I acquired this rifle (SA-17449) back in the winter and had a new Silvers pad fitted, the old one was junk. Finally took it along to the range today and just touched the trigger and it fired. Felt light in the shop but a little shocking at the bench. Brought it home and found it had a 1lb-3oz trigger. Now has a 3lb-10oz so will try it again.

Good looking rifle and I really like the deep butt.

30-06? Just to clarify.

30-06 it is!

OK, Michael - it's dangerous (obviously), has a new pad, etc. but who made it? It looks early, but I'm not going to guess yet. Kinda suprised I'm the first to ask.

The rifle is unmarked but IMO the work of Griffin, post 1923 so G&H time frame. I was slow to make any attribution because of some non-typical things like the long pistol grip and short forend but feel comfortable saying it came out of the G&H shop.

Just how dangerous are these low number guns?

Michael,
I hate to think of you facing the danger of shooting it. Since I am old guy who has lived a great life, I would be happy to take it off your hands.
Seriously, many years ago I had an M2 Springfield that was obviously converted to a box magazine fed, .22 Hornet by G&H. The bottom of the receiver was machined in typical G&H fashion to feed, and a new box and follower along a with beautifully finished '03 trigger guard/floor plate were fitted. The stock, sights and scope mounts were all G&H, yet it was not marked G&H. The answer I was given by the gentleman who was running G&H back then was that they only marked firearms that they rebarreled and this one still had an M2 barrel although the rifling and bore diameter were the only vestiges left. Is it possible yours has a Springfield barrel?

Shooting a 150gr bullet at 2700fps is pretty darn dangerous.

Seriously, the majority of folks believe them to be a danger to the shooter and do not recommend shooting them. Obviously I'm in the minority and for reasons that have to do with research and hands on.

If someone will take up the other side and present their evidence (more then everyone knows they are bad or I have a copy of Hatcher's Notebook) I would be happy to debate the subject, in detail.

To summarize, the double heat treated and the nickle steel 1903's have an increased margin of safety over the single heat treated (low-number) 1903's. A few of the LN's had burnt steel but now all LN are considered unsafe and most people feel that even a proper made LN rifle will fail if the case head fails.

This one does have the original Springfield barrel but I have seen many marked G&H's (I have one) with the original Armory barrel.

Unfortunately there is no RULE why some rifles were not marked.

Now thats a nice stock pattern! Long open grip, short forend.

In the Late 1970's I had to take a low number Springfield our Police department bought to Roy Dunlap in Tucson for examination.

To summarize what Dunlap told me. Not all low number Springfield's are unsafe. Most are not. Some are unsafe and there is no way to tell which are safe and which are not, so the whole lot was condemned.

In modern phraseology I suppose you could say, "most low number Springfields are not unsafe, some are...guess which one."

Roy Dunlap worked for the Ordnance Dept, in the field, during WWII where the low number 1903 was still in service.

“Ordnance Went Up Front” by Roy F. Dunlap Samworth 1948 (speaking of low-number rifles) “I saw hundreds of these in the war, used with all types of issue ammunition including armor piercers with a rather high chamber pressures. These low number actions are safe with practically all government and commercial ammunition in .30-06 caliber, with the possible exception of very high-pressured target loads or heavy-bullet hunting cartridges.”

Recently, last year or so, there was an article in I think American Riflemen that basically said the same as DoubleD.

Michael, you are right also. However isn't this discussion kind of like trying to prove a negative? (Or in other words prove to me that this isn't safe, in engineering we are required to prove something is safe)
What is the point, the fact exists that for reasons the low numbers were identified as having an issue. The issue wasn't made up.

Your rifle is a nice collector piece (I too like the grip and short forearm) and of course you get to choose, with so many other nice guns to shoot, that haven't an identitfied issue, why take the risk.
If your life long dream is to climb Mt. Everest or base jump, then I would understand.

After seeing the long-ago article where a man broke a low-number action with a plastic hammer, I got rid of all my low number guns. These guns should be collected and admired, but should not be fired.

I try not to hit my good guns with a hammer.....just my viewpoint.

