Update and another question on upcoming 1903 Springfield purchase...

Status
Not open for further replies.
D

Doug S

Member
Joined
Sep 17, 2003
Messages
1,260
I posted back in the fall about an opportunity I had to purchase a 1903 Springfield from a childhood friend. We had planned on making the deal in November - but he and his wife were on a cruise - and then the holidays put things on hold. We are now planning on getting together in Feb. I will be posting this on several sites to see in order to get a quick response and to see if there is consensus. Any help would be much appreciated. Below is my basic question...

Hi All - I could use some help on valuing an upcoming purchase. I'm not a "collector" but I've posted on these forums from time to time about my WWII "Man Cave" gun display. They are mixmatched shooters nothing fancy - but I like them. Anyway - I have an opportunity to purchase a 1903 Springfield. The rifle actually belonged to me back in the 1980's when I sold it to a friend while in college. This friend and i had lost contact until a few months ago - when I got a call from him. He was back in the area and wanted to have lunch. During the course of our conversation - he says to me - "I still have that old Springfield you sold me". I hadn't even remembered until he mentioned it. I asked if he was interested in selling it - and he said that he thought I had sold it to him for $400. Now - I'm positive that I didn't sell him the rifle for that much -because it wasn't worth that much back in the 80's when I sold it. However - I didn't want to tell him he was incorrect - so I thought about it - and asked if he'd be willing to sell it back to me for $400 (because I know that are at least that valuable in most cases today if the serial number isn't a low number). He kindly said that although he likes the rifle very much - that he has no use for it - and it's just been sitting in a closest in his parents house. He will sell it to me for $400. (As I said in my intro) We had planned to get together in November - but he and his wife were on a cruise - and then the holidays put everything on hold. We are now planning to get back togther in Feb. In the meantime - I asked if he could send me a couple of pictures of the serial number because I have since read that low serial numbers are dangerous to shoot (something I didn't know back in the 80's). I was hoping it was a higher number - but was surprised to see when he sent me a few (pretty poor) pictures in a text that the gun is only a 66### serial number. My question is - is the rifle still a good value at $400. It has teh original stock. He says that he hasn't altered it in any way. It also has the bayo pictured. I'm thinking even with the low number that it would still make a nice man cave addition and is worth the $400. Can any of you verify from the pictures? Thanks very much for any help - and I apologize for the weird punctuation. I'm on my old laptop- and it won't type commas for some reason. Also I could ask him for more pictures - but I'm trying to be patient and just wait until we get together. I'm happy to know for now that the basic rifle is generally worth the $400. Anything more would be a plus - but not a big concern. I just don't want to throw away $400 on a piece that isn't worth $100. Thanks again.
002.gif
003-1.gif
004.gif
 
I wouldn't worry about the low serial number, as long as you use a load that matches the military you'll be okay. The Marines never changed their 1903's as they used the ammo given to them by the armory and didn't have any issues.

$400 is a fair price, if its in good condition a low numbered rifle is still worth the money. Your best bet is the handload for it and copy the military loading. Clean it and hit the range with some good ammo and have fun shooting that old war horse.

I love shooting mine, its almost to easy to hit what your aiming at. It's almost as easy as just pointing the rifle at the target and the round will hit it. I can't decide what's more fun to shoot, the 1903 or my Mauser.
 
That's actually a Krag bayonet and scabbard (Krag bayonets fit on Springfields). Doesn't seem to be in prime condition.
 
I wouldn't put too much stock in the "low serial number" issue. Was it a problem? Yes, it absolutely was. Most times, though, the real problem was with ammunition failure. The inadequately hardened receiver couldn't contain the escaping pressure and would sometimes shatter. Not all of them had the problem either.

I have a low serial number '03, too, though not as low as this one (479xxx). I shoot only my own low-pressure handloads, and have no qualms at all about shooting it. In my opinion, a shootable '03 in reasonably good condition is definitely worth $400. Go for it!
 
It is very difficult to determine from your pictures if it is an all correct low number rifle. If it is, it has value just for someone who wants an all original early 03 for a collection, but not to shoot.

There were over 1,000,000 low number receivers built and so many were defective that by 1927 an Army Board recommended scrapping them all immediately. The Army decided to keep them in service until such time they wore out, or blew up in the hands of a Soldier/Sailor/Marine. I consider this an amoral decision and General Hatcher, who actually had the reports in his hand, never mentioned “the number” because it would have shown just how amoral it was to retain these rifles in service. “The number” would have been the percentage of rifles that were defective, based on the analysis by the board. This board did a number of things, such as metallurgical analysis, reheat treatment, and some of the names on the board I recognize as extremely qualified , Rene Studler for one. These guys were bright enough to know that any report would have to give decision makers an assessment of the number of dangerously defective rifles in inventory, and I am certain that number was high, or they could have never been able to justify scrapping all of the low number rifles. One million rifles is a big chunk of change, about $40,000,000 in 1927 money. (Based on a cost of $40.00 per M1903, over 1 million low number receivers, this amount adjusted for inflation is $523,000,000 in today's money) A recommendation to scrap such a large dollar amount would have had to been based on fact, not opinion.

If you go through the older American Rifleman (Man at Arms) articles on Google Books you find only a few reports of 03 blowups. I think the one that is the most definitive was in 1918, the shooter mentioned his 03 blowing up in a match and then reported accidents he knew of, “and many more”, including one where the unfortunate lost half a face. I think this created a letter writing campaign (of people whose 03’s had also blown up with issue ammunition) because a few issues later the editor, an active duty BG General, wrote a column claiming that the 03’s were perfectly safe and did not blew up at a higher frequency than any other rifle. This was the Army's official position, that only stupid people blew up their 03's. The only 03 blow ups mentioned after this were when someone wrote in and claimed they blew up their rifle through an overload, snow in the barrel, etc. Nothing on 03's blowing up with service ammunition which would have shown something was wrong either with the rifle, or the issue ammunition. Incidentally, this was after the incident in 1917 at National Brass & Copper Tube factory, a factory making ammunition for the US military during WW1. A 1907 receiver fragmented and blew a piece of shrapnel piercing the lung of the operator. The Army was not able to bluster or bluff its way out of this, National Brass and Copper had engineers and metallurgists and they conclusively put the finger on defectively made Army receivers as the problem.

This was a total coverup as the Army blamed blown up 03's on the period practice of greased bullets. You cannot find any warning from the Army about single heat treat receivers through the Man at Arms of the 1920's. At least through 1921, which are the issues I have examined. Instead you find the Army praising the pre WW1 rifles as high quality, this is from 1919:

1919ManatArmsPreWarM1903BW_zps76aac00f.jpg

It is true that not all single heat receivers are bad but the only way to find out which are good or which are bad is by destructive methods. Hugh Douglas hit six SHT receivers on the right rail with nylon faced hammer, about a 12" strike, and all of the rails broke and some of the receivers cracked through the rear receiver ring. May-Jun 1985 Rifle Magazine, article " About low numbered Springfields, Sedgleys, and others..." Hugh Douglas

I don’t consider shooting the things and seeing if it blows up in your face an acceptable way of screening out the good from bad. Still, a good one is a relative term. Given the poor process controls of the era, combined with the low grade of steels, these antiques, even the good ones, are not as strong or safe as a WW2 era rifle, never mind something made today.
 
The sling and bayo are worth more than $100.00. I see the slings selling for $75 - $100 on ebay. It's a good deal. Don't stress out over it. I would buy it.
 
Picture of the entire rifle could be better....but like everyone has said yea that is a good deal.

Nice early SN#....does the barrel have a date?
 
Isn't that a German bayonet sheath? the bayonet itself looks like a cut down - is the blade portion 16" or closer to 10"? Is the bayo grip wooden, or plastic?

Whatever I wouldn't let that bayonet package affect the valuation of the rifle.
 
As I said on TFL, the receiver is a 1904 number, and therefore started out life as a rod bayonet .30-03. Like nearly all, it has been brought up to at least 1905 standard with a knife bayonet and most likely to 1906 standard with conversion to .30-06.

If it has the original stock modified for knife bayonet and original barrel set back and rechambered for .30-06, it is probably worth a bit of money above the $400. If it got caught up in the rebuild program at the end of WW I and has a replacement barrel and stock, no so much.
 
I do like the idea of getting the rifle back. I know it's not had anything done to it since before the 1980's. I can't remember if it has a barrel stamp, and I didn't ask him for a picture of that. I'm going to wait until Feb, and buy the rifle based on the helpful and educational responses I've received. I'll post up pictures when I have the rifle and hopefully learn more at that time. Thanks everyone for taking the time to help me out. Much appreciated.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

D
  • Locked
Help with a 1903 Springfield (making an offer)
Replies
14
Views
709
Doug S
D
Y
  • Locked
Springfield 1903
Replies
3
Views
489
Tinpig
Tinpig
D
  • Locked
1903 Springfield comes home after 25+ years
2
Replies
25
Views
2K
Doug S
D
P
  • Locked
Need advice on Springfield 1903
Replies
9
Views
931
Roadkill
R
Sapper771
  • Locked
U.S. Springfield Armory Model of 1903....need info
Replies
19
Views
2K
billyhank1
B
Back
Top