Printable View
All,
Please check out my "impulse buy", comment and don't sugar coat them. ;) I normally spend time in the Enfield Forum and this is my first foray into the 1903 world.
It has a very faint Ordinance Ball and small cartouche surrounded by a rectangle that looks like "FJA" on the left side of the stock by the cut off knob. There are no import marks at all.
The other interesting thing is the Flaming Ball on the barrel has a square stamp inside the ball, not sure if it means anything.
Looks like a clean example to me.
1918 produced receiver rebuilt post war with an Avis barrel and now sitting in an 03a3 stock.
I'll bet the bore is about perfect though and will make a nice shooter.
Having come from the Enfield world to the US arms world awhile ago myself, most of the stamps don't mean nearly as much nor tell as much with Enfields. Just enjoy and know you have a fine rifle!
It is a so called "low number" ( serial number under 800,000 ) and caution is usually advised when shooting.
Thanks for all the comments so far.
When I first saw it, I thought rebuild too.
The bore is really nice, very shiny and no pitting.
I am aware of the “low number”, but I’m going to enjoy it. I won’t run junk ammo through it and don’t plan on shooting it much anyway.
I may be wrong headed, but Ive come to trust the "low number" '03 still extant. I think many saw action, or at least use, during WWII, but Im doubtful that the ones still around suffer from brittleness due to the wide variation in the actual heat treatment parameters from lot to lot that caused the problem. Remember, not all receivers were bad. In fact there may have been far fewer embrittled receivers than good ones.Quote:
Originally Posted by CoatiMundi
In any case, just make sure you dont use modern .30-06 ammo as the powder is different, faster burning, and creates a higher pressure profile. Im sure you are aware of that and the many manufacturers who make M2 Ball spec .30-06 ammo for the -03 and Garand, but it is important to repeat the fact.
Regarding my next comments it is important to mention that I am fixated on restoring rifles to "as-issued" configuration. So if that is not important to you, and you plan to keep the rifle in a "re-arsenaled" configuration then my comments are only of FYI and reference value at best.
Your rifle has an early A3 S-stock (type 10 (per Harrison): note the re-enforcing pins rather than the traditional earlier bolts). The pins were a cost reduction effort and used short term until it was learned that they did not provide the strength needed. Not only were the use of re-enforcement bolts reinstated, but many early stocks with pins were reworked with bolts replacing the pins (which in my mind makes them a bit more unique). I used to look down on pin re-enforced stocks until I realized that they were a valid part of the '03 history. So I have made sure that I have such a stock on a receiver with a serial number in the range when those stocks were originally issued. I suggest that if you find a decent type 4 S-Stock you should keep the type 10 stock and look for a 43-44 RA or SC A3 receiver to mount it on. It is hard to tell, but the lower band spring groove in the stock looks square ended meaning it is an RA stock rather than an SC stock. It also appears to have a WWII or post WWII replacement handguard. The butt plate is the correct type, but if there is an R stamped on the inside then it is an early RA 03 part.
Love the AV 2-18 barrel even if it is a field replacement barrel. I cant help thinking that it may have been a barrel replaced in the field in the European theatre during WWI just as likely as post war! It has the original early sight base as well, which is a bonus!
You also have a number of RA A3 parts there which are typical of a arsenal re-work during or post WWII. The observed RA A3 parts are the cocking piece (knurled knob) & safety and probably an RA bolt body and bolt sleeve, and firing pin, and almost certainly the windage knob and elevation knobs and rear sight leaf. You might also check the trigger and sear to determine if they are the correct type or not. The square looking mark in the Flaming Ball on the barrel is most likely a proofing mark made after the barrel was replaced, but has no other significance to my knowledge. As to re-importation stamps, keep in mind that stamp marking of military surplus rifles that came back from our erstwhile NATO allies was not put into effect until the The 1968 Gun Control Act, pushed thru Congress by the US gun manufacturing industry and signed by President Johnson on October 22, 1968 [18 U.S.C. 925(d)]. Surplus military firearms started to return to the states not long after WWII and none between then and the end of 1968 were stamped. Personally, I find an import stamp a bonus because it helps establish a partial provenance of the life of the weapon for both export country and year(s) since almost all importers specialized in importing from only one country.
Thank you, 1903 Collector, great info! You obviously spent some time putting your post together and I appreciate it.
I had forgotten that Garand/1903 specific ammo is around, I will locate some.
