Springfield 1903

[Rowdy1]

I want one for my collect of rifles and started doing some research on them. On the CMP website they said that any with a barrel number 810,000 or less the bolt or the barrel were liable to fail and not to shoot it but it would make a nice display piece. Just passing this on FYI if your too are looking to add one to your collection.

[awalker1829]

Typical legal boilerplate. If you want one in that number range, just shoot it with reduced loads if you're going to occasionally shoot it. From a mechanical standpoint, I would love to get one of the low SN 1903s and do some ND testing on the metal.

[Junk Yard Dog]

I wouldn't worry about it, receivers with the low numbers will be on the oldest and probably most expensive of M1903's. Low number receivers were supposed to be pulled from service as the rifles came in for periodic overhaul, given the number of WW2 era rebuilds I have seen that have these low number receivers still on them it's apparent that Uncle Sam wasn't afraid to use them. A small number of these receivers failed during the Great War, it was never cleared up how many failed as a result of war damage or being fired with mud packed barrels. A small number out of hundreds of thousands of rifles. The issue was with the heat treatment, not that the heat treatment was bad, only that the way it was done could have led to errors, maybe. Much more common are the higher number rifles made in large numbers during and after the Great War and later in the 1940's by Remington. You will only likely encounter a low number receiver on a WW2 rebuilt rifle, otherwise the only place I have seen them is on original rifles, and these are both very rare and expensive. Uncle liked to rebarrel everything at the slightest sign of wear so most receivers on 1903's or M1's will not be wearing the same barrel it was first issued with, probably not the same wood or any other part either. I was lucky enough to acquire two all original as first issued M1903's, 1910 Springfield and 1913 Rock Island, I have fired both more than once, but not excessively due to the historical significance and high dollar value of both rifles. Both were brought home from France by the men who fought with them, local veteran's. I did not feel unsafe firing either rifle, and it's clear that the armory didn't feel they were unsafe either as no great push was made to recall the early receivers.

[RazorBurn]

For a wall hanger I'd have a low number, and at most I would shoot reduced power loads through it. For a regular shooter I'd be looking for a high number personally. There are still plenty of M1903's, M1903 Mark 1's, 1903A1's, and 1903A3's out there for regular shooting without an unneccessary risk.

[tailgunner67]

To me it is the same as GEW88's. If they were going to blow up they would have a long time ago. Shoot it with reduced load ammo if you need to take it out. That is my biggest complaint about the internet. Way more bad information than good.

[RazorBurn]

This is from the CMP's website, take it for what it is: a statement of the service history of the M1903 from the United States Ordnance Department. There is no internet conspiracy on single heat treated receivers. There can be problems. There are no records to determine exactly which receivers or bolts were affected due to the heat treatment process used. What is known is that after a certain serial number on Springfield and Rock Island the receivers were heat treated properly. Those are facts, not "internet misinformation". To treat these facts as "internet misinformation" is quite frankly egregious. There is an increased risk from shooting a low number M1903, that is a fact. Opinions on how small the risk is are just opinions, but the increased risk is still there.

M1903*
WARNING ON “LOW-NUMBER” SPRINGFIELDS

M1903 rifles made before February 1918 utilized receivers and bolts which were single heat-treated by a method that rendered some of them brittle and liable to fracture when fired, exposing the shooter to a risk of serious injury. It proved impossible to determine, without destructive testing, which receivers and bolts were so affected and therefore potentially dangerous.

To solve this problem, the Ordnance Department commenced double heat treatment of receivers and bolts. This was commenced at Springfield Armory at approximately serial number 800,000 and at Rock Island Arsenal at exactly serial number 285,507. All Springfields made after this change are commonly called “high number” rifles. Those Springfields made before this change are commonly called “low-number” rifles.

In view of the safety risk the Ordnance Department withdrew from active service all “low-number” Springfields. During WWII, however, the urgent need for rifles resulted in the rebuilding and reissuing of many “low-number” as well as “high-number” Springfields. The bolts from such rifles were often mixed during rebuilding, and did not necessarily remain with the original receiver.

