View Full Version : Single Heat Treated M1903 Bolts
Things you learn along the way. Many of you are probably already aware. I read this in the CMP booklet that came with the Greek returned M1903 rifle.
I knew about the dangers of firing an early numbered ‘03 due to a brittle receiver but was unaware that the same condition applies to early ‘03 bolts. They also were subjected to the single heat treating (SHT) process or the steel was “burnt” and they can also be brittle. The attached photo shows how to identify them.
46647
Knew about it. Haven't seen one in a long long time. Picture shows the characteristics very well. Sincerely. bruce.
The bolts on my 1925 Springfield ‘03 and my 1943 Remington 03A3 are both 03A3 bolts from the 1940s. Both measure up well so they are safe to shoot.
The bolt on the Sprg ‘03 is a Rem with a large gas escape hole and an R stamped on the handle.
The bolt on the Rem 03A3 is a Sprg replacement with a large gas escape hole. It’s stamped BF 19 on the flat part of the handle (Bonny Forge, heat treat lot 1941).
Every once in awhile someone has a lot for sale of straight-handled bolt bodies. Practically impossible to give away.
"Single Heat Treated" is about the receivers, not the bolts. There's no mention of soft or brittle bolts in General Hatcher's Notebook. There's an entire chapter about the receiver issue though.
John Beard
10-19-2019, 01:23
Things you learn along the way. Many of you are probably already aware. I read this in the CMP booklet that came with the Greek returned M1903 rifle.
I knew about the dangers of firing an early numbered ‘03 due to a brittle receiver but was unaware that the same condition applies to early ‘03 bolts. They also were subjected to the single heat treating (SHT) process or the steel was “burnt” and they can also be brittle. The attached photo shows how to identify them.
Official Army Ordnance documentation unequivocally states that, unlike low number receivers, straight handle bolts were NEVER removed from service unless worn or damaged. And the CMP was recently provided with copies of that documentation.
J.B.
JOHN COOK
10-19-2019, 02:02
Official Army Ordnance documentation unequivocally states that, unlike low number receivers, straight handle bolts were NEVER removed from service unless worn or damaged. And the CMP was recently provided with copies of that documentation.
J.B.
Roll Tide. Reckon we will meet in a Bowel this year??? Tigers, that is........
John in SC
Official Army Ordnance documentation unequivocally states that, unlike low number receivers, straight handle bolts were NEVER removed from service unless worn or damaged. And the CMP was recently provided with copies of that documentation.
J.B.
The booklet that contained the information and photos was from 2002.
Roll Tide. Reckon we will meet in a Bowel this year??? Tigers, that is........
John in SC
Maybe I'll see you two on TV.
Roll Tide !!!
There is still a demand for early bolts to be use in early rifles where the original bolt was replaced
and in restorations of early rifles, Vi Shooters data provides all the information for proper identification
There is still a demand for early bolts to be use in early rifles where the original bolt was replaced
and in restorations of early rifles, Vi Shooters data provides all the information for proper identification
That’s good to hear since I’ll be trying to sell a nice one. I’ll never need it b/c I’ll never own an early ‘03.
Unfortunately, the CMP hasn’t changed the wording in the article on their web site to reflect the Ordnance Dept. documentation.
Metallurgy came a long way quickly in those days. The makers of the M1917 learned from Springfield’s mistakes and built the beast that the doughboys carried in WW1.
http://thecmp.org/cmp_sales/rifle_sales/m1903-m1903a3/
I have what I believe to be an unmolested RIA rifle, SN 282970, which I believe to be one of the guns Mr Beard and Ferris identified as having been in storage and unassembled in January 1918 when manufacturing ceased for installation of improved heat treating equipment, and then treated with the new furnaces, and assembled for service issue. OHA inspected. The straight-handle bolt is stamped R10, which I believe is double heat treated and/ or nickel steel. Is that correct?
John Beard
11-10-2019, 06:22
I have what I believe to be an unmolested RIA rifle, SN 282970, which I believe to be one of the guns Mr Beard and Ferris identified as having been in storage and unassembled in January 1918 when manufacturing ceased for installation of improved heat treating equipment, and then treated with the new furnaces, and assembled for service issue. OHA inspected. The straight-handle bolt is stamped R10, which I believe is double heat treated and/ or nickel steel. Is that correct?
That is correct.
J.B.
Johnny P
11-11-2019, 09:32
"Single Heat Treated" is about the receivers, not the bolts. There's no mention of soft or brittle bolts in General Hatcher's Notebook. There's an entire chapter about the receiver issue though.
General Hatcher does mention early bolts with cracked lugs and also of losing their locking lugs, but in every case the safety lug prevented the bolt from coming out.
That is correct.
J.B.
Thanks
I saw a rather interesting Remington 03A3 today at the largest and best known antique shop in Gettysburg, PA. It appears that the chamber failed to contain a fired round. There was a portion of the receiver that was missing, the front end of the bolt was damaged and the stock was damaged near the receiver. It was still for sale. The price? $450.
The circumstances surrounding the failure of a rifle from the early 1940s are unknown and the fact that the rifle is still for sale is astounding. It’s particularly troubling to see that a failure occurred to a rifle that’s generally considered safe to shoot. We trust our old rifles will stay together when we take them to the range, but should we?
John Beard
11-24-2019, 08:32
I feel confident that the failure was provoked by an obstructed or partially obstructed bore. Or perhaps by a faulty reload.
J.B.
I feel confident that the failure was provoked by an obstructed or partially obstructed bore. Or perhaps by a faulty reload.
J.B.
Excellent point. Maybe the rifle is to be admired for largely containing the explosion. It has all the characteristics of a barrel obstruction. I wonder how many bullets we’d find lodged in the barrel. The bolt shifted back some and was jammed and the receiver mostly stayed together except for one small area on the side near the stock that was missing. I couldn’t see anything on this rifle that was salvageable except for the external hardware and possibly the stock.
The 03A3 stock on my Greek returned M1903 that I bought back in July has a hardwood patch that’s cut in the shape of an inverted wedge and pinned with small dowel pins. It’s located in the same spot near the receiver where the other stock was damaged by the ruptured receiver.
46776
Another possible barrel obstruction?
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.