Results 1 to 10 of 29

Thread: 1903 (A-what?)

Click here to increase the font size Click here to reduce the font size

Threaded View

  1. #14
    Legacy Member cplstevennorton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Last On
    01-05-2025 @ 09:17 AM
    Location
    Van Wert, OH
    Age
    45
    Posts
    377
    Local Date
    07-06-2025
    Local Time
    04:11 PM
    The Army never pulled the low numbers receivers from Service. Hundreds of thousands stayed in service the whole 1903 service life. They only would replace low number receivers when they came in for rebuild from 1928 to 1940. But unless a low number went back in for rebuild, it was never pulled from service. The reason the Army decided to replace the low number receivers when they came in for rebuild was because they were worried how the single heat treat receiver would react to defective ammo (especially cartridge case failures) that were often exceeding the pressure that the 1903 receiver was designed to take. So they were pulled because of the way they may respond to an ammo failure that was very common back then.

    The Marines never pulled any low number receivers as they did not feel the Army Policy of replacing the receivers was justified. They felt the receivers were safe for normal use. The only thing the Marines did was not fire VB rifle grenades out of low numbers from the mid 20's to 1939. By 1939 the Marines even rescinded the policy of not firing rifle grenades out of them.

    The Army removed the policy of replacing low number receivers in rebuild in 1940. To try as get as many serviceable rifles as they could for the war effort. By 1944/45 Springfield Armory and RIA had changed their stance on low number receivers because they had not seen any failures. They both stated they felt they were entirely safe as long as they headspaced and they were using standard m2 spec ammo.

    Springfield Armory wanted to go public in 1944 stating low numbers were entirely safe, to try to stop the public's concerns. They wanted to post a article in the American Rifleman at the time stating they were entirely safe but for whatever reason the article was never picked up.

    The whole tone of the low number receivers changed in WWII and you never seen Army Ordnance worry about their safety again.

  2. The Following 2 Members Say Thank You to cplstevennorton For This Useful Post:


Similar Threads

  1. Early 1903 NRA Sporter or Sporterized 1903 Forgery ??
    By msup13 in forum M1903/1903A3/A4 Springfield Rifle
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 02-24-2020, 12:54 PM
  2. Two Questions: Model 1903 Designation and Butt Plate Type for RIA 1903
    By USMA79 in forum M1903/1903A3/A4 Springfield Rifle
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 05-24-2018, 08:28 AM
  3. 1903 or 1903-A3 headspace issue?
    By flintlock28 in forum M1903/1903A3/A4 Springfield Rifle
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 11-30-2017, 10:46 AM
  4. SRS Check 1903 Dated 1926 NM 1903 Serial # 1272809
    By samnev in forum M1903/1903A3/A4 Springfield Rifle
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 08-31-2013, 12:01 PM
  5. Hey all 1903 Lovers : See July 20 Shotgun News 1903 Springfield Article
    By tomwatts in forum M1903/1903A3/A4 Springfield Rifle
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 07-15-2012, 04:20 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts