springfield 1903 safe or not
This forum is sweet tons of questions and now I can get answers. I have a springfield 1903 serial #693,xxx the barrel is marked HS flaming bomb 2-44. It has the SA on the left side of the stock and two circle p's below the trigger guard. Looks unused since the arsenal rebuild. I have been told not to shoot it by some and its ok by others, also have read both. Is it safe or not and why would they rebuild it if it isn't safe?
0
-
693,XXX was made in 1917 before the improved heat treat processes were instituted at SA. The receiver on you rifle was heat treated during the First World War strictly by eyeball and experience of the workers nothing more. Some of the receivers because of this were brittle and failed. You take your chances because of this, lot of guys have gotten away with it you might be the exception though. 0 -
Does this hurt the value.thanks for the info. 0 -
Value is mostly in the barrel ?stock /other small parts . Value as a complete rifle will take a BIG hit[:(]
editduring WW II the army knew of the problem but thought a soldier was better off with a rifle that MAY fail then no rifle at all. my question to you if you want to shoot is "DO YOU FEEL LUCKY WELL DO YOU[?]"0 -
Well, considering that the military knew about the possible/potential problem with SOME of the early receivers, and that it was re-barreled in/after 1944, it's 99+% likely that it's as safe as any other Springfield.
IOW it wasn't every early one that had issues, but only those that were done under certain weather conditions (workers eyeballed temprature via color under natural light, the change in lighting effected the color seen)0 -
It is considered a wall hanger due to its low serial number. 0 -
varminter3,
Go to www.bookfinder.com & in the search, enter;
author, Julian S. Hatcher
title, Hatcher's Notebook
If you are trying to understand the "why", go to the best reference on military weapons of the early 20th century, including the Springfield story & how the test labs sorted out the faults. General Hatcher was in charge of the lab that analized the failed recievers.
I can not praise Hatcher's Notebook enough. It is the most informitive, eye opening reference for the casual shooter as well as the ordenance engineer. It's a book you will read & re-read. If it shoots, this book will help you understand it.
Jim0 -
I am unfamiliar with "bookfinder", so maybe it, too, will allow a free download of Hatcher's Notebook.
You can download a copy of Hatcher's Notebook from Steve's Pages (google it).
Having said that, however, NOTHING beats a hardcopy of this excellent, excellent reference work that reads like an exciting work of fiction.0 -
You really have to weigh the value of shooting it versus the effects if you hit that one-in-a-million where the reciever lets go. You're talking a quick trip to the ER at minimum. You can always find other rifles to shoot but you've only got one face and one set of eyes.
Another option might be that CMP is expecting some more Springfields next year but they'll have shot-out barrels. You might wait and pick up one of those and make one good rifle out of them. You're not going to lose much in collector value on either rifle. My favorite shooter '03 is a mixmaster and it's a first class rifle IMO.
Just some thoughts and options.0 -
Why is this an issue with only the 03 Springfields? Why would it not apply to all other firearms made during this time period? 0 -
It's not; low number 03's made at Rock Island Arsenal also have receiver hardness problems.
But, asking why this wasn't a problem with other types of guns is like asking, "Ford Pinto gