Reloading 101 for the M1903 Springfield

[Liam]

Lest we forget.

34423

[Marine A5 Sniper Rifle]

Does that mean if you are intelligent that they won't?

jt

[Griff Murphey]

I was over in Dallas a couple of weeks ago and they had a bunch of low number 03's including some 4 digits. Most were rebuilt with newer barrels but all were over $1,000. This was somewhat surprising as their 03A3s were around 795-850. Now I know Jackson is high dollar and claims to cater to the collector more than to the shooter but I was kind of blown away by the money these older guns are going for. Back in the 60's you could buy a high number 03 for $39.95 and the low number would be like $29.95.

I don't own any low number O3s but if I did I think I would not shoot them. Reason being my only use for one would be shooting CMP or recreation fire so I'd just use a high number. Now if I win the lottery will I add some low numbers? You betcha but right after I buy a good NM!

[Liam]

This reoccurring issue and discussion with the low #'s is really a non-issue for me, as I own merely one M1903 and I am sure it doesn't fall into the "low #" category. I have paid attention to the discussion, however, since it affects folks here that do own one. Like most things, it seems to boil down to personal preference. But, from a reloading standpoint (and that was my point with this gag, Marine A5), I load down for all my old guns. I didn't buy them to shoot terribly flat or far. Only an idiot would push the limits when loading for an older gun. One of my Swedish Mausers turns 100 years old this year! And, with tolerable and proven loads, it can keep on truckin' so my son can enjoy it in the distant future, as well.

[Sunray]

You can be a Mensa member and still have a low numbered receiver blow. Reloading or not isn't the issue though. The issue is the heat treating of said receivers was done by determining the temperatures by eye vs a gauge. On a bright sunny day the temperature of the steel could be as much as 300 degrees higher than on a cloudy day. Made the receivers brittle.
Improved heat treatment for SA made rifles started at 800,000. Number 285,507 for RI rifles.

[dkmatthews]

<snip>... But, from a reloading standpoint (and that was my point with this gag, Marine A5), I load down for all my old guns. I didn't buy them to shoot terribly flat or far. Only an idiot would push the limits when loading for an older gun. ...<snip>

Yes, that's my approach with my older rifles, too. Whether it's an M1, an M1903 or a .30/40 Krag, I keep the loads down to a fairly light level. It lets me enjoy the rifles without undue risk.

[Major Tom]

I understand and have read all the warnings about low number receivers.
But, if a new barrel is installed would that new barrel hold the the pressure of say a 30-06 so that the receiver would not shatter?
Seeing good barrels installed in poly/aluminum receivers they seem to hold up (ARs).

[Fred]

I think the problem occurs when gas escapes a failed cartridge case out the sides or the back through a split head or through a pierced primer and is instantly released into the receiver and bolt at 55,000 pounds per square inch. Double heat treated and nickel receivers can handle that better and tend to hold together, even when the brass is turned into a gas from extreme pressure. Although the stocks can be shattered, the bolts and receiver and barrels have a much better chance of holding together. Not so single heat treated receivers. They will come apart and explode right in the shooters face like a pipe bomb. A Pipe Bomb. I'll be willing to bet that there are some guys on this forum who can tell you how suddenly and unexpectedly a cartridge failure will occur. I guess everything is just OK and great until it ain't. Who knows why some ammunition is full of flaws. Something in the factory maybe.
Anyway that's all that it takes, a flawed cartridge case.

[bnrg]

Alum receivers work in AR design because the bolt locks into recesses in the steel barrel itself, not the receiver.

[joem]

I have a bunch of old (er) rifles and pistols. I reload for them and keep the loads at a minimum to make sure I don't have a squib. Some of these are over 100 years old and others are getting close. I see no reason to beat up a old gun that can't be replaced easily.

[bruce]

The 03 is not such a good design for dealing with gas from a defective cartridge case. The single heat treatment was not ideal given the variations that occurred as a result of less than well trained war-time employees overseeing the heat treating process. A further problem was hurry up and get it out the door ammo production of a high performance cartridge using brass that was not always consistent. The result was that there were some failures, most of which were not catastrophic. As a class the LN 03 receivers are not safe. Expediency required that those in service remain in service. Informed people did not in the post WWI era use LN receivers. The USMC continued to use them... probably due to budget, and perhaps the assumption that any intact LN had already proven safe w/ service ammunition. Perhaps they were right. Nowadays it would be the better part of wisdom to not use a LN receiver for firing standard ammunition. Perhaps if one were building a .22 LR rifle, a LN receiver would be usable. The early ones are truly elegant. Unless it were original, using a LN for such a purpose would not be an obscenity. One could also use a LN 03 for light cast bullet loads of the gallery level. A modest load of say 8-9 gr. of Unique w/ a 165 gr. cast lead bullet would give velocity about equal to a .22 LR round. This was be wonderful for use on the range as well as in the woods and fields as a small game load. It has served me extremely well for over 30 years. HTH. Sincerely. bruce.

[jgaynor]

The problems with some Low-Numbered 03's from SA and RIA had nothing to do with the heat treatment process.

Some of the receivers were over heated (burned) in the forge shop where the temperature was judged by "eye". A burned receiver is unsafe at any speed and cannot be salvaged. Not all low numbered receivers were burned however all low numbered receivers were designed to resist a somewhat lower maximum pressure than the later "Double Heat Treatment" and Nickel Steel Receivers.

When 03 Receivers advanced down the production line to the heat treating stage the receivers were packed in charcoal filled tubs prior to being placed in the furnace. Once so packed the receivers were invisible to the operators. So it was not possible to judge "heat treatment" by eye ball.

Prior to the US entry into WW1 the US Govt had, unfortunately, cut back its work force at SA. Rifle production had been shut down completely at RIA. With the coming of war Ordnance officials had to scramble to rebuild their staffs. But the low number receiver problem can't be blamed on the War. The problems which created the "burned" receivers went al the way back to the introduction of the '03.

The following chart depicts the history of 03 receiver blowups (from the Hatcher Data). Some of the rifles were in service for years before they blew, some were unduly stressed by shooting the wrong ammo etc.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v21/jgaynor/BurstRcvrGraph.jpg