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

Something not mentioned in the (most interesting) report is the use of grease to lubricate the cupro-nickel bullet jackets of some ammunition produced during the '20s. Apparently shooters believed that the grease would prevent the pesky hard-to-clean fouling from being such a problem, but the grease ended up migrating onto the chamber walls and thus greatly increasing the bolt thrust. Urban legend has generally acknowledged that some rifles were in fact blown up in this way, but no reliable numbers have been given and there's probably no way to know what effect this may have had on the facts recounted in the report.

My own opinion is that I'll continue to shoot the low-numbered rifles but will not build one unless first annealed & tested or else chambered for a lower-pressure cartridge. At this moment there's a low-no receiver in my shop in the 770xxx range that looks to be in excellent condition, until you notice the small crack that has propagated up the left rear sidewall from the rear of the magazine opening into the bolt stop hole area and then up to the left rear of the rear ring at the primary extraction cam. The owner wants to use it for a paperweight but I'm hoping he'll let me anneal it & experiment a little first.
Regards, Joe

ACK! Someone did a statistical analyses!!!! Oh the pain, the horror, the agony!!!!

Just funnin' I'm a big proponent of rational decision making and regularly get keel-hauled for suggesting or implementing it with respect to the shooting sports..;.

Well that is certainly a well reasoned and written analysis of the situation. The suggestion that later receivers might be just as statistically bad is also worrisome. But it didn't really change my thinking: I still think it would be foolish to build a rifle today on a low number action. I might have a greater risk of being hit by lightning tomorrow, but if a low number action failed I would feel really stupid for the few seconds before I expired. As mentioned in the article, until at least 1960 the government was worried enough to exchange the receivers for free. I think my father traded in a couple under that program.

I do shoot older rifles including (gasp) a Krag and a Winchester Low Wall in .22 K-Hornet. But I also use those rifles with a fair bit of caution in loading. In fact, the velocity gain from the K-Hornet chamber is completely wasted on me! Just chicken I guess, I use modern Sakos and the like for making really loud noises.

I didn't post it to try to change anyone's thinking but merely to help put the discussion into another perspective. I do not own any low number Springfields myself but after reading the article I admit I do not have nearly as much negative thought about them as I once did.

I do know that the few I have toyed around with were some of the smoothest actions around. Not quite as smooth as the Krag but very, very good.

Have owned many 03's shot most of them and read all the books. Faithfully refrained from shooting the low number guns.

Thing that strikes me is I will not use a mild cast bullet load in the 03 and have shot thousands of similar loads in Trapdoor's and Kraig's.

Go figure.

Boats

Guilty!

I shoot low number (and high number) 03 Springfields and also Krag's in MBA matches. Albeit with low pressure jacketed bullet loads. Low pressure does not mean inaccurate. The load I'm using will clean the score targets consistantly and I've won several group targets at our club matches.

1878, I appreciate "chicken" when it comes to old rifles. Shooting Hornet loads in a K-chamber works fine and the cases last forever. Better a fighting rooster than a pollo frito!

To stick with the original question, the receiver is a double heat treated one and even it was not I see no reason to have one re-heat treated. Early 1903’s were re-treated by both the Armory and private companies.



November, 1921 Arms & the Man “Concerning the Strength of the Springfield” by Hatcher. ”The new treatment started with guns numbered about 800,000, and when guns are repaired at Springfield Armory, receivers with numbers earlier than this are either scrapped or retreated.”


February 1, 1925 American Rifleman Townsend Whelen answering question about heat treatment of 1903’s. “All rifles now being manufactured and all above No. 800,000 have the new heat treatment. Many of the older ones which have been returned to the Armory for repairs have been re-heat treated.”

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.”

This is an example of a postings on the net regarding the low-numbered 1903’s.

“It is my belief that virtually any low-numbered 1903 action will be broken by a massive gas escape, such as that resulting from a failed cartridge case, whether excessive pressures are involved or not, while the later actions will generally survive intact, as they should.”

Does anyone agree or disagree with this statement and if so why?

I had a pierced primer occur in a cartridge fired in my Sedgley Sporter and nothing happened to the rifle or me.
One of my handloads loads, and it handled it just fine. If that qualifys as "a massive gas escape",,then no I don't agree with the statement at all.
>
A question I have is..Were the US Krag rifle receivers made from the same steel and heat treated with the same methods/techniques (same workmen I assume) as the 'low number' 03's?

If they were, or even if they are of even weaker steel/ heat treat, why no calls to retire all of them.
If they were the same steel/heat treat,,why no brittle & burst Krag receivers? I've seen cracked bolts though.
I realize the 30-40 doesn't generate the same service pressure as 30-06, but it still must be in the 30K range(guess).


I'm not asking the question as a way of supporting a 'Shoot your Low# '03' team. Thats a decision you make yourself.
I have honestly wondered why and have never been given a reason. I figured the knowledge base here would have the right answers.
*************************************
This may seem strange,,but I feel safer firing my Sedgley Sporter low# '03 than a damascus barreled shotgun w/low pressure nitro or even BP loads.