1903 Low SN - shoot or don't shoot?

I'm sure this is a topic beaten to death already somewhere on this forum, but I'm a new member so excuse me for my ignorance.

After perusing numerous online sources and debates on the subject, seems there is roughly a 70/30 breakdown against shooting Springfields below 800,000 SN.

I grew up shooting one in the late 500's, receiver built in '11 and rebarreled in '44. Probably ran close to a thousand rounds through it (all reloads with my dad, high quality brass and all starting charges). Still have both eyes and hands, and according to the internet experts I was taking my life into my hands every time I pulled that trigger (ignorance was bliss I guess). Sadly, the rifle is no longer in my family. I recently had the opportunity to purchase another low SN rifle, and intend on keeping it as a wall hanger/safe queen only. Question is, do I need to put the fear of God into my kids about the dangers of these brittle receivers, so one of my decendants generations down the line doesn't blow his or her face off? Or is this overhyped, and as long as high quality brass with moderate charges there is very little risk?

Standing by for the abuse...yeah this is probably akin to joining a 98K forum and asking about Mitchell's Mausers...but I can take it :)

Welcome to the forum!
Here's my opinion on these (which is worth about what you're gonna pay for it):
the gist of what I read says that it's not an issue unless you have a case rupture. This was more prone to happen with lower quality cases. Once a case ruptures and all that hot, expanding gas gets into the action, then you have a problem.
So with good quality cases and not hot-rodding it, it's probably OK.
That said, *to me* it's simply not worth the risk however small it may be.
I'd also like to have a low number if for no other reason than to fill a gap in my collection. It would, sadly, have to be the only gun I own that I don't shoot.

To sum it up, why risk it?

Yeah, you will definitely get some responses with this question. Like was previously stated though, it is not that the actions are weak. They don't just blow up for no reason. It is only when a casehead ruptures that you can have trouble. Usually, a receiver will stretch and absorb the violence of that hot gas. I once fired a 98K with a case full of Bullseye. Not something I want to do again. But, the receiver stretched, some of the bolt head turned to shrapnel, but the receiver held. That is how rifles are supposed to work. Unfortunately, some of the L/N receivers are brittle and will turn into shrapnel in similar circumstances. But, not all of the L/N receivers are brittle. But, there was simply no way to check for brittleness without destroying the receiver. So, they are all considered unsafe.
I own a very early one myself. I shoot it regularly. But, only with very carefully handloaded cast bullet rounds.

Cast bullets and 10 grains of Unique. Guess what, your shoulder won't be sore and your ears won't ring.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by daveboy

They don't just blow up for no reason.

---

No, not for no reason. They don't rupture a case head, they don't warn you and there's no one to warn you that this is the last shot before it gives out. They shatter like glass. You haven't given us a number to work with and there's threads galore here on this subject, not even a need to start a new one...

No, they don't all high order and they may never. But they have documented history, is it worth it to you?

They have documented history that was drummed up by a Major, working for Springfield Armory, who needed a convenient reason to maintain his budget even during a Great Depression.

I'd wager most of the failures today, are similar to the ones back then. Improper ammunition - whether it be a hand loader not paying attention, or other issues.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kaliman

They have documented history that was drummed up by a Major, working for Springfield Armory, who needed a convenient reason to maintain his budget even during a Great Depression.

---

I would very much like to see those documents.

There were not that many and most are documented as 8mm ammo , plugged bore , cleaning rod in bore , a batch of bad ammo . If a rifle wore out a barrel and was rebarreled , it is not just going to blow up now . I have shot my original 1905 rifle a lot , it is one of my favorite shooters .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rcathey

I would very much like to see those documents.

---

You're in luck - Steve Norton just posted them on the CMP forums.

And if you read my post, by "documented history" I meant Hatchers notebook. But yes, Steve has posted documents from the Marines basically saying the report was a way for Hatcher to drum up funding during the depression.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kaliman

You're in luck - Steve Norton just posted them on the CMP forums.

