Printable View
Reading a Williams "How to Convert Military Rifles" Booklet it states that no M1903 made before 800,000 should be fired with any ammo reaching 50,000PSI due to the heat treatment of the receiver.
I ask because mine has been used as a sporter for a very long time and I assume using factory ammo with no apparent problems.
I like it is a WW I era rifle and would like to be able to shoot it even if with slightly reduced loads. While trying to restore it.
Well, Williams is wrong (as are many people) on one count, the big problem with the Low Number Receivers was not the heat treatment,,, it was the FORGING.
Hunk of steel heated, then forged into rough shape,,, then machined ,,, then heat treatment. Forging and heat treatment are not the same.
Improper heat control (eye balled) during forging, allowed temp to get too high, resulting in ’burnt steel’, a lot like the cast steel of that time, not good. Not all receivers were over heated during forging, but you can’t tell which is which and reheating did no good , Springfield tried but it did not help. The heat treatment of the Low Numbers was entirely adequate and not in itself dangerous, the later double heat treatment and nickel steels gave a wider margin of safety.
Heat treatment was done inside ovens and the receivers were not visible during the entire process.
Now,, as to your question… That is a thorny one, many say never, no how, no way and some use light loads (cast bullets I hope), some use full power loads and shoot them anyway. I will not shoot a Low Number because of the possibility of a loss of an irreplaceable rifle. Now yours is ‘sporter’? does that mean it has been drilled and taped for scope/sights, and bolt turned down?? If it has not been messed with too much (no extra holes) and you can return it to original I would suggest not shooting it. If it has extra holes, shoot it if you want but do use extra eye protection and heavy gloves and do not let people stand around you when you shoot. Do have some one near that can render medical aid if needed. Very unlikely you will need it,, but who knows.
Returning early M1903s to original can be very expensive, exceeding the monetary value of the rifle. But remember the rifle is yours, do what you want.
45B20
Well Crap No mine has not been drilled nor the bolt messed with. To the best of my knowledge the only thing mine has had changed is the shortening of the stock at the lower band and the loss of the forestock metal parts.
Always something wish I had known this before hand.
Does anyone know what rockwell hardness the receiver should be I could easily have it checked.
Sorry, you should read this CMP warning concerning "Low number Springfields"
M1903 and M1903A3 Rifles
D.
Dad
CMP is wrong in that the Double Heat Treat, did not correct the forging problem. Forging and heat treatment are two separate operations, done at different stages in the manufacturing process. To correct the forging problem Springfield installed more pyrometers and made the forgers use them.
It does no good to apply any type of heat treatment, double or single, to a receiver that as a results of over heating during forging has ’burnt steel’. As I said, Springfield tried it and it did not help.
CMP is certainly correct in the warning against the firing of Low Numbers. One of the arguments for shooting Low Numbers is that the ones with ’burnt steel’ have already failed, that is assuming they have been fired so many times that they would have failed by now. HOWEVER, how do you really know how many times a Low Number has been fired no mater how old it is. Shooting one is a crap shoot. It is the shooters choice.
45B20
Hey 45B20,:wave:
Yes I'm aware of the difference between forging and heat treatment.:thup: The control and monitoring of the heat to forge temperature is a vitally important quality control step in the manufacture of a forged part, since the integrity of the forging hangs on this operation being performed properly. The hot working (forging) operation is carried out in the austenitic temperature range for ferritic steels, where plastic deformation is performed above the recrystallization temperature. As the hot working (forging) temperature is increased, beyond the optimum range for the particular type of steel, severe crystal grain growth becomes a serious problem, affecting the mechanical properties of the finished forging. This condition is called "Overheating" and requires additional heat treatment steps to restore the desired mechanical properties of the forging. If the hot working temperature is increased further, grain boundary oxidation occurs. This condition is referred to as "Burning" and is irreversible:nono:. The mechanical properties of the steel forging are degraded, including ductility, tensile strength, yield strength and toughness. Forgings that are "Burned" during the heat to forge manufacturing process are only fit for the scrap heap. The fatigue strength of the steel is severely reduced too due to increased stress concentration sites, these are created by oxidized crystal grain boundaries at highly stressed surfaces.
Heat treating a "Burned" forging will not reverse the degradation of mechanical properties.:nono:. Steel is heat treated to alter it's physical and mechanical properties. Heat treatment is performed by subjecting the steel (or steel forging) to controlled heating and cooling. Heat treatment of forgings plays an important role in developing desired properties such as increasing toughness, strength, relieve internal stresses, etc.
The "Low Serial Number" S.A. and R.I.A. forgings were not subjected to close monitoring of the heat to forge temperature (eye balling color of forging was the norm!):yikes: and of course varied from operator to operator, time of day, season, etc. so some of the forgings were "Burned" and became brittle and subject to catastrophic failure if subjected to higher than normal forces or loads (sharp blows, cartridge failure, overloads, etc). The "High Serial Number" S.A. and R.I.A. forgings were subjected to close monitoring of the heat to forge temperature via Pyrometers and thus the material properties of the forged parts were not degraded.