You will find to your chagrin that if you hit many Mauser 1898s in the same spot, guess what? Even though Mausers are typically much much softer than Spingfields, they will still crack across the rail(s). Does this then make them unsafe? Of course not, you're comparing apples to pomegrantes. Please consult Ackley's Handbook for his actual blowup tests for some REAL-WORLD comparisons.
Regards, Joe

"What is the point, the fact exists that for reasons the low numbers were identified as having an issue. The issue wasn't made up."

What do you believe that the issue is with the safety of the low-numbered 1903's?

There was a lot of press during WWI about the USA sending men to fight with a rifle not designed for the pressure of the modern 1906 cartridge. One of the New York papers did a big story about it and many articles were published in A&TM by famous folks telling how safe the rifles were. The problem was many recruits saw rifles blowup, actions and barrels turned into junk. These men wrote home about it and firestorm started. May I suggest you read “The Price of Carelessness” by S. Trask Arms and the Man May 4, 1918. “Down in the Small Arms Section, Engineering Bureau, the Ordnance Department in Washington there is a pile of worthless junk that was but lately nearly a score of finely finished, strongly built United States rifles.” “With receivers demolished, ruptured barrels, split stocks, and damaged bolts, they are eloquent evidence of the price the United States Government has to pay, in addition to all the other cost of waging modern war, because the soldiers to whom these rifles were issued were either careless or ignorant.”


Now if you think this is about the low-number 1903's you are mistaken, this is about the Model 1917.

The 1903 Springfield failed for the same reason the 1917 did. All the 1917 blow-ups were attribute to bore obstructions. The people who did the actual inspection on the 1903 came to the same conclusion.

Small Arms Design & Ballistics Vol. II by Townsend Whelen “All Army rifles which have been “accidentally” injured in service are shipped to Springfield Armory for examination. Mr. A.L. Woodward, Engineer of Test at the Armory for the past thirty years states that in ninety nine percent of the cases the accident has been caused by an obstruction in the bore, or by firing a wrong cartridge, that is an improper or wrongly sized cartridge, or one handloaded to excessive pressure. It is interesting to note that in the majority of these accidents an effort is made to conceal the real cause of the accident, but the evidence is always perfectly plain.”

I think that going from the single heat treat to a double heat treat was more progress than anything else. Remember the early 1903 were made from the same steel, with the same heat treatment and by the same folks that made the Krags. They realized that the actions could be built stronger so they did. There may have been a time when they considered removing the low-number guns from service but I think they all changed their minds after the 1917 was manufactured and in service for a while. There were numerous blow-ups of the 1917, and I’m not talking escaping gas but shattered receivers and barrels. One unit alone managed to destroy over a dozen rifles in a short time. The investigation of these concluded that all were a result of a bore obstruction. Interesting is that some were blamed on improper attachment of the bayonet, after the first shot the front of the bayonet became loose and dropped in front of the muzzle. (Could this happen with a 1903?) If a 1903 had a major failure the rifle was wrecked and out of service regardless of heat treatment. Another factor that may have entered into the 1903 decision was a paper published in “Army Ordnance” by A.L. Woodworth of Springfield Armory suggesting that without a bore obstruction the pressure of the 30-06 cartridge did not have enough pressure to shatter a receiver.

A couple years ago I took five (5) low number 1903's both RI and SA fitted a barrel, checked headspace. I then took Arsenal issue AP ammo and cut the cases at the head almost all the way through to guarantee case failure, I shot several in each, nothing happened. One is a ratty old RI so I got bored and fired a couple 8x57 Mauser rounds in it, nothing so I went home. I, however did not hit them with a hammer

In the end I have never found a single case of rifle blowing up in WWI or WWII combat. Remember all the problems with the Ross and the reporting that went along with it? No reports on the 1903. Has anyone ever seen or read a report of accident with low-number sporter?

Reference:

“The Bursting of Rifles in Service” by A.L. Woodworth reprinted in the American Rifleman December, 1929 does not have date of original paper.

