M1903 Springfield

[jskeys]

I have a 03 Springfield made in 1906. Based on my research most of what I have found caution against shooting any 03 made before 1919. This is based on single heat treatment and risk of cracking the receiver, etc. I recently found an article written by Jim Dickson, on
December 21, 2023 in History, Guns & Parts, Military Weapons. He states "Between 1917 and 1929, there were 61 cases of receivers blowing up." Given that the Springfield Armory produced 1,005,091 and Rock Island 326,935 of these rifles up thru 1918 (when they were only single heat treated) it seems to me 61 reciever issues is extremely small number. Since this forum has a unique knowledge base of experts, I hope for advice and/or clairification on what I have found so far. Shoot or use as a wall hanger?

[browningautorifle]

You'll get the phone book on this subject. I'd say just decide for yourself. Anything could happen or not.

[bob q]

Many of the "blow up " were traced back to shooting the rifle with an obstructed bore , some with the cleaning rod in the bore , a few shooting 8mm in the rifle , the panic of war , some bad wartime made ammo . Also it did not seem to be much of a problem before the war and many were shot enough to need a rebarrel . Over all a smaller failure rate than many other military rifles . I have no problem shooting my 1905 , 1911 , and 1914 rifles .

[Sapper740]

There is an excellent article regarding '03 receiver failures here: Information On M1903 Receiver Failures .

[jskeys]

I came to this forum to help me make a judgement conserning the often reported danger of shooting the early 03s. I had seen and heard this many times and when I asked what the evidence was there was no specific answer other that single heat treatment. More important there were never any numbers to show the extent of the problem. It never made sense to me that with the number of 03s made before 1919 that there would a major (numbers wise) danger without well published numbers. Especially since the army had just gotten rid of the Krag because of its poor performance against the mauser. I can only thank each of you for providing me with the information to make an informed, rational decision. So THANKS, I look forward to hitting the range with a very nice (and historic) M1903.

[ssgross]

In other discussion/debate on this forum - it has been revealed (with published sources) that USMC continued to maintain and use low number rifles long the problem isolated and the Army recalled. It is my personal conclusion that receivers in current circulation have thus been adequately tested with over a century of use. You should, however, make your own judgement call. Hatcher's notebook details the destructive testing which isolated the problem and lead to its remedy. Any careful study should start there. As already mentioned above, the details surrounding accounts of destruction during field use leaves many open questions - including the lack of evidence that would definitively isolate the cause to the heat treat issue, or otherwise eliminate other causes such as bore obstruction, lubed ammo (read somewhere that was a strong possibility in at least one of the failures. someone with better google-fu than me will re-discover this) or other circumstances.

As with any other old milsurp, the rifle doesn't know how old it is. Risk can be mitigated with carefully developing lower pressure handloads. Original ammo specs rarely prioritized accuracy above all other factors. Development was a balance of accuracy, trajectory, and terminal ballistics. The 30 Krag is a great example. Many Krag shooters on this forum will tell you of superior accuracy with lower pressure loads of either the same 220gr RN or even better with lighter bullets. Analogous question with regards to smokeless loads for trapdoor Springfields. One of my trapdoors shoots < 2MOA with 500gr 30:1 soft cast projectiles over a lower pressure smokeless load that is exponentially safer and more accurate than the original black powder formula (detailed in Spencer Wolfe's book). Its my opinion that destruction on the firing line is more likely to happen from worn out, loose fitting parts, stock fit being the most likely, than metallurgy.

Not everyone agrees, any organization like CMP will of course CYA in legal terms with a blanket don't shoot rule of thumb. There has been very heated debates on this forum in the past on this very issue. I find no reason to join those or argue it further. Do your own homework and decide for yourself.

EDIT: It's in Lyon's article, linked above. Although I don't know his source. I do know I've seen this published with citation somewhere else, just can't find it.
"The U.S. Marine Corp, because of an even more limited budget than the Army, did not follow this recommendation and never retired any of its low numbered receivers until they were replaced with the M1 rifle about 1942. The desperate need for rifles caused by World War II, saw many of the low number receiver rifles taken from war reserves and issued to U.S. and foreign troops. In 1942-44 the United States also equipped the Free French Army of Charles DeGaulle with low numbered Springfields."

[Sapper740]

This may or may not speak to the longevity of the Model 1903 Springfield but USMC snipers were still using the 1903A4 early on in there deployment to Vietnam until the M40 was issued and some C.I.D.G. (Civilian Irregular Defense Group) members were also issued '03 rifles.

[steveu]

I have one that is dated 12/09, barrel and receiver are original. It went through a rebuild and had a NS bolt installed. I have shot it with some light 150 fmj’s with no problems. One of these days I will try some cast bullets in it for 100 & 200 yards.