Value of excellent condition late "low number" 1903 Springfield?

[rbernie]

I have heard that the low numbered receivers can be re-heat treated. ?? True or false?

I seem to recall from Hatcher’s Notebook that the Army tried to find a process that was satisfactory, and ultimately gave up.

 

[BigBlue 94]

I seem to recall from Hatcher’s Notebook that the Army tried to find a process that was satisfactory, and ultimately gave up.

It is certainly very possible to do. But in a timeframe and cost that was likely unacceptable for the army. Making new ones likely took less resources.

 

[AlexanderA]

I don't have a "low number" Springfield in my collection. If one in mint condition turned up for $695, I would probably buy it. Not to shoot, but to fill the hole in the collection.

 

[rbernie]

Here's a link to Hatcher's Notebook : http://photos.imageevent.com/badger...hersnotebook/Hatchers_Notebook_searchable.pdf

From page 222:

In 1923, Springfield Armory undertook an investigation to determine the practicability of re-heat treating receivers with numbers below 800,000 to determine if they could thus be given strength equal to receivers of better manufacture. One hundred receivers were re-heat treated and tested. The result indicated a considerable variation in carbon content, many receivers being low enough to require recarburizing before heat treating.
The test showed that while the old receivers were improved by re-heat treating, they were still likely to burst at pressures slightly in excess of 50 percent above normal, while the later double heat treated receivers would successfully withstand very high pressures. The Board stated: "The test brings out quite clearly the fact that uniform results cannot be obtained by re-heat treating old receivers which vary widely in chemical composition."
It may be noted that one trouble encountered with the tow numbered receivers was that some of them were dangerously weak by reason of having been overheated, or burnt, during the forging process. No amount of re-heat treating would cure this trouble.
In one of the experiments at Springfield Armory, 48 receivers were carefully re-heat treated, after which 16, or one-third, failed on high-pressure test. The Board found:

(1) That low numbered receivers are not suitable for service use in their present condition.
(2) That means have not yet been determined for making such receivers suitable for service use.
(3) That it is considered impracticable, if not impossible, to reheat treat these receivers in such a manner as to make them serviceable.​

The Board recommended that the receivers be withdrawn from service and scrapped.

​

 

[CapnMac]

Pederson devices were never intended for use in SMLEs. There were intended for 1903s, 1917s and Mosins-Nagants,

US produced 1917s were in large production before 1917, even though the UK had changed their mind on buying any. Savage was cranking SMLEs out in quantity for their use.

Pedersen Model One for 1903, which was due to the pile of 1903 being made for the war effort, and were to ship with the 2nd AEF.
Pedersen Model Two was to be fit to the 1917.
Pedersen Model Three was to go on Savage-made SMLE, once their production for UK was complete.

Westinghouse's production of Moisin's was a foreign (ally) contract, and only became an issue after the Revolution of October 1917. By the time it was realized "we" had a huge quantity of Moisin available, the War was over, and we were not adding Top Secret materiel to those.

We would send an abbreviated 2nd AEF off to White Russia with all those Moisins, though.

 

[tark]

I paid 750 for a 1943 (3.5mill SN) 1903A1 Remington with unmarked barrel about 6 months ago and felt like i got a fair deal.

I would buy it and shoot light loads, and enjoy a nice piece of history. Regardless of how much its been shot, it has been shot and has survived for 117 years. As long as you dont push it, it should continue to last.

Your 03A3 is made from nickel steel and is very strong. You don't need to worry about shooting any factory load or handload equivalent. Your last sentence in post #25 says it all. The possibility of re-heat treating the low # receivers was examined by Hatcher decades ago. He decided it wasn't worth the expense and trouble.

 

[tark]

Pedersen Model Three was to go on Savage-made SMLE,

Unless I'm mistaken ( pretty sure I'm not ) Savage didn't start making SMLEs until WW II. They only made #4 Mk 1s. The Pederson device was long dead and buried by then. They were never intended for use in any Enfield, of any Mk. Savage never made any rifles for Britain in WW 1.

Winchester made its first P-17 in August of 1917. Eddystone followed on Sept. 10th, and Remington chimed in on Oct. 28th. The P-17 was NOT in "large production" before 1917, although once they did start rolling off the line, they were produced in huge numbers, very rapidly. These dates come from the Remington Historical Society.

