Did I make a mistake.?

Guys I just bought a 1903 and when I got it home I realized that the serial number was 717xxx putting in in 1917 and in the section where there are concerns about the the receiver being too brittle and the bolt hitting me in the eye. The guy whom i bought it from was shooting it with factory loads. I paid 400 for it, it has a new style bolt (slightly swept back) i dont really plan on shooting it much but i would like to shoot it. I reload so my current plan is to load some 30-06 hot as recommended and tie it to the table and shoot 10 rounds. If it does not explode I will make some light targer loads and not worry about it. Sound plan or crazy? I need some help from the experts

If brittle, the main issue is a bad case that lets gas into the action. Factory M1 Garand type (not the usual light magnum) ammo might be the best bet. Remember even a "light" reload is still 30,000 psi. Let a 70 psi truck tire explode next to you you and 30k is not something to fool with. Has there been a M1903 blow up in the last 20 years? I see the occasional Garand slam fire posted but I have not seen a post of early rifle going to pieces. CMP does not allow them in matches. The $400 is a small price vs what a medical bill would be. How about a Kevlar blanket over the action when you shoot it? Sorry this is a random, and confusing post but it is not new info on the early rifles, and buyer beware.

Dave

I wouldn't stress the steel out on your rifle with so called proof loads. It could and probably will stretch the head spacing a bit. Why mess it up? Leave it alone and just use reduced loads in new brass cases.

For your intended purpose, yes, you made a mistake.

Lots of folks still fire low number 1903's, &, if catastrophic failures occur, they are so rare most of us have never heard of them in our lifetime. I've seen or have reliable reports of several catastrophic failures due to bore obstruction, & I fear that more.

Proof loads are meaningless when it comes to low number receiver failures. Those receivers that have failed did so at random using standard loads. It just can't be predicted.

If I were a subsistence hunter & a low number 1903 was all I had to feed my family, I'd shoot it. But, I'm not. I shoot for a hobby, & losing a little money isn't going to hurt me. Life is too short, & emergency room visits are too expensive, for me to take a chance shooting a rifle that may be unsafe. If I had a (non-collectible) low number 1903, I'd sell it to some one who wants it for parts.

The decision is yours.

Neal

You reload? Try a light/medium load of 4831 with high quality brass. If the case fails you have trouble. I would not try to re-proof the rifle. But keep the headspace tight and use high quality brass. Good luck.

wont blow up out of the blue. its how the low numbers handle a case head failure..not a hot load

Hatcher notes RIA receiver 223235 as shattering for no apparent reason than being either exceptionally hard or overheated in manufacture. After the failure the receiver appeared to have a crack that developed earlier as well as hairline cracks that may have also developed earlier. I don't believe I would stress the receiver and then fire it.

The rifle was at Winchester Repeating Arms being used for ammo testing.

I also have a low number 03 with the serial number dating it in 1907 and refurbished in 1919. I do shoot it a couple times a year with reduced loads and usually not more than 10 rounds at a time. When I do shoot it I always warn those near me what I am about to do. Am I worried about it? No. I would not use factory ammo in it. Like I said I use reduced loads (44.5 grains of IMR4895) with a 147-150 bullet. That's me. Use your best judgment.
On a historical note. An old foreman of mine that landed with the first wave on Guadalcanal told me the majority of the 03's they landed with were low numbers and none of them blew up that he knew of. F.W.I.W.

Cool!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Neal Myers

For your intended purpose, yes, you made a mistake.

Lots of folks still fire low number 1903's, &, if catastrophic failures occur, they are so rare most of us have never heard of them in our lifetime. I've seen or have reliable reports of several catastrophic failures due to bore obstruction, & I fear that more.

Proof loads are meaningless when it comes to low number receiver failures. Those receivers that have failed did so at random using standard loads. It just can't be predicted.

If I were a subsistence hunter & a low number 1903 was all I had to feed my family, I'd shoot it. But, I'm not. I shoot for a hobby, & losing a little money isn't going to hurt me. Life is too short, & emergency room visits are too expensive, for me to take a chance shooting a rifle that may be unsafe. If I had a (non-collectible) low number 1903, I'd sell it to some one who wants it for parts.

The decision is yours.