I have picked up the habit to reload my own Service 30.06 ammo. That way I can make sure all my M1 and 1903 rifle ammo is very accurately loaded with Accurate 4064 powder for Garand service rifle loads. I have the peace of mind keeping a more than adequate stock pile and match grade accuracy.Quote:
Originally Posted by CoatiMundi
Congrats on your rifle and may you enjoy paper punching for years to come.
Thank you! Again, thanks to all for the good information!
late 1917, likely original barrel, Single heat treat, 1903A3 stock, if you do make the choice to shoot a SHT 1903, only fire modern commercial ammo, avoid the chance of a common case head failure. on a side note, i would be more worried about the avis barrel failing
Brophy's book, The Springfield 1903 Rifles, page 333, mentions that Avis supplied WWI replacement barrels (with possible 1919-1920 exceptions). That book does not note problems with Avis barrels.
I did not find any references to Avis barrels in Campbell's book, The '03 Era.
Poyer's book, The Model 1903 Springfield Rifle, page 152, indicates that Avis used undersize round stock, heated and upset the chamber end to enlarge it to proper diameter. That process occasionally "burned" that area leaving it "brittle". When that problem was noted, the proof load was raised to 75,000 psi and all Avis barrels in inventory were re-tested. I wonder if the square punch mark could be an indication of re-test.
Hatcher's Notebook, page 445 and 477 notes issues with Avis barrels.
I think that's the concern that Chuckindenver noted.
I’m not planning on shooting it much, I like the idea of the new ammo made for the ‘03 and Garand. I have not got into reloading, that and cigars are two activities I have eschewed ;)
Definitely not going to run old, crappy “click, wait, boom” in it.
other then the issue with Avis barrels, the SHT actions dont just fail out of the blue, its how they handle a common case head failure, they dont survive it, so. one way to limit that happening is to not shoot handloads or old ammo that might have safety issues, i personally shoot my SHT rifle, with modern factory ammo, not alot, but at least once a year, however, i do not tell anyone else to do so, for the liability issue of this. not interested in a debate of shoot or not shoot, but good judgement should always be used, Avis barrels were found to have cavities and fishers in the chamber areas. i wont fire one. i would personally change it out for a safe example
Chuck nailed it...
Case head failure in the SHT action is what you want to avoid. Modern factory ammo (no reloads) is your best bet.
Roger that.
You mean only factory "M2 spec ammo", right?Quote:
Originally Posted by togor
I might add that reloading done with M2 case and M2 spec powder and weight is not an issue, but I would only trust reloads I did myself. Vintage M2 ball ammo is fine as well, but may not be 100% reliable, as misfires are not uncommon.
Modern .30-06 ammo that is not loaded to M2 specs dramatically increases risk to failure to '03 and M1 Garands. Even the ammo for an M14 or M1A should be 7.62 NATO and not modern .308 Win. All 7.62 NATO ammo is rated for a lower max pressure than.308 Winchester. The 7.62 NATO pressure profile is about 60,000 PSI, and .308 Win is 62,000. It’s not much of a difference, but it’s a difference, and in the wrong direction! The 7.62 NATO round has thicker case walls than the.308 Win round, though it’s not visible to the human eye.
I am uncertain whether there is a difference between M2 ball and modern .03-06 case dims.
modern factory ammo, the type that comes in a box, that you can buy at your local sporting good stores, not surplus, not handloads that you carefully reloaded. new in the box, never been fired, and made in the last 10 years. this has nothing to do with .308 ammo, 7.62 ammo. or M1 garands,
this about shooting ammo that has a less likely chance of case head failure in a 1903 Single heat treat action.
not 75 year old surplus, not surplus made in some other 3rd world country.
Federal, Winchester, Remington, PPU, and the like.
the last few case head failures that came into my shop, were surplus ammo, that was made in the 1940s, and not reloads. one failed so bad, the brass flowed back into the bolt face, blew the extactor off the bolt, destroyed the stock, it was a Remington 1903, so it didnt damage the action, but the barrel , stock and bolt were destroyed.
Corollary to what Chuck wrote is to know the condition of your old surplus. Some of it is still good to go, but some is not. Pull some bullets, get a feel for what you have with that old ammo. If in doubt, bullets keep and can be moved to a new home.
Now here is something fun and interesting you retired gents with more time on your hands can do...let's find some weather data from the months of production before they put the new sensors in the furnace. Count up the overcast/cloudy days to get an estimate on the percentage of possible defective receivers. Hatcher clearly states in his book (will find the page number if I can find my copy) the heat treat was poor on cloudy days when the furnace workers let them get too hot when judging the temp only by eyeballs. If someone can source the data set (lots of antique weather observations have been digitized - unless it was too hot back then and they have been purged as a result), I'll volunteer to write a parser for it and try to compute a real estimate.Quote:
Originally Posted by 1903Collector
Are you sure you don’t have that backwards?
