https://www.gunbroker.com/item/905299018

Expensive with repaired stock. Presumably the buyer could recognize it as a real Wundhammer. I also wondered if Wundhammer heat treated low number Springfields.

Probably not, the low-number receiver problem really didn't come to light until after the US entered World War I.

David, I can tell you right now that the seller and buyer both walked away happy The buyer now owns a very nice Wundhammer.
Who in the hell, a ding bat like you are to question it’s authenticity. Pull your head out of the grass!

I didn't have my Petrov book handy, and I had not taken the time to dig out the Amoskeag catalog of the Petrov sale to compare, so I was merely agnostic on the accuracy of the attribution. I already have too many '06s and a couple of high end custom sporterized (G&H and Minar) Springfields, so I couldn't possibly justify another one. I also had reservations about the repaired stock and the low number-edness of the Springfield. So I was a non bidder. I posted here simply because I was curious if the more knowledgeable experts here recognized that rifle as a real Wundhammer. I've seen several supposed Wundhammers go by on Gun Broker that I did not need assistance to reject out of hand.

Beyond that, let me invite you to mouth off like that to me in person sometime.

As well you should, all of the low numbered 1903 rifles (which by any definition were the results of bad engineering) should have been de-militarized and destroyed by the Army and Springfield when their mistakes were uncovered.
To paraphrase Townsend Whelen, "only accurate (safe) rifles are interesting". IMO

.
I don't think you will ever find a high numbered Wundhammer since he died in 1919. I also think most of them were made on the NRA sales rifles as that was the most common way for the public to get their hands on an '03 back then.

The recently sold rifle was considerably more ornamentally checkered than Phil Shoemaker's Wundhammer (ex-Michael Petrov collection). Compare:

The pro-argument:

That rifle is over a century old. It has obviously been fired many times, and it's still intact and here.

Decades ago, my father picked up an original unsporterized military form 1903 Springfield. I took it out and plinked with it many times. It was a low number Springfield, but I was not aware of the heat-treating issue at the time. It never blew up.

The anti-argument:

A fellow who posts here paid a lot of money for this Meunier Springfield which blew up on him. I bet you can find the thread.

David, I will have to decline your invite. Fuel prices are way to high for a visit. You cam PM me your address and I will send you box ox tissues to dry your eyes.
Very interesting Muenier 03, please tell us more about it.

The Meunier you mention blew up as a result of careless reloading, not as a result of heat treat. The heat treat may have contributed to the number of pieces it ended up in, but with the pressure generated and the resultant escaping gases, very few rifle would have stayed in one piece.

John

Since you're a rude obnoxious [censored], I assume you're from New York. That's not such a long drive to Central PA.

There is a study of the failure rate of low-number Spingfields. http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:MNn-sVcfW2AJ:m1903.com/03rcvrfail/+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-b It seems to be very low.

I seem to recall that the fellow shooting the Meunier that blew up was using a low pressure round with a cast bullet, but this forum's search engine does not work very well.

I believe this is the thread you were looking for


blow up thread

I believe that the shooter thought it was a low pressure load, but it was not a load recommended by the producer of the powder.

I think people handloading "light loads" have blown more guns than just about anything, double charges, wrong powder, "light load" doesn't always mean low pressure either.

Yes, it is. Thanks for finding it.

Fred thanks for the link. Maybe you can further assist by posting that report that was done on this accident. You one time shared it with me and maybe on here also but I can't put my finger on it right now.

What Lynn is referring to, is that there was a really impressive metallurgical study performed on the remains of the rifle that blew up. I have a pdf, but
I am not sure how to post it on the forum or if I would be violating any copyrights by doing so.

Fred and All.
The study on the blown Muenier 03 was featured in a two part article in GUNMAKER magazine. Gunmaker is the very well done magazine of The American Custom Gunmakers Guild. I would encourage anyone here to to join as an associate member,or professional. Their magazine has good articles and you can correspond with professional members from their website. The study was given to them to publish and I don’t know if they have copyright or their policies to post it here.
When I bought the remains of the rifle I sent them to a metallurgist who went above and beyond when he put a team of three other metallurgist together who where each award winning professionals in their field of metallurgy. The reason I picked this rifle for study was the fact we know what loads Michael put through it and the the owner of the rifle tells us in detail of his loading at time of failure. I could go into more detail but hopefully we can get the study here and you can read it.

The article came out in 2018, I reread it today. There were so many things I missed when I first read it. I really am impressed by the science that went into it.
I consider it a "must read" for anyone interested in the low number Springfield issue. It should be discussed every time someone raises the issue of low-numbered
Springfields.