Neal

---

My opinion, exactly. While a number of people feel that, since they were cleared for "war emergency" use in WWII, that somehow makes them safe. Firing off some rounds at the range doesn't exactly qualify as "war emergency". If a LN M1903 was the only thing between me and an enemy, I would have no hesitation; other than that (or Neal's example), I'd pass. Obviously, it is for each person to decide.

I have yet to hit the lottery yet either but some people do!:D

One thing to keep in mind - According to the inservice accident data in Hatcher the rate of RIA 03's with burst receivers is about twice that of SA 03's.

Maybe more cloudy days in Rock Island? Who knows? But if you are going to shoot a low number the odds favor an SA.

Personally I'd shoot it. It's made it this long, odd's are it'll be fine. Plus I would rather get killed on a nice day, out shooting doing something I love, than run over by a truck alongside a freeway on the nightshift at work....just the way I look at it.

I respectfully disagree, Oregon96. Having drilled oilwells for a living I have a deep, abiding respect for statistics and luck (mainly bad!). There are many milsurps out there that carry effectively zero risk of failure (any 03A3, Arisaka, Lee Enfield, K98, etc, etc.). A few shots on a sunny day aint worth the risk. Sailct41- I say hang this one on the wall and shoot something with no record of failure.

Ridolpho

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oregon96psd

than run over by a truck alongside a freeway on the nightshift at work....

---

Well, get outta my way!!!...:madsmile:

even though i personally shoot my SHT 1903s...telling anyone else to do so is not a good idea, NO single heat treat 1903 should be fired with live ammo....
if you make the choice to do so....wear safety glasses, and leather gloves...and make darn sure nobody you like is standing close..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oregon96psd

I would rather get killed

---

Interesting...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oregon96psd

Personally I'd shoot it. It's made it this long, odd's are it'll be fine. Plus I would rather get killed on a nice day, out shooting doing something I love, than run over by a truck alongside a freeway on the nightshift at work....just the way I look at it.

---

I would rather shoot this ....have it come apart , put metal pieces into the left side of my face and slip around the glasses and take out my left eye while the bolt rams into my right cheek , crushing my cheek bone , knocking out teeth , screwing up the vision in that eye , causing me to spend thousands in medical bills , weeks in the hospital , and a long lifetime of pain , adjustment , and suffering , never to be able to enjoy anouther sunrise , sunset , night under the stars , a full moon , or a loved one's face ......than retire it and shoot a high number '03.

This is how I read it. An old emmagee saying , " a .30 can hurt you , a .50 can kill you " .
Chris

wow...sorry I responded. Just never been real into living my life in fear of everything, of all the things we ALL do in life (flying, crossing the street, cleaning the gutters, DRIVING #1) shooting a rifle is pretty far down on the danger list. I'd rather actually live my life than sit back and watch things happen around me, thats all I was getting at. It was my opinion, nothing more nothing less. Now I'll leave your thread, continue the trash talk guys......

I didn't see it as trash talk, just pointing out an unwise practice or attitude.

As you can see ... emotions still run high. Why don't we switch to a SAFE, non-controversial topic like what rifle Alvin York used in WWI!?? :D

I'm sorry Rick, I never did see any high emotions in this one...I'm certainly not worked up...

Now, Alvin York's what?

I would just use it for shooting cast bullet loads. Inexpensive and a great way to practice your fundamental skills.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oregon96psd

wow...sorry I responded. Just never been real into living my life in fear of everything, of all the things we ALL do in life (flying, crossing the street, cleaning the gutters, DRIVING #1) shooting a rifle is pretty far down on the danger list. I'd rather actually live my life than sit back and watch things happen around me, thats all I was getting at. It was my opinion, nothing more nothing less. Now I'll leave your thread, continue the trash talk guys......

---

Did not intend it to be trash.
Many people do stupid things just because it seemed like a good idea at the time . They think that if something goes wrong , it will be a quick and painless death. Well , we are hard to kill , and it is far more likely we'll have a long time to regret those choices. I am included in this group , so I know about which I speak. It is extreamly hard when it affects someone else big time. If it seems hard but can help only one , it's worth the flack.
Stay safe , Chris

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by browningautorifle

I'm sorry Rick, I never did see any high emotions in this one...I'm certainly not worked up...

Now, Alvin York's what?

