doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion Classic & Custom Single Barreled Sporting Rifles @ doublegunshop.com Springfield receiver on Gunbroker.

I know in the past someone was looking for one of these so I'll post the link to this one.

It is on Gunbroker

Thanks, Idared, I was one of those seeking a good 1903 receiver for Jerry Liles and this one looks like it could be a good one. Fortunately Jerry found another complete high-no action along with Lyman 48, so we're OK for now. However this one would make a fine future project if I had A) any extra money to purchase it and B) any extra tuits to build it. Thanks and regards, Joe

I'm no expert, but the number on that receiver is very close to the change to double heat treatment. From "The 03 Springfields" by Clark Campbell:

"The exact number of the receiver at which Springfield Armory switched to the double heat treatment is unknown." And a bit further on in the same paragraph:
"Receiver No. 800,000 was completed on 20 Feb. 1918, and it is known that all receivers after 800,000 received the double heat treatment. It would seem, however, that even the number 800,000 is open to question in view of the uncertainty of the date and the fact that over 1000 receivers a day were being made. Thus the fact that receiver #801,540,which was broken in 1929 when fired with a 7.92 Mauser cartridge, is the only receiver recorded as having the double heat treatment to have been officially reported as broken..."

I'm not saying, I'm just saying.

Now, could that be annealed and rehardened to eliminate any doubt?

The short answer is no! I pulled out "Hatcher's Notebook" last night and discovered that the Campbell quote above was lifted entirely from Hatcher's earlier work. In the chapter on Receiver Steels and Heat Treatment he says the following: "The test brings out quite clearly the fact that uniform results cannot be obtained by re-heat treating old receivers which vary widely in chemical composition." Apparently once the steel has been "burned" the damage is done. There is quite a bit more detail in the book and I would recommend that you read it.

Because of multiple failures in the 1920's both arsenals and a special board assembled for the purpose recommended that the low number receivers be withdrawn from service and scrapped. This finding was overruled FOR BUDGETARY REASONS (my emphasis). The low number rifles were set aside as a war reserve and the question of disposal deferred.

I am not interested in starting any internet flame wars on this subject. If you want to shoot your low number rifle, have at it. But in light of the above I think the legal position of people like the DCM who recently sold low number rifles is risky. The odds of a failure are very low, but not as low as they should be. So I say, if you have a choice, get a known double heat treat or nickel steel Springfield.

I see this quote a lot and never sure what it means. Do I understand that you are not interesting in other or different opinions on the subject?

No not at all Mr. Petrov. I would be glad to read and consider any opinion expressed in a reasonable manner. What I was getting at is their are certain subjects which seem to arouse strong feelings and/or opinions. I thought this might be one of them, and what I was trying to avoid was a:

(Insert insult here), "I have always shot my low number rifle with above manual loads" type of discussion. Those type of exchanges seem common on these forums, for reference see a recent ASSRA thread concerning the suitability of a Stevens Favorite for rebuilding to a modern center-fire caliber as an example. There are always people who maintain that anything which has not killed them yet is good practice. My position with regard to low number Springfields is that the risk is very slight, but that it is completely avoidable, so why take it. I understand that other people's views may differ.

1878

i think you hit the tack on the head and also the nail-------regards ben

Well said 1878!

How about this observation?

http://m1903.com/03rcvrfail/