There is no non-destructive test that I know of that will separate the "Burned" forged parts from the properly manufactured ones.
I gave the OP the link to the CMP to point out that the receiver was not the only suspect part, but the bolts of that vintage are also suspect.:move eek:
D. :cheers:
Having done a lot of reading this morning. I find that my rifle falls into the group that had the use of Pyrometers during heat treating and forging. right before the double heat treating was started at serial number 800K Reading Hatcher's Notebook pages on the subject it dose appear that there were for the most part extenal factors that contibuted to the rifles that failed. At any rate if the pyrometers were what actually corrected the problem then mine is in a safe zone. but not as strong as those with the improved heat treating that was done after 800K.
From the page http://www.vishooter.net/sa_serialization.txt
1917 Jan 1 - 632826 Front reinforcing bolt added April, 1917
Buttplate checkering temporarily eliminated
Pyrometers used in forging from Dec 1917 at SN 750001 to prevent burned metal
1918 Jan 1 - 761758 DHT phased in by Feb 20, 1918 at SN 800000 (plus a little)
Solid shank swivel replaces split shank swivel
2850 yard volley notch eliminated
Bent bolt Handle starts ~1000000
Mark I production begins with SN 1034502
Parkerizing phased in starting late 1918. Never used by armory on all parts.
Trigger serrations temporarily eliminated
Also knowing mine has been a sporter for at the very least 25 years (that is when the previous owner bought it) in the condition it is currently in. I have a hard time knowing the rifle went through it's original barrel (it currently has a 5-19 barrel on it) and then was rebuilt with a second barrel (or how ever many) And spent X amount of time as a Sporter deer hunting here in Oregon with a receiver that was about to shatter at any minute.
Reading one of the pages from this site: U.S. Rifle Model of 1903 it states in Military records no failures were seen after 1929 and that many of the early failures were from external causes (8mm Mauser rounds, Dirt/mud on the battlefield, ****ty Brass and questionable rounds loaded during WWI, Nickle fouling as well as cosmoline coated bullets later after the war) All causing extreme chamber pressure exceeding what a Proof round would cause.
Both my Barrel ( a class A steel rating) and Bolt have Proof marking on them My bolt is a 1904-1909 based on the "S" stamp on the bottom of the safety lug. It's a straight drop style with as I said a Proof mark on the underside of the bolt arm. Ithas a very smooth almost rounded shoulder but has not been reworked from what I can tell. . Though if this is a miss match to the reciever that could have taken place in a different receiver.
The pick punch mark that should be on the receiver is not there. So I don't know if during the rebuild the whole assembly was PROOF fired.
I'm not trying to argue with good advise given to insure my safety as well as anyone else's reading this forum, just trying to actually find out the truth.
I will most likely try to find an original type stock for this rifle and the matching metal it's missing and once in a while take it out and shoot it a few times at the range.
Hoping one day to trade it for an 03-A3 like I really want. Or if I find a nice 03-A3 I can afford maybe this becomes a true wall hanger
At around 750,000 SA began enforcing Army regulations for '03 manufacture. AR's always required use of pyrometers in the forge house at SA. They were not used as the employees eyeballed the steel. They always over-heated the steel. Most of the low numbers were too hard and checking the hardness (Rockwell) doesn't prove a thing. They are too hard. So actually any '03 over 750,000 was properly manufactured. However, SA determined even these receivers could be made much safer by double heat treating the finished receiver. At around 775,000 double heat treatment was began, by 800,000 all receivers received a double heat treatment. This double heat treatment slowed down production and the obvious solution was to use nickel steel, as all M1917 receivers were nickel steel. But SA dug in its heels and refused to switch over to a modern steel. It is quite the interesting story, to say the least. A serial number of 779,xxx is most likely a safe rifle to shoot. Good luck.
Well since I have a real nice Ruger M77R -06 and a very very nice M1 Grand I doubt the Springfield will get much use. And since I do load for myself I will most likely come up with a moderate pressure load to use in it.
Your reasoning is flawed.
Springfield receivers were not forged, machined, heat treated, or assembled in anything remotely resembling a serial number sequence. And this is well documented.
The descriptions and serial numbers cited in Hatcher's Notebook are misleading. A more accurate description would be to state that on February 20, 1918, Springfield Armory had approximately 25,000 serialized receivers awaiting heat treatment and those receivers were scattered over the serial range extending from S/N 750000 to S/N 800000.
J.B.
JB is correct, (as usual). Springfield did not toss any receivers away. Rock Island did just that. Indeed, the usual "around 800,000" warning implies a very few receivers slipped by the 800,000 serial number. However, a serial number around 779,xxx may well be OK. Trouble is, none of us know of any way to tell for certain. New brass and moderate loads should do the job. Let me add this as well: I do not shoot any of my low numbers, as I have many nice high number '03's. Good luck.