1903 (A-what?)

[ssgross]

You see why this particular gun seems to defy classification.

First time I've seen an RIA mark on a scant stock. I had always thought they were only used by Remington or Smith Corona in A3 production, or as field replacements. I've seen/used several field replacements, and they only have the final manufacturer's first letter marked, if anything. (Keystone has a "K" on the forend tip, with a bomb. Springfield S in the mag cutoff recess, etc.)
So, re-stocked with a field replacement during tear down and rebuild at Rock Island between 1941-1946 (Frank Krack stamp range), and re-proofed too. Does this increase the chance that it was a USMC hold-on-to? Is that an extra vent hole on the right side of the receiver in the last pic? can't see it in the first pic close up.

[cplstevennorton]

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 By 1939 the Marines even rescinded the policy of not firing rifle grenades out of them.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.

[browningautorifle]

The Army never pulled the low numbers receivers from Service

The Marines never pulled any low number receivers

The Army removed the policy of replacing low number receivers

Springfield Armory wanted to go public in 1944 stating low numbers were entirely safe,

The whole tone of the low number receivers changed in WWII

You know how many times this exact discussion comes up as well Steve, I wonder if a sticky could be created with not just this info you speak of but I know you have written documentation in the reams in possession. To be able to show these things would be beneficial to not just this forum but it will come up in future internet searches...

[RDG]

Here are two photos showing the "extra" vent hole on the right side of the receiver, one with and one without a flashlight shone into the receiver showing it is drilled all the way through. If this is an extra vent, where might the first one be? From previous discussion, does it appear this may be a Marine rifle? I like the comment that it may have been reproofed; to what pressure one wonders? You would think there would be documentation of this work. Anyway, I think it's a fun shooter and have no qualms about using ammo my gunsmith uncle loaded back in the fifties as well as some I have reloaded (nothing HOT) in the last decade or two.

[cplstevennorton]

You know how many times this exact discussion comes up as well Steve, I wonder if a sticky could be created with not just this info you speak of but I know you have written documentation in the reams in possession. To be able to show these things would be beneficial to not just this forum but it will come up in future internet searches...

I have really thought of just writing up bullet points like that Jim, and then posting the Ordnance docs under them and do it in chronological order. So that way you just follow the progression from the beginning all the way to the end. Then that way people can research it themselves and decide if they feel safe firing low numbers.

I even thought of maybe seeing if we could put it on one of the forums as a sticky, or even just put it on the USMC Weaponry page and then people just post a link to it when this question pops up.

[cplstevennorton]

Here are two photos showing the "extra" vent hole on the right side of the receiver, one with and one without a flashlight shone into the receiver showing it is drilled all the way through. If this is an extra vent, where might the first one be? From previous discussion, does it appear this may be a Marine rifle? I like the comment that it may have been reproofed; to what pressure one wonders? You would think there would be documentation of this work. Anyway, I think it's a fun shooter and have no qualms about using ammo my gunsmith uncle loaded back in the fifties as well as some I have reloaded (nothing HOT) in the last decade or two.

That is the standard gas escape hole. The additional one is on the direct opposite of the receiver. The Army started to drill the additional gas escape hole in the Spring of 1937 on the new NM's and SA drilled it on all rebuilds going forward of that date.

The Marines started to drill it in the fall of 1938.

This rifle above I am sorry to say is unlikely Marine.

But this is the additional gas escape hole. This one was drilled by the Marine Corps. But it's the same as the Army in everyway. In fact Springfield Armory is the one who taught the Marines to drill them.



---------- Post added at 04:56 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:52 PM ----------

I like the comment that it may have been reproofed; to what pressure one wonders? You would think there would be documentation of this work.

It was 100% for sure re-proofed when the barrel was installed.

The proofing changed over the years, but this was the policy in 1939. Some documents state the avg pressure of the proof round was 70,000 PSI





This is how the Marine Proof Fired a M1903.

[browningautorifle]

I even thought of maybe seeing if we could put it on one of the forums as a sticky, or even just put it on the USMC Weaponry page and then people just post a link to it when this question pops up.

Sort of what I was inferring, so we have a datum point.

[RDG]

Great information. This rifle has no added vent on the left side, just the one I showed in the last photograph. But a 1942 barrel and rifle proofed to as high as 70,000 psi is a win!

[m1903rifle]

Everyone seems to be forgetting why Springfield M1903 rifles failed.......not the high pressure generated by a normal M1 or M2 round, BUT what happened when a defective standard M1 or M2 round had a head separation. The low numbers failed in a catastrophic fashion, but the high numbers failed in a less than catastrophic fashion.

[browningautorifle]

a defective standard M1 or M2 round had a head separation.

Talked about in post 12.