springfield 03 value
Found this springfield for sale locally, serial number is 13xxx. seller says it had 05 bayonet conversion and 06 conversion, also says that stock is from the teens and the action, barrel, floorplate, and buttplate are original.
So what should I know and any ideas as to what a fair price would be?
thanks in advance
So what should I know and any ideas as to what a fair price would be?
thanks in advance
0
-
I think you need to look into low # springfields before you invest in a unsafe to shoot rifle. 0 -
Photos are always a good idea when asking for advice about any gun.
With that low a SN, the receiver is considered unsafe to fire. With a replacement stock, &, I'm guessing, refinished & replaced parts, it's not collectible.
That would mean it may be worth $100 for parts, but, if you don't need parts, it would not be worth having.
Neal0 -
quote:Originally posted by nmyers
Photos are always a good idea when asking for advice about any gun.
With that low a SN, the receiver is considered unsafe to fire. With a replacement stock, &, I'm guessing, refinished & replaced parts, it's not collectible.
That would mean it may be worth $100 for parts, but, if you don't need parts, it would not be worth having.
Neal
basically what I was afraid of, not really important though, at last count I was considering 14 different guns maybe some of them will turn out not to be worth it too, that'll make my choice easier.0 -
That rifle is probably not safe to shoot and with the mix-n-match parts, probably not the best specimen for collecting. More of a display piece than either a shooter or collector. Just my opinion. 0 -
I wouldn't SHOOT it, but it would make a nice example of the period.
So early as to have been converted from rod to blade bayonet and from .30-03 to .30-06 and with a stock from the "teens" - probably from the late war or post war refurbishment program - it is almost surely a WW I veteran.
I think it would be a nice collector's display piece... if the price was right and the serial number checked out in the pre 1905 range. But would not pay pristine original money for it.0 -
The topic of the danger of the low number 1903 Springfield's comes up fairly often and always generates many posts and sometimes heated debate. In my opinion the risk of any given low numbered 1903 shattering is very slim. Nevertheless, I would probably not shoot one. The US rebarreled thousands of low numbered 1903's for use in WWII and Sedgley made many sporters from them. I consider the risk of injury from shooting one of these as less than the risk of being injured from riding a motorcycle. I know several people who have been injured riding motorcycles and had one friend killed on one, yet I ride a motorcycle. I haven't had a single acquaintance killed or injured from shooting a low number 1903.
To get an accurate idea of the value, go to the auction side and see what the bid has been for similar rifles.0 -
You can't bless it safe.
Any way you look at it,it's Russian Roulette.
Read Hatcher's Notebook. He was the engineer on the 1903 project and performed scientific tests including reheat treating.As a consequence
of the test results, the Army Board recommended these rifles be destroyed. As WW2 loomed the directive was disregarded and the guns were stored as War Emergency Stock.
You could be lucky and get a good one but then again you mayn't.
There was no way of determining how many of that batch had "Burned Steel" so there was no way to calculate probability of having a bad one.
Actually, one could cut a small piece from the magazine area, send it to a metallurgy lab where it could be mounted in plastic, polished, Nital etched and examined under a microscope where the crystal boundaries could be studied for carbon evidence of burning.0 -
I do not claim expertise on 1903s, but figure the folks at the CMP come pretty darned close. Here is a C&P from the CMP website-
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".
As Dirty Harry once said, "You have to ask yourself- Do you feel lucky? Well, DO YOU? "0 -
American Rifleman March 1, 1925 By Major Whelen.."It happens; that beginning with serial number somewhere about 800,000, Springfield Armory adapted a new method of heat treatment for their receivers. This new method gives greater tensile strength than the old method. It is simply progress and improvement, and does not mean at all that previous receivers were defective in any way. As a matter of fact they are not, and from a practical point of view the difference between the two heat treatments means nothing at all. I would just as soon have an old receiver as a new one. In fact the receiver of my favorite Springfield sporter rifle is in the 200,000s, and I would not think of changing it for anything."
The American Rifleman February, 1936 "R.F. Sedgley, Inc. has offered to check the headspace of old-type M-1903 actions for NRA members free of charge. The firm is in a position to adjust defective actions and to proof-fire the rifle at their quotations. They are also prepared to re-heat treat such old-type receivers for added toughness or to eliminate the condition of excessive brittleness. Sedgley has so re-heat treated ten thousand or more of such actions and I have not heard of any blow ups to date."
1936 "American Rifleman" it see that the practice of exchanging the low-number receivers for high-numbers when a rifle was sent in by a civilian for work was stopped unless the person requested it. Seems some people did not like loosing these (hard) smooth working actions. This question is not new, from Nov, 1932 American Rifleman, person asking if his low-number was still serviceable. Answer: "These older receivers are safe to use with any standard factory ammunition of old or modern ballistics, providing the cases are in good condition. There should be no grease on the cartridge or in the bore, and the breech space must be no greater than about .005 inch."
"Question & Answer Handbook" NRA 1959 Julian S. Hatcher "As to safety, there were about 800,000 SA, 285,000 RIA made, or over a million in all, and they were continued in service until superseded by the M1 rifle. From 1917 to 1929 inclusive, records were kept of all accidents to receivers of Springfield rifles, and during that time of the 800,000 low-numbered Springfields there were 33 reported burst or about 1-24,000. Of the 285,000 RIA LN receivers there were 24 reported burst or about 1 in 11,800. There were 9 cases of sever injuries; no one was killed, and in most cases there were no injuries or only minor ones. From the above, the user of one of these rifles can judge whether or not he cares to continue firing it or not. The chance for an accident does exist though it is slight."