Steel temperatures are hard to judge in bright sunlight.
I might, and defer to someone who has actual experience judging temps :)Quote:
Originally Posted by rcathey
Either way, the problem of producing a good estimate is solvable, and interesting.
My copy of Hatcher is somewhere, and I'm pretty certain of my reference to weather/cloud cover variations affecting the judging of the heat treat.
We have a pdf copy of Hatcher on this forum...https://www.milsurps.com/content.php...an-S.-Hatcher)
Alas it's not searchable. If Badger is interested, I can convert some of these pdf's to searchable text. It's not fast. I did it for Howe, both volumes, and it took several hours but turned out real well...even got the landscape captions on his photos. Funny, I search on my computer for what I want, but still find myself going to the bookshelf and thumbing to read it. Producing good indexes back then was expensive and time consuming.
My Hatcher's Notebook is only a few feet away from this computer. Page 215: "the 'right heat' as judged by the skillful eye of the old timers was up to 300 degrees hotter on a bright sunny day than it was on a dark cloudy one."
Perfect! So then I guess added brittleness is caused by higher than desired temps.
Yes. Clark Campbell described the metallurgical implications well in his book...going from memory, the steel was "burned" and the carbon driven out, so that while it looked normal, it had the properties of cast steel instead of forged. And there was no way to fix the problem by reheating.
Based on what the Marines did to keep their low-number rifles in service (because they had to), the key variables appear to be:
*Tight headspace (the M1903 action design does not support the cartridge case head well),
*Ammunition to factory spec with fresh brass, from known-good suppliers (no crap like Turkish or French surplus, or pre-WW2 GI ammo, or pushing-the-limit reloaded cases),
*Do nothing that would either overstress the receiver (e.g. a case head failure, the design does not handle them well) or deliver a sudden, sharp shock (another reason why the Marines kept the headspace tight, and banned use of low-number rifles for firing rifle grenades).
---------- Post added at 10:55 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:48 PM ----------
Something that jumped out at me about how quickly ammunition *can* go bad was a passage in LTC John George's "Shots Fired in Anger".
I have multiple rounds of .30-06 from WW1 and older (and some .30-40 Krag as well) with case necks that had split due to age and trapped stresses. Well, LTC George mentioned how, while his regiment was in camp getting prepared for overseas service, he wanted to prepare a course for them to improve their marksmanship. He managed to procure a large lot of World War I ammo from supply, and made mention of how much (less) ammo they had left to work with after sorting out the rounds with split necks...and this stuff was only twenty-ish years old!
Defective ammo was a huge problem. Large lots of ammo was destroyed for how bad the ammo was.
The whole reason they decided to replace low number receivers in rebuild, was because of how they might respond to defective ammo.
Now one thing never covered in the books was how barrels also could respond negatively to defective ammo and burst. This is on high numbers as well.
There were more barrels that burst than there ever was receivers that failed. In fact in 1927 they had stated they had so many barrels fail, they redesigned the ramp of the barrel to give added support to the cartridge case.
I guess realistically we had just started using smokeless powder and it was still being perfected. Not that surprising but for sure not a very well discussed fact of that time. The whole discussion revolves around single heat treated receivers or "Cooking" them...Quote:
Originally Posted by cplstevennorton
Jim, was the .30-03 the first US true smokeless powder cartridge? I hadt even thought about it, yet I knew Portugal didnt have access to smokeless powder until...'97 was it!?!? I guess this makes sense since the previous US cartridge was the .30-40, right? .30 calibre - 40 grains of black powder? If all this is true is it is a "duhh" moment for me as it now seems pretty obvious!!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by browningautorifle
I thought it was either the 30-30 or the 30-40 Krag? 30 cal and 30 or 40 grains respectively. Both were smokeless from the start though.Quote:
Originally Posted by 1903Collector
Someone here will tell us. Smokeless would have been in it's infancy though.
The powder wasn't really the issue...World War I meant lots of contracts issued on short notice, and some of them went to companies that had no experience making ammunition. National Brass & Copper Tube was perhaps the most notable example...the quality of their brass proved so poor (prone to case failures) that all of the ammunition was ordered withdrawn and destroyed in the 1920s.Quote:
Originally Posted by browningautorifle