doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion Classic & Custom Single Barreled Sporting Rifles @ doublegunshop.com Found my first dangerous low-numbered 1903.

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.”