Generally speaking, “low number” bolts can be distinguished from “high-number” bolts by the angle at which the bolt handle is bent down. All “low number” bolts have the bolt handle bent straight down, perpendicular to the axis of the bolt body. High number bolts have “swept-back” (or slightly rearward curved) bolt handles.

A few straight-bent bolts are of the double heat-treat type, but these are not easily identified, and until positively proved otherwise ANY straight-bent bolt should be assumed to be “low number”. All original swept-back bolts are definitely “high number”. In addition, any bolt marked “N.S.” (for nickel steel) can be safely regarded as “high number” if obtained directly from CMP (beware of re-marked fakes).

CMP DOES NOT RECOMMEND FIRING ANY SPRINGFIELD RIFLE WITH A ”LOW NUMBER” RECEIVER. SUCH RIFLES SHOULD BE REGARDED AS COLLECTOR’S ITEMS, NOT “SHOOTERS”.

CMP ALSO DOES NOT RECOMMEND FIRING ANY SPRINGFIELD RIFLE, REGARDLESS OF SERIAL NUMBER, WITH A SINGLE HEAT-TREATED “LOW NUMBER” BOLT. SUCH BOLTS, WHILE HISTORICALLY CORRECT FOR DISPLAY WITH A RIFLE OF WWI OR EARLIER VINTAGE, MAY BE DANGEROUS TO USE FOR SHOOTING.

THE UNITED STATES ARMY GENERALLY DID NOT SERIALIZE BOLTS. DO NOT RELY ON ANY SERIAL NUMBER APPEARING ON A BOLT TO DETERMINE WHETHER SUCH BOLT IS “HIGH NUMBER” OR “LOW NUMBER”.

[BenedictGomez]

There is no internet conspiracy on single heat treated receivers. There can be problems...........There is an increased risk from shooting a low number M1903, that is a fact.

Agreed (and I'm usually the first person to go with, "because of lawyers" as an answer, but this is historical fact, not lawyer repellent).

[target]

I shoot the hell out of mine. At first I shot reduced loads, then hunting loads, then milsurp, and now I just shoot normal M1 Garand flavored handloads out of it. It made it through both world wars and a rebuild in September of 1944 where it got a new barrel, stock, bolt etc. then proofed with a high pressure load and it also has the punch mark where they tested the hardness. As far as I am concerned there is nothing wrong with mine. When it comes to low number rifles I personally think the ones that were destined to fail have failed already.

Most of the failures were attributed to the ammunition used during WW1. This ammo lead to failures that would have still damaged 800,000+ guns. In fact most of the guns that did fail did so during testing. The United States Marines used rifles that were left over from WW1 and had not been rebuilt and quite a few of those were low number guns. From what I have read during WW2 not one was reported to have failed.

Unfortunately the Low Number guns are dangerous thing has become Fuddlore (no offense to anyone here as I respect you guys a helluva lot more than your run of the mill gunshow fudd) . One of those gun stories that people hear and they believe without doing any digging or research on it for themselves and are all to happy to repeat their knowledge. It is quite funny when a guy selling 1903s at a gunshow is selling low number and high number guns side by side and start spouting off at the mouth "low number guns aint worth as much blah blah blah" but his guns are all 850+ So me, being the smartass, said "Well if that's the case I'll give you 350 bucks for this dangerous low number gun right here!" Needless to say he quickly back peddled and changed his tune.

[BenedictGomez]

If you figure there were about 70 receiver bursts reported in about 1 million combined low-number rifles, you're looking at about 1 in ~15,000 that went BOOM!

That's a higher risk than I'm willing to take, and keep in mind, "reported" is the operative word in the prior sentence, meaning the true rate is clearly higher, quite possibly much higher, than 1 in ~15,000, given tracking adverse events wasn't as much of a "thing" in 1917 or 1920 than it is today. And these figures come from relatively (then) "new" rifles to boot. To each his/her own of course ,but I'd take the military safety recommendation on this one.