“The Price of Carelessness” by S. Trask Arms and the Man May 4, 1918. ( Problems with the 1917)

American Rifleman March 1, 1925 By Major Whelen….”It happens; that beginning with serial number somewhere about 800,000, Springfield Armory adapted a new method of heat treatment for their receivers. This new method gives greater tensile strength than the old method. It is simply progress and improvement, and does not mean at all that previous receivers were defective in any way. As a matter of fact they are not, and from a practical point of view the difference between the two heat treatments means nothing at all. I would just as soon have an old receiver as a new one. In fact the receiver of my favorite Springfield sporter rifle is in the 200,000s, and I would not think of changing it for anything.”


American Rifleman Feb, 1936
“Fortunately, the law of averages makes such accidents very unlikely. Out of the million old-type M-1903 receivers and every Krag receiver (case hardened in the same way) made between 1892 and 1917 there have been very few accidents for a negligibly small fraction of a percentage point when compared with the total number of possibilities during all the years up to 1936. The sensible thing to do however is to check the old-type actions for headspace or have them so checked. If the headspace is found to be normal or in good condition it should safely handle all standard loads.”

“Pressure and Safety” by Townsend Whelen American Rifleman April, 1931.

“Take the Springfield rifle, for example. Originally, it used only the model 1906 cartridge with 150-grain bullet, muzzle velocity 2,700 fps. The maximum allowable pressure was 49,000 pounds, but the actual pressure seldom exceeded 47,500 pounds. These pressures were well within the strength of the cartridge case. Even when the pressure was raised by extremely hot weather, the case would invariably stand the pressure without a trace of failure. Malfunctions and slight or serious accidents were almost unknown. The accidents that did occur could almost invariably be charged to obstructions or grease in the bore, or to changing the bolt in the rifle, and thus getting excessive head space.”

1936 “American Rifleman” it see that the practice of exchanging the low-number receivers for high-numbers when a rifle was sent in by a civilian for work was stopped unless the person requested it. Seems some people did not like loosing these (hard) smooth working actions. This question is not new, from Nov, 1932 American Rifleman, person asking if his low-number was still serviceable. Answer: “These older receivers are safe to use with any standard factory ammunition of old or modern ballistics, providing the cases are in good condition. There should be no grease on the cartridge or in the bore, and the breech space must be no greater than about .005 inch.”

The American Rifleman February, 1936 “R.F. Sedgley, Inc. has offered to check the headspace of old-type M-1903 actions for NRA members free of charge. The firm is in a position to adjust defective actions and to proof-fire the rifle at their quotations. They are also prepared to re-heat treat such old-type receivers for added toughness or to eliminate the condition of excessive brittleness. Sedgley has so re-heat treated ten thousand or more of such actions and I have not heard of any blow ups to date.”

A link so it's big enough to read.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v311/mjpetrov/Miss/blowup.jpg

About time for me to drop in my 2c worth. There is no doubt that the overcooked overbrittle low number action, waiting to blow up like a grenade with normal pressures, is virtually nonexistent. And arguably those that were going to pop did so in the 20th C. But equally there is no doubt but that among the 800,000 there were at least a very few that were defective. A handful may still be with us, even fewer built into nice sporters. So I long ago adopted for my own rule not to own or shoot a low number rifle, receiver, or bolt, with any ammunition. Others like Michael may rely on the statistics and use them with good cheer. Not me, I am chicken.

mk, i for one like your 2 cents worth

and

So what happened in the other 1% of the cases?

If the 1% were due to steel failure the 1% of failures can be taken against the entire population which in this case is 800,000. Or 8000 guns that would statistically have the same issue.

LRF that was 1% of failures were not due to bore obstruction. That does not translate to 1% of all low number rifles.

Jerry Liles

8,000 ???????? Only 57 rifles burst total!

There were about 800,000 SA, 285,000 RIA made, or over a million in all, and they were continued in service until superseded by the M1 rifle. From 1917 to 1929 inclusive, records were kept of all accidents to receivers of Springfield rifles, and during that time of the 800,000 low-numbered Springfields there were 33 reported burst or about 1-24,000. Of the 285,000 RIA LN receivers there were 24 reported burst or about 1 in 11,800. There were 9 cases of sever injuries; no one was killed, and in most cases there were no injuries or only minor ones.