The P-14 Enfields WERE in production before 1917, certainly, but there was no thought of ever converting any of them to 30-06. It was simpler and easier to just specify the changes needed and produce new rifles incorporating the changes.

There were four or five P-17s for every 03, "over there", no one argues that there wasn't. But there were also many thousands of low numbered 03s that gave good service.

 

[BigBlue 94]

Your 03A3 is made from nickel steel and is very strong. You don't need to worry about shooting any factory load or handload equivalent. Your last sentence in post #25 says it all. The possibility of re-heat treating the low # receivers was examined by Hatcher decades ago. He decided it wasn't worth the expense and trouble.

Oh yes certainly. Mine is as polar opposite as a 1903 can be, and still be a 1903 in military form. Like a 1966 vs 96 bronco. I was not concerned about shooting mine with full power loads.

I did some supervised heat treating in a proper heat treating oven while at tech school for machining. Its not as simple as heating it up and dropping it in a bucket of water. Things have to be nearly perfect or the heat treat can fail and the receiver may shatter, even upon quenching.

 

[tark]

The science of heat treating has always fascinated me. When I had my two rolling blocks professionally heat treated I was surprised to learn that heat treating is done "by the pound." X number of pounds will cost you X number of dollars. I think it also depends on what the steel alloy is, as well. My 45-70 was made from 1045 and my 30-06 from 4140. In each case there was only a couple of pounds of steel involved, but I remember the 4140 cost me more. They were both hardened to RC40.

BTW, I'm guessing that you have an affinity for Bronco's.....the four wheeled kind. Dahl Ford in Davenport, Iowa has a near new Bronco ( not for sale ) from the late 70s, I think. If I get over there I'll PM you a pic, if you would like.

 

[BigBlue 94]

BTW, I'm guessing that you have an affinity for Bronco's.....the four wheeled kind

Hah yup, mainly the fullsize ones from 78-96. Just put a $7000 lift on a buddy's 96 the last two weekends. Guns, 4x4s, and fishing boats take all my free time! And money...

I may have seen pics of that bronco at Dahl's. We have a couple Iowans on the bronco forum and it sounds familiar.

 

[carbine85]

An LGS just took in a 7XX,XXX Springfield Armory produced 1903. The gun looks almost unissued, has the original 1917 barrel, and includes the front sight protector. The bore is pristine.

Was I stupid to not buy it this morning for $695?

I don't need a shooter- I already have one of "final production run" 1934 guns for that use.

That's a great deal. I'd grab it in a heart beat and not worry about the low serial number. It has survived this long, what makes you think it won't last another 100 years

 

[NIGHTLORD40K]

That's a great deal. I'd grab it in a heart beat and not worry about the low serial number. It has survived this long, what makes you think it won't last another 100 years

It will last exactly as long as it takes to encounter a seperated case. Might never happen. Might run into a reload that has been resized too many times, or a factory overcharge........it happens.

Most rifles are done for after a case rupture. Garands and Mausers dont handle them very well either. But few come apart as violently as a low-number '03.

 

[351 WINCHESTER]

Bear in mind that those old Springfields were made with plain old carbon steel and were heat treated by eye. I would not want to shoot one especially with modern ammo.

 

[Carl N. Brown]

Bear in mind that those old Springfields were made with plain old carbon steel and were heat treated by eye. I would not want to shoot one especially with modern ammo.

I have read that the men doing the heat treatment claimed their eyes were better judges of temperature than the instruments they were told to use. When put to actual test, their eyes could be off by 100s of degrees too hot.

I have seen photos of old Springfield receivers smacked with hammers:
properly heat treated, they'd bend;
burnt, they'd break.
And you can't tell which was safe and which was not within the same day's production run.

Ordnance could not find a way to test other than destructive testing: the ones that bent under a hammer blow would have been keepable.

I'd obey the general rule: don't shoot low number Springfields.

 

[tark]

Bear in mind that those old Springfields were made with plain old carbon steel and were heat treated by eye. I would not want to shoot one especially with modern ammo.

Nothing wrong with plain old carbon steel. I made my 45-70 rolling block out of 1045 plain old carbon steel. After heat treating, it passed a 50,000PSI proof load.

But I get your point about heat treating "by eye." Not a good way to do it.

