Low serial number Springfield

[Cordite]

I have come into possession of a US Springfield Armory Model 1903 with serial #685XXX. On the barrel by the front sight are the letters RA, below which is a flaming bomb and under that is the date 1-42. The wrist is straight with no pistol grip. I see cartouche marks of SA. On the top of the butt stock is the number 1087. I have been told that in Springfields with serial numbers under 800,000 the heat treatment was improper and asa result I should never shoot this weapon. Can anyone tell me where to find out about this issue and where to find out about this particular rifle? According to one of the serial number stickies on the site, this piece was made in 1917. Any guidance is greatly appreciated.

Information

Warning: This is a relatively older thread This discussion is older than 360 days. Some information contained in it may no longer be current.

[Calif-Steve]

An RA barrel on a low number is unusual. I need to think about that. Most guys do not shoot low numbers Springfields. However, some guys do! This is a hot button issue. Good luck with this one.

[Cordite]

I will make an effort to post pics tomorrow. I'm hopeful that will help in that regard. Thanks.

[browningautorifle]

I had 239027 with a 1918 barrel and I shot it regularly. No ill effects. Finally sold it to a collector.

[Cordite]

Thanks for telling me that, browningautorifle. I wanted to put up some pictures but my camera does not take a satisfactory close up. I read somewhere that one of the issues with the low-numbered Springfields "blowing up" in the shooter's face was that the loads were heavier than the standard military load. How that was determined I do not know.






Regards,

Mike

[JGaynor]

Springfield Armory M1903's with serial numbers generally under 800,000 were all manufactured using a technique described as a Single Heat Treatment (SHT). (NB: The same technique was used at Rock Island with a slightly higher incidence of problems but of course with a separate range of serial numbers.) While the basic SHT process was adequate in a small percentage of cases the receiver steel was "burned". This resulted in a receiver that was outwardly OK and could very well provide good service for years until it 1. spontaneously let go or 2. some other factor such as a bad cartridge case released gas into the reciever ring; the wrong ammunition was used (8mm Mauser in several cases).

During WW1 Ordnance addressed the problem by changing the manufacturing process to a Double Heat Treatment (DHT) process which resulted in a receiver with a substantially higher margin of safety. These changes were introduced about s/n 800,000 and is what accounts for the general guidance cited in your original post. Ordnance also went to private industry and fulfilled most of the WW1 rifle requirements with the M1917 (which used a nickle steel receiver).

During the 20's Ordnance studied the issue of the low numbered receivers in detail. Keep in mind every rifle that made it to the field had been subjected to an over pressure proof test followed by a function test. I don't know what percentage of low numbered rifles were destroyed in testing. But reading between the lines in Hatcher presumably some of them were. In the final analysis Ordnance concluded there was no pracitical or cost effective way to 1. Identify the rifles with "burned" receivers and 2. re-heat treat low numbered rifles generally. So the decision was made to retain the low numbered rifles as a war reserve and scrap low numbered receivers when the rifles came in for repair or rebuild. From that point the so called low-numbered rifles (SHT) were lumped together and considered unsafet to shoot.

If you are interested in more detail on the subject "Hatcher's Notebook" by Major General Julian Hatcher, Stackpole is an excellent source as the author was personnaly involved in many of the issues. There is pertinent information in several different sections of the book including summaries of all of the accident reports up to 1929.

I hope this helps. Its kind of a thumbnail explanation and there is a lot more to the story.

As was mentioned earlier somefolks will shoot and have shot their low-numbered rifles with out problems. Their rifles may be Ok or they may have been lucky and never had a cartridge case let go, get a few too many grains of powder in a reload or what ever. When it comes to giving advice to someone else most of us err on the side of caution and recommend against shooting these veterans.

Regards,

Jim

[Chuckindenver]

to add what has been posted,
its really not that the the low numbered Recivers will just fail out of the blue...its how they handle a failure...
on a failure they tended to shater like glass, the post 800,000 SA,s would peal away like a banana peal, so they both can fail. they just handle the failure in a different way.
i dont tell anyone to ever shoot a SHT 1903...but if you do,,, only shoot modern factory ammo, and wear safety glasses, and gloves if you do.

[Cordite]

Thanks everyone. While this particular rifle is in very nice condition I'm going to pass on shooting it. It came to me at no cost and has just become a great wall hanger. I do believe, however, that I am going to find one that is safe to shoot. They seem to have an elegance all their own.



Regards,

Mike

[LeagleEagle]

Did anyone ever do the stats on how many receivers failed in combat in WW1? It would seem that probably most of the '03s used by the AEF were low numbered. And wasn't wartime ammo a factor as well?

[browningautorifle]

Chuck and Jim, I'm not sure what you're trying to tell me. I didn't say shoot anything, just that I shot mine. I never even heard of exploding receivers until the last five or so years. All the 03 owners I knew shot their rifles. So, how many blow up each year? What's the basis for this fear mongering? I would suspect the guns that were going to give up have already. Putting an 8mm Mauser cartridge in an '06 is using your equipment wrong. That can't be counted.

I knew what you folks were going to say when I posted, all I said was I did it with NO problems. Are you telling me I'm wrong...I did have problems?