---

Maybe it's just my heightened senses from dealing with this topic for the last 15 years online ... I swear I could hear people sharpening knives in the background! :D

It was an 03 Rick. ;)

That's right, Fred, all LN M1903s were M1903s! :D

I should have specified... "what Alvin York used in WWI in his famous exploit." He said it himself you know. Just thought I'd get the ol ball rolling.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fred G.

Just thought I'd get the ol ball rolling.

---

Oh please PLEASE don't.:eek::eek::eek:
That is a topic that has been done to death for decades. The ball must be worn out. None of us was around at the time, and all we will now get is a load of forensically useless hearsay.

But whatever it was, it was a rifle based on a MAUSER action. :D

Let me add a little fuel and fan the flames of an old fire.
Back in the 1930’s, the Springfield Armory inserted a special notice in the AMERICAN RIFLEMAN magazine. In the notice, it was indicated that when a LN (SHT) M1903 rifle was returned to the Armory to be fitted with a new barrel, it was standard Armory policy to replace both the receiver and the BOLT (at no charge). However it was further indicated that as of that date, because of complaints from patrons, the bolt would no longer be replaced unless the patron requested it.
This would indicate to me that the Armory found it desirable and recommended replacement of LN (SHT) bolts in addition to receivers. I do not remember of reading about many bolt failures; however, I do remember reading that a LN bolt had failed by shearing off the two locking lugs and part of the safety lug. It was being used by a competitive shooter in a match to “slick up” a NS action. Fortunately the broken safety lug wedged the bolt in the receiver so no harm came to the shooter.
To shoot or not to shoot a LN rifle is the choice of the shooter who assumes full responsibility for the results. As has been pointed out many times, reported failure of LN rifles has been relatively small in comparison to the number of LN rifles built. The majority of M1903’s used during WWI were probably LN’s. Few if any failures were reported-whether because they did not fail or the failures were not reported, is undetermined. The USMC never, to the best of my knowledge retired its LN rifles and I have seen correspondence where the USMC issues LN rifles well in to the 1930’s.
When I find the article again I shall post it.
FWIW

The total number of low number 1903 failures will never be known. The failures reported by Hatcher were only those that he could document, and there are reports of failures recorded in Springfield Research Service that Hatcher doesn't have. A few years back there was a paper written by a gentleman which was done to put to bed any fears of failure, as the percentage was so low as to be of no concern. The problem with his calculations was that he only used the information compiled by Hatcher. The study by Hatcher was instituted because of previous failures, and Hatcher only recored those he could document after he initiated the study.

Don't let flawed data or someone else's opinion lead you to believe the low number 1903's are perfectly safe to fire. Don't let someone else make up your mind one way or the other. Look at the facts and decide for yourself.

Amen to that!! :super::super:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Johnny Peppers

The failures reported by Hatcher were only those that he could document,

---

Good point. Even if Hatcher had info about all known cases, it would have been about all known cases at the time. And more may have occurred later. Hence:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Johnny Peppers

The total number of low number 1903 failures will never be known.

---

Thing to me here is like one of the old hands here stated at one point..."It's not that they break or fracture or give some warning of failure...when they fail, they shatter like glass". Or words to that effect. It's the shattering thing and the accompanying pics that live with me. I'm not up for that. Not afraid, just don't tempt fate. And no mistake, I'd LOVE to have a very low number gun. I have a 3XX,XXX number SA M1 that doesn't get shot much. I just like to keep it pristine. I can have another safe queen...

Every low numbered rifle I have seen showed signs of having been shot before and some many times even having very worn bores. As I understand one of the main causes of receiver failure was the result of bad case brass or dirty cases and of course hotter then normal reloads.
Now I keep my cases clean and shoot good quality ammo and am very careful in reloading but while having said that. I would not shoot a low number 03. Especially after seeing photos of a shattered receiver after just being hit, and not very hard, with a hammer. I look at it this way, and I'm not an engineer, but how long and how many rounds would it take for the normal flexing and stress of the metal caused by firing a rifle with a bad heat treated receiver before it decided to let go. And I'm not about to find out so I will not shoot any of my low number rifles even if they have been shot numerous times before as you never know when It's time for that one bad receiver under just normal conditions and pressures to fail. Anyway, just my thoughts, Ray