And if you read my post, by "documented history" I meant Hatchers notebook. But yes, Steve has posted documents from the Marines basically saying the report was a way for Hatcher to drum up funding during the depression.

---

I have a high regard for Steve and Tim's work and have been the recipient of their generosity on more than one occasion. With their well earned reputation for accuracy, I take Steve's 1928 date as dead nuts certain.

But you claim that a Marine Corps officer somehow knew the Depression was coming in 1928? He must have been a very impressive fellow. Wonder how much money he made by shorting the stock market.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kaliman

You're in luck - Steve Norton just posted them on the CMP forums.

And if you read my post, by "documented history" I meant Hatchers notebook. But yes, Steve has posted documents from the Marines basically saying the report was a way for Hatcher to drum up funding during the depression.

---

Based on your statement I doubt you've read hatchers notebook, you also didn't read or quote "all" of Steve's post either. He continued to say that the Marines later changed their stance on Hatchers research and the risk of LN 03s. I've seen a blown up LN 03 action (case) and there were pieces 75 feet away. I see a lot of reckless remarks on this subject that are based on opinion alone, without any diligent research or heed to experience. If people only look for what they want to see, they will remain oblivious to the risk.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Randy A

If people only look for what they want to see, they will remain oblivious to the risk.

---

That's just about right...we keep going over this though... At least now days I can do it calmly wand without feeling. Mostly because I don't really care what others do while out of range of me...

As I was, yes, the Depression had not struck yet in 1928, but that doesnt mean the military budget hadn't already been tightened very strictly.

And if you read those docs the Marines advised against using them for rifle grenades at higher pressures, but since all receiver had passed a proof round, deemed them acceptable for regular use.

And the only reason they exchanged their LN receivers was because they could submit a B/R and receive a complete rifle in exchange, so they saw it as a way to rip off SA.

And I have read Hatchers notebook, and I've seen Steve's research long before it was posted on the CMP forums yesterday. I've decided that with rounds in acceptable specifications the rifles are fine to shoot. Experimentation and plain stupidity with ammunition had caused the vast majority of failures - and that is my assessment from reading Hatchers notebook.

Anyways that's enough of that. I'm not going to continue the conversation if people can't be respectful.

Respect is what you give those old rifles. I have one and I used to shoot a few rounds on Memorial and Veterans days. Then I've had two pistols blow up in my hand and Prudence raised her little head and convinced me that perhaps the old girl should just be admired instead of put to work. Now on the other hand if it ever came to the point where it was the last firearm I had left and it was life or death Then it wouldn't matter if she blows. The choice is yours of course but I can assure you having a firearm blow up in your hand is bot a pleasant experience.

I have fired over 1 million rounds through over 3000 different firearms , a friend had done 4x that and we have never had any " blow up " in our hand . Maybe you are doing something wrong ?

I love the 'I've done it a million times so it must be safe crowd'. Tell me how does that work with things like fall arrest where all it takes is one slip and you fall to your death?

FACT: Not all early M1903 Springfields are improperly heat treated. Some were done properly, some were not.
FACT: There is no real way to tell if it was improperly heat treated or not at a glance, you would need to do some serious testing.
FACT: Odds are with standard ammo and no issues you likely wouldn't have a issue be it improperly heat treated or not. Its when something goes wrong (which is when this matters most) that things become dangerous quickly.

OP make your own decision, but there is a reason they changed the process and recommend low SN rifles not be shot. When your heat treating is done by eye, not by temperature, you run into issues like this.

Could a low number be tested non-destructively?
If one really wanted to throw money at it, could it be done?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bob q

I have fired over 1 million rounds through over 3000 different firearms

---

I was army all my life and did way more than that. The thing you do learn is if you hang around enough firearms long enough things happen. Maybe you've been lucky.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bob q

I have fired over 1 million rounds through over 3000 different firearms , a friend had done 4x that and we have never had any " blow up " in our hand . Maybe you are doing something wrong ?