And by 1978 he was saying "Not all low number Springfield's are unsafe. Most are not. Some are unsafe and there is no way to tell which are safe and which are not, so the whole lot was condemned."

He must have thought about.

Basically, if any danger exists it is so small as to be inconsequential. I daresay one stands a much higher risk of catastrophe befalling him by getting in his car and driving on I-95. How many of us regularly fire Krags and not bat an eye? Now there is an accident waiting to happen if there ever was one, but we (including myself) fire them with impunity. The early '03 was essentially the same steel formula but in a much better designed action. I have never understood the attitude toward low # Springfields.

I wonder how many words in print have been devoted to hashing over this old rhubarb during the last 90 years? If the Ordnance Dept. had never brought it to light we would have blithely gone along as if nothing were wrong and all was right with the world.

JMO.

The problem was the method of controlling heat treatment. For years seasoned technicians heated treated the actions to the "proper" temperature. They way they determined the temperature was by watching the metal heat up to the point that it turned the "proper" color. When production was stepped up, less seasoned technicians (some very young) were hired to assist manufacturing, including the heat treatment process. Some of these new technicians were better than others in reading the color of the metal. Determining the temperature of the metal by its color was very subjective and it is believed that some actions, rare as they may be, were over heated and became too brittle. New methods of determining metal temperature were adopted and old actions were double heat treated whenever they went in for depot maintenance.

The chance of getting a low numbered action that was originally over hardened, and was not later re-hardened, is very slim but still very real. Even the ODCMP warns against shooting low numbered Springfields.

My main reference is The Springfield 1903 Rifles by Brophy.

As liability suits have escalated, gun writers and gun sellers have been more and more cautious about all things in regards to firearms. I can't imagine that a rifle that has been in use for close to 100 years is suddenly going to be affected by a normal load.

I agree, you can write a hundred articles about how bad they are but not a single one will get published if you show other information.

When I published the Sedgley article my mail box was full of folks telling me how dangerous they were. Never mind that not a single one has ever failed.

I never advocate that others shoot them I just think that in order to make an informed decision they might need more info.

For decades the NRA and DCM said to have the headspace checked, use good brass and don't overload. Now even the auction companies have a warning not to shoot them.

If there were ANY so called burnt receivers I wounder how they made it passed the proof test. If the rifle was a 30-03 then when the barrel was set back it would have yet another proof test.

I never knew that the Marines had a single rifle re-heat treated, can you you quote a source for that information?

Sorry, my mistake. Not re-heated. Instead, the Marines had the Hatcher holes drilled into the receivers of their guns "to cut the incidence of burst receivers".

I still have a few low-number actions that I would not object to trying some different experiments on.

I'm not sure what else to do that would tell us anything new.

I've tried the failed case but might try it in another way. What if I annealed the head of a case until it was dead soft so it would flow, might the pressure get a bit higher before it ruptured? After the one action squirted out two 8mm bullets I was at a loss.

When I blew up a Krag and helped on a trapdoor I learned a lot about how strong and what these old rifles will take.

I'm open to suggestions!

I say just shoot and enjoy it with standard ammo.
No experiments.

Don, I think you misunderstand what I want to do. I have no intention of playing around with any sporter. I have several loose low-number actions, one is a real dog and no loss if I wreck it.

I would hate to think that anyone thought I was up here experimenting with trying to blowup say Townsend Whelen's Wundhammer

Michael,

I can't help jumping into this fray.
You and I have discussed the LN debate before and you have done due diligence on research in trying to duplicate a failure. I too am one who believes the odds are riskier on urban freeways/streets than shooting one.

However, if you did succeed I am afraid you would just lend credence to Bayesian probability.

Art

Baysian? What is the current prior?

I interpret Hatcher's data as the prior and if Michael succeeded in getting one to fail he could possibly introduce new data. But then......what do I know I'm not a probalist?

I'm just not in the sky is falling camp.

Who's on first base?

What.