some of them were. In the final analysis Ordnance concluded there was no pracitical or cost effective way to 1. Identify the rifles with "burned" receivers and 2. re-heat treat low numbered rifles generally. So the decision was made to retain the low numbered rifles as a war reserve and scrap low numbered receivers when the rifles came in for repair or rebuild. From that point the so called low-numbered rifles (SHT) were lumped together and considered unsafet to shoot.

If you are interested in more detail on the subject "Hatcher's Notebook" by Major General Julian Hatcher, Stackpole is an excellent source as the author was personnaly involved in many of the issues. There is pertinent information in several different sections of the book including summaries of all of the accident reports up to 1929.

I hope this helps. Its kind of a thumbnail explanation and there is a lot more to the story.

As was mentioned earlier somefolks will shoot and have shot their low-numbered rifles with out problems. Their rifles may be Ok or they may have been lucky and never had a cartridge case let go, get a few too many grains of powder in a reload or what ever. When it comes to giving advice to someone else most of us err on the side of caution and recommend against shooting these veterans.

Regards,

Jim

to add what has been posted,
its really not that the the low numbered Recivers will just fail out of the blue...its how they handle a failure...
on a failure they tended to shater like glass, the post 800,000 SA,s would peal away like a banana peal, so they both can fail. they just handle the failure in a different way.
i dont tell anyone to ever shoot a SHT 1903...but if you do,,, only shoot modern factory ammo, and wear safety glasses, and gloves if you do.

Thanks everyone. While this particular rifle is in very nice condition I'm going to pass on shooting it. It came to me at no cost and has just become a great wall hanger. I do believe, however, that I am going to find one that is safe to shoot. They seem to have an elegance all their own. :(



Regards,

Mike

Did anyone ever do the stats on how many receivers failed in combat in WW1? It would seem that probably most of the '03s used by the AEF were low numbered. And wasn't wartime ammo a factor as well?

Chuck and Jim, I'm not sure what you're trying to tell me. I didn't say shoot anything, just that I shot mine. I never even heard of exploding receivers until the last five or so years. All the 03 owners I knew shot their rifles. So, how many blow up each year? What's the basis for this fear mongering? I would suspect the guns that were going to give up have already. Putting an 8mm Mauser cartridge in an '06 is using your equipment wrong. That can't be counted.

I knew what you folks were going to say when I posted, all I said was I did it with NO problems. Are you telling me I'm wrong...I did have problems?

no attack at all Jim.
pick up a copy of Hatchers notebook...its an eye opener.
i too shoot my low number RIA, however as a gunsmith, i dont receomend anyone shoot a low number 1903. even the ones that have been reproofed during rebuild.

Gents, I had no intent to start any arguments. This topic has obviously been aired before. Bottom line here is I was looking for information about shooting the low-numbered SA 1903, and I have been given it, freely and with great detail. While I understand that some will choose to shoot theirs, some won't, and I do believe that a gunsmith, of all people, would be close to negligent if he knew about the issue and then told people to go ahead and shoot. I love these weapons but I also love all my parts and for me, it's not worth taking a chance. That's all.

Let's not get our danders up. Please.

Regards,

Mike

In this litigation crazy world we live in not many folks are going to say it's alright to shoot a low-numbered rifle.

Hatcher is a start but no where near the final word IMO. If you wish to educate yourself about them start by learning why all the 1917's blew up. Next read what the man who did the actual hands-on investigation at Springfield (it was not Hatcher) had to say.

A couple years ago I undertake several test of five (5) low-number rifles, both SA and RI, using Arsenal AP cut in back so the cases failed as well as a couple of 8mm Mausers for good measure. I posted the info and got more hate mail than President Obama. I removed my test information and pictures and have no plan to redo them.

Attachment 14461i personally know of 1917,s that had over sized chambers, in the last year, iv seen 3 that had failed..though all were sporterized hunting rifles. all had the original barrels, and were shot with factory loads,
however, all the receivers were fine..most blew the floorplate down, broke the stocks, and blew the extractors off. i repaired one, and saved the headspace...
i had to set the shoukder back 2 turns to get the headspace back, notice the line from the over sized chamber.

At the same time many of the low-number rifles were letting go so was the 1917. I've never found the total but would not be surprised if it surpassed the 1903's. I'm out of here, before the lynch mob arrives. :runaway:

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo.../07/1917-1.jpg

When I was a kid growing up in Honolulu I used to shop at the "Wigwam" Store. They had piles of $9.99 rifles. They had a gunsmith there who would buy Low Numbers for $29.99 mail order. He would convert them to .308 Norma Mag and sell them to local Hawaiians. I saw many of them in the store and at the rifle range. Yes, I said Low Number '03's. I have never heard of one failing, but you just never know about them.

great picture...if you look close, the receiver did what was supposed to do, peal away...not shatter...id bet someone forced that bolt up..the 17 is made to lock the bolt down in a failure,
any rifle can fail, even the new made modern rifles have failures....its all in how they handle them.
leave a dirt clod in the muzzle. grease up a bullet..leave a cleaning patch in the bore...things will happen..
load 40 grains of pistol powder see what happens...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LeagleEagle

Did anyone ever do the stats on how many receivers failed in combat in WW1? It would seem that probably most of the '03s used by the AEF were low numbered. And wasn't wartime ammo a factor as well?

---

When Hatcher kept records of the 1903 failures he only recorded those that he could document. As far as I know there were no records kept of rifle failures in France during WWI. If you go through Springfield Research Service records you will see accounts of receiver failures of early rifles before Hatcher started keeping records.
As chuck mentioned, any receiver can fail, but it was the single heat treatment 1903's that failed catastrophically when they did, turning into a hand grenade.
It is certainly up to each individual to decide whether or not to shoot their low number Springfield.