---

I used to glove 13.2kv off the pole all the time until one day my safety caught on fire and I got hit. What I did was take a short cut on a knowledge/ skill based task. The safety, because it was a little around the block had moisture trapped inside that a visual couldn't detect and it was a humid day. The combination of the two at the same time almost did me in from an irrevocable act that could have been done right the first time by standing on a phase board. I knew it going in but had done it enough to fall into the trap of inaccurate risk perception.

The 1928 SA annual report describes reheat treating low number receivers and then firing high pressure tests with them. The result: mixed. Some improved, some didn't. Why might that be? Because heat treatment was not the only issue. Here's a brief quote from the report: "The reason for the ununiformity of results may be ascribed to the ununiformity of the material out of which the receivers were manufactured from time to time...." For those with zero knowledge of metallury, that means the chemical makeup of the steel varied.

Why does that matter? Because percentages of the various of alloying elements affects hardenability. SA operated well behind the times in their knowledge of metallurgy - even by early 20th Century standards. They were, at times, buying steel that was outside their purchase specs, but blissfully plunging ahead with production anyway. They had similar problems with barrels for the same reason.

For simplicity, this ignores the burnt steel problem (which can cause some of the same problems).

"...They have documented history..." No 'they' don't.
"...documented as 8mm ammo..." That's about how an M1 Rifle was blown.
"...during a Great Depression..." Nonsense. The issue was well known and fixed long before 1929(Stock Market crashed on October 29, 1929.). Nobody was doing any developmental work on '03's during any part of the Great Depression. Too busy working on the M1 Rifle until 1936 and finalizing it's development(like fixing the 7th round stoppage issue.).
Anyway, the issue is not if it'll blow, but when, maybe. The receivers were found to have been burned during heat treating without any kind of scientific measurement of the heat. The heat treat guys were judging the heat of the steel by eye. It was found that the steel was actually hotter on a sunny day than the guys thought and that resulted in the steel being burned. Think how toast gets burned. In any case, there's no way to tell if a particular receiver was burned or not, so the Ordnance Dept., of which J.S. Hatcher was Boss, opted to withdraw from active service all “low-number” Springfields. A lot of which got reissued during W.W. II because of yet another shortage of rifles.

[/COLOR]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bob q

I have fired over 1 million rounds through over 3000 different firearms , a friend had done 4x that and we have never had any " blow up " in our hand . Maybe you are doing something wrong ?

---

I'm in the Navy. I've seen a 9mm Sig bulge a barrel and grenade the magazine, and I also saw an M2 .50 cal blow the top cover 30 feet high when a case ruptured because of bad headspace. so, yeah, it happens

Bob Q you are a lucky man. I've fired a good many rounds as well the first was a Cobra derringer in 9 mil and I'm glad it was a cold day and I had on thick leather gloves. I found 9 pieces and Cobra was more than willing to replace it quickly. It.s replacement is a .38 sp. It had less than 20 rounds through it. The second was an XD in .45 and it blew out a chunk of the plastic frame just above the trigger guard. That one could have been my fault with a heavy charge. One thing I have discovered about firearms is anything can happen even when you are being super careful.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TDH

One thing I have discovered about firearms is anything can happen even when you are being super careful.

---

Exactly! As users of old rifles an important part of our safety drill is studying historical info regarding potential design and/ or metallurgical problems. Many designs have minor issues (which we can stickhandle around and shoot safely) but few have it as clearly defined as "low number" '03's. It is the users responsibility to study up on what you're shooting- a randomly selected gunsmith may know nothing about the old "relic" you want to shoot. As far as statistics are concerned, the frequency of failure of " low #" '03's may not seem too scary on the surface but keep in mind that for many other old rifle types it's very difficult to find examples of catastrophic failure with standard ammo, let alone talk about a failure rate. There's simply no way to justify use of low number rifles but I would sure like to have a nice one in my collection.

Ridolpho