American Rifleman Feb, 1936
"Fortunately, the law of averages makes such accidents very unlikely. Out of the million old-type M-1903 receivers and every Krag receiver (case hardened in the same way) made between 1892 and 1917 there have been very few accidents for a negligibly small fraction of a percentage point when compared with the total number of possibilities during all the years up to 1936. The sensible thing to do however is to check the old-type actions for headspace or have them so checked. If the headspace is found to be normal or in good condition it should safely handle all standard loads."
"Ordnance Went Up Front" by Roy F. Dunlap Samworth 1948 (speaking of low-number rifles) "I saw hundreds of these in the war, used with all types of issue ammunition including armor piercers with a rather high chamber pressures. These low number actions are safe with practically all government and commercial ammunition in .30-06 caliber, with the possible exception of very high-pressured target loads or heavy-bullet hunting cartridges."0 -
From the excellent article above:
"The chance for an accident does exist though it is slight"
Now, I can't speak for others, but that [statement, above] will widen my groups considerably..due to yours truely flinching..knowing I have a rifle that, however slight in chance, has a receiver that may let go at the next shot. (It's the shots yet to be fired that matter, don't they!)
"Out of the million old-type M-1903 receivers and every Krag receiver (case hardened in the same way)...."
Well, then. The Krag's fall into the same category, don't they? But, yet, we concentrate on the [potential unsafe quality] of '03's, don't we? Why do Krag's get a pass?
Again, due to this excellent article, I won't be buying any U.S. Springfield Krag! (Swedish Krag's exempt, of course).
Joe0 -
Again, people are dodging the issue with a whole lot of verbosity..
Strength of single heat treated receivers and bolts can be improved by reheat treatment BUT burned steel in some of the receivers cannot be improved by any means. Were it possible to be resolved by double heat treatment it would have been. Bad ones still blew up.
Perhaps blue pill testing can separate the bad ones out and maybe Sedgeley did just that.Hatcher knew his onions and didn't. I don't profess to know the properties of Burned Steel but I do know it was responsible for train wrecks where steel was left too long in the furnace.
I really don't accept what Whalen or CCP wrote on the subject. counter to Hatcher's findings. They didn't have the wherewithal to get into the nitty gritty aspects of metallurgical engineering.
Hatcher was and is the ultimate authority on Springfields.
I would urge any of you having interest in 1903's to buy or borrow a copy of Hatcher's notebook and read up on the subject.0 -
There was a lot of press during WWI about the USA sending men to fight with a rifle not designed for the pressure of the modern 1906 cartridge. One of the New York papers did a big story about it and many articles were published in A&TM by famous folks telling how safe the rifles were. The problem was many recruits saw rifles blowup, actions and barrels turned into junk. These men wrote home about it and firestorm started. May I suggest you read "The Price of Carelessness" by S. Trask Arms and the Man May 4, 1918. "Down in the Small Arms Section, Engineering Bureau, the Ordnance Department in Washington there is a pile of worthless junk that was but lately nearly a score of finely finished, strongly built United States rifles." "With receivers demolished, ruptured barrels, split stocks, and damaged bolts, they are eloquent evidence of the price the United States Government has to pay, in addition to all the other cost of waging modern war, because the soldiers to whom these rifles were issued were either careless or ignorant."
Now if you think this is about the low-number 1903's you are mistaken, this is about the Model 1917.
The 1903 Springfield failed for the same reason the 1917 did. All the 1917 blow-ups were attribute to bore obstructions. The people who did the actual inspection on the 1903 came to the same conclusion.
Small Arms Design & Ballistics Vol. II by Townsend Whelen "All Army rifles which have been "accidentally" injured in service are shipped to Springfield Armory for examination. Mr. A.L. Woodward, Engineer of Test at the Armory for the past thirty years states that in ninety nine percent of the cases the accident has been caused by an obstruction in the bore, or by firing a wrong cartridge, that is an improper or wrongly sized cartridge, or one handloaded to excessive pressure. It is interesting to note that in the majority of these accidents an effort is made to conceal the real cause of the accident, but the evidence is always perfectly plain."
I think that going from the single heat treat to a double heat treat was more progress than anything else. Remember the early 1903 were made from the same steel, with the same heat treatment and by the same folks that made the Krags. They realized that the actions could be built stronger so they did. There may have been a time when they considered removing the low-number guns from service but I think they all changed their minds after the 1917 was manufactured and in service for a while. There were numerous blow-ups of the 1917, and I'm not talking escaping gas but shattered receivers and barrels. One unit alone managed to destroy over a dozen rifles in a short time. The investigation of these concluded that all were a result of a bore obstruction. Interesting is that some were blamed on improper attachment of the bayonet, after the first shot the front of the bayonet became loose and dropped in front of the muzzle. (Could this happen with a 1903?) If a 1903 had a major failure the rifle was wrecked and out of service regardless of heat treatment. Another factor that may have entered into the 1903 decision was a paper published in "Army Ordnance" by A.L. Woodworth of Springfield Armory suggesting that without a bore obstruction the pressure of the 30-06 cartridge did not have enough pressure to shatter a receiver.
Reference:
"The Bursting of Rifles in Service" by A.L. Woodworth reprinted in the American Rifleman December, 1929 does not have date of original paper.
"The Price of Carelessness" by S. Trask Arms and the Man May 4, 1918. ( Problems with the 1917)
0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
12 comments