1903 bolt
I know early 1903 bolts were overly hardened and are therefore considered unsafe to shoot. Is there a way to tell if the bolt has been replaced with one that is safe to shoot?
0
-
In 1918 the bolt handle was swept back 10 degrees. In 1917 the bolt received the same double heat treatment as the receiver (#800,000 at Springfield, #285,507 at Rock Island). Bolts made of nickel steel are marked NS or 7 on the bottom of the bolt handle root. Info from "The Model 1903 Springfield Rifle." I am no expert but I am not aware of a heat treat problem with the bolt, only the receiver. May require further study. 0 -
I have heard arguments back and forth on heat treatment and 1903s. I do NOT pretend to be an expert in that field. THIS is a C&P from the Civilian Marksmanship Program website, and I will defer to their knowledge.
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?.0 -
No expert here either. It was my understanding that the receivers could be glass hard. I saw one shattered with a ball peen hammer blow as a kid.
I had a re-heated treated one that had been punched out to 300 Gibbs for a while. Wonderful rifle.
IMHO low # ones are wall hangers.0 -
There are other design weaknesses: 1) coned breech doesn't support the case head - action can't vent the gas from a ruptured case head safely away from the shooter, 2) two piece firing pin - ever think about what happens should the firing pin breaks, and 3) if there are more design weaknesses - just thinking about any of them definitely can't help your shooting. 0 -
I've been told that these guns are more likely safe to shoot if they're Springfield manufacture and if they were re-barreled for WW2. The theory I've heard is that the re-barrel means they were probably tested and used. Any opinions? 0 -
agostino: Note paragraph 3 of the CMP low-number warning that 11b6r posted. During WWII, those rifles were rebuilt, re-barreled if necessary (remember, those rifles were fired exclusively with corrosive ammunition and the slightest neglect resulted in rusted bores) and reissued because they were NEEDED. Think: Emergency! As far as testing goes, they were, no doubt headspace tested, but probably nothing else, ie, a rebarreled rifle would tell you nothing about it's safety.
As to Springfield vs. Rock Island: Hatcher's Notebook indicates a higher failure rate for Rock Island manufacture, but the failure rate was very very small; tiny, but still there. From the above mentioned book: Records from the years 1917 to 1929 inclusive show 68 "burst" receivers of which 11 couldn't be identified. The other 57 show that 33 were Springfields (1 in 24,242) and 24 were Rock Island (1 in 11,896). This, of course, does not tell the whole story. If you get a chance, and are curious enough, try and get a copy of Hatcher's Notebook by Julian S. Hatcher from your library and look through pages 442 to 482.0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
6 comments