Did I make a mistake.?

[Sailct41]

Guys I just bought a 1903 and when I got it home I realized that the serial number was 717xxx putting in in 1917 and in the section where there are concerns about the the receiver being too brittle and the bolt hitting me in the eye. The guy whom i bought it from was shooting it with factory loads. I paid 400 for it, it has a new style bolt (slightly swept back) i dont really plan on shooting it much but i would like to shoot it. I reload so my current plan is to load some 30-06 hot as recommended and tie it to the table and shoot 10 rounds. If it does not explode I will make some light targer loads and not worry about it. Sound plan or crazy? I need some help from the experts

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.

[Wineman]

If brittle, the main issue is a bad case that lets gas into the action. Factory M1 Garand type (not the usual light magnum) ammo might be the best bet. Remember even a "light" reload is still 30,000 psi. Let a 70 psi truck tire explode next to you you and 30k is not something to fool with. Has there been a M1903 blow up in the last 20 years? I see the occasional Garand slam fire posted but I have not seen a post of early rifle going to pieces. CMP does not allow them in matches. The $400 is a small price vs what a medical bill would be. How about a Kevlar blanket over the action when you shoot it? Sorry this is a random, and confusing post but it is not new info on the early rifles, and buyer beware.

Dave

[Fred G.]

I wouldn't stress the steel out on your rifle with so called proof loads. It could and probably will stretch the head spacing a bit. Why mess it up? Leave it alone and just use reduced loads in new brass cases.

[Neal Myers]

For your intended purpose, yes, you made a mistake.

Lots of folks still fire low number 1903's, &, if catastrophic failures occur, they are so rare most of us have never heard of them in our lifetime. I've seen or have reliable reports of several catastrophic failures due to bore obstruction, & I fear that more.

Proof loads are meaningless when it comes to low number receiver failures. Those receivers that have failed did so at random using standard loads. It just can't be predicted.

If I were a subsistence hunter & a low number 1903 was all I had to feed my family, I'd shoot it. But, I'm not. I shoot for a hobby, & losing a little money isn't going to hurt me. Life is too short, & emergency room visits are too expensive, for me to take a chance shooting a rifle that may be unsafe. If I had a (non-collectible) low number 1903, I'd sell it to some one who wants it for parts.

The decision is yours.

Neal

[Calif-Steve]

You reload? Try a light/medium load of 4831 with high quality brass. If the case fails you have trouble. I would not try to re-proof the rifle. But keep the headspace tight and use high quality brass. Good luck.

[Chuckindenver]

wont blow up out of the blue. its how the low numbers handle a case head failure..not a hot load

[Johnny Peppers]

Hatcher notes RIA receiver 223235 as shattering for no apparent reason than being either exceptionally hard or overheated in manufacture. After the failure the receiver appeared to have a crack that developed earlier as well as hairline cracks that may have also developed earlier. I don't believe I would stress the receiver and then fire it.

The rifle was at Winchester Repeating Arms being used for ammo testing.

[TDH]

I also have a low number 03 with the serial number dating it in 1907 and refurbished in 1919. I do shoot it a couple times a year with reduced loads and usually not more than 10 rounds at a time. When I do shoot it I always warn those near me what I am about to do. Am I worried about it? No. I would not use factory ammo in it. Like I said I use reduced loads (44.5 grains of IMR4895) with a 147-150 bullet. That's me. Use your best judgment.
On a historical note. An old foreman of mine that landed with the first wave on Guadalcanal told me the majority of the 03's they landed with were low numbers and none of them blew up that he knew of. F.W.I.W.

[Fred G.]

Cool!

[Rick the Librarian]

For your intended purpose, yes, you made a mistake.

Lots of folks still fire low number 1903's, &, if catastrophic failures occur, they are so rare most of us have never heard of them in our lifetime. I've seen or have reliable reports of several catastrophic failures due to bore obstruction, & I fear that more.

Proof loads are meaningless when it comes to low number receiver failures. Those receivers that have failed did so at random using standard loads. It just can't be predicted.

If I were a subsistence hunter & a low number 1903 was all I had to feed my family, I'd shoot it. But, I'm not. I shoot for a hobby, & losing a little money isn't going to hurt me. Life is too short, & emergency room visits are too expensive, for me to take a chance shooting a rifle that may be unsafe. If I had a (non-collectible) low number 1903, I'd sell it to some one who wants it for parts.

The decision is yours.

Neal

My opinion, exactly. While a number of people feel that, since they were cleared for "war emergency" use in WWII, that somehow makes them safe. Firing off some rounds at the range doesn't exactly qualify as "war emergency". If a LN M1903 was the only thing between me and an enemy, I would have no hesitation; other than that (or Neal's example), I'd pass. Obviously, it is for each person to decide.