 

[ozarkhillbilly]

My Dad had one when I was growing up in the 142,300s, I put over a 100 rounds through it. We just always used low pressure loads, basically the same rounds we would use on his M1 Garand. Another family member has it now, and it still gets shot occasionally. While I realize there is always the possibility of something happening, out of the 1.1 million in question 1903's only 68 that we know of failed and it is just as likely that ammo played a role in that. When the army tested 33 low number rifles they could only get 3 to shatter and that was with them increasing pressures over 80,000 to 125,000 psi. Its up to each person to judge risk, and while I would not hotrod one or shoot the hottest loads, I do feel safe shooting appropriate loads through them.

 

[Jim Watson]

Sedgley would cheerfully sell you a re- heat treated Springfield sporter.

There was a lot of crap ammo from off brand contractors in WW I, too.
A soft casehead and a brittle action would not be a good combination.
And how many might have been wrecked in service and just replaced without investigation?

 

[etex rick]

US produced 1917s were in large production before 1917, even though the UK had changed their mind on buying any. Savage was cranking SMLEs out in quantity for their use.

Pedersen Model One for 1903, which was due to the pile of 1903 being made for the war effort, and were to ship with the 2nd AEF.
Pedersen Model Two was to be fit to the 1917.
Pedersen Model Three was to go on Savage-made SMLE, once their production for UK was complete.

Westinghouse's production of Moisin's was a foreign (ally) contract, and only became an issue after the Revolution of October 1917. By the time it was realized "we" had a huge quantity of Moisin available, the War was over, and we were not adding Top Secret materiel to those.

We would send an abbreviated 2nd AEF off to White Russia with all those Moisins, though.

Quite right Capn, my wife's grandfather had the dubious honor of being one of those poor souls sent on that fools errand, carrying the Moisin.

 

[ACES&8S]

I love them & would have bought it for sure, I have some in the 8+ range but none in the 7's.

 

[AlexanderA]

Westinghouse's production of Moisin's was a foreign (ally) contract, and only became an issue after the Revolution of October 1917. By the time it was realized "we" had a huge quantity of Moisin available, the War was over, and we were not adding Top Secret materiel to those.

We would send an abbreviated 2nd AEF off to White Russia with all those Moisins, though.

My understanding is that the 3rd model of the Pedersen Device (a prototype) was designed for the Moisin. The thinking apparently was that U.S.troops (the North Russia and Vladivostok expeditions) were armed with Moisins, and could use the Devices. Also these guns were .30 cal., and could therefore use the special Device ammunition. In any case this idea came to nothing.

One of the reasons for sending these expeditions to Russia was to prevent the stocks of U.S.-made Moisins, that had already been offloaded in those ports, from falling into the hands of the Reds. Additionally, the Vladivostok group was sent to help rescue the Czech Legion, which had been retreating east along the Trans-Siberian Railroad. The Czechs were evacuated by ship to San Franscisco, across the U.S.by rail, and then back to Europe -- circumnavigating the world in the process.

 

[tark]

An LGS just took in a 7XX,XXX Springfield Armory produced 1903. The gun looks almost unissued, has the original 1917 barrel, and includes the front sight protector. The bore is pristine.

Was I stupid to not buy it this morning for $695?

I don't need a shooter- I already have one of "final production run" 1934 guns for that use.

You should have grabbed it as fast as you could. Just because it is a low number gun, doesn't mean it is worthless. It means that is has questionable value as a shooter, but collectors drool over pristine early 03s simply because they are so hard to find. If that gun is as you describe, it is worth well north of what they are asking.

 

[jaysouth]

Heavily used in North Africa and not rare in the Italian campaign too.

I figure it's unfairly underrepresented in photographic history as the contemporarily preferred photos would be of more modern long arms.

Todd.

The 23d Infantry Regiment, 2d Infantry Division landed on Utah beach armed with 1903 Springfields. The regimental commander didn't trust the new fangled M-1s.

 

[wiscoaster]

The 23d Infantry Regiment, 2d Infantry Division landed on Utah beach armed with 1903 Springfields. The regimental commander didn't trust the new fangled M-1s.

I have a 1903, a 1917 and an M1 Garand. Natch, the Garand is a classic, though it's really not in the same class having a semi-auto action, but of those three different types, my 03-A3 is the best rifle of the three, IMO, and if I had to take a rifle into combat (as Othais always asks Mae) that's the one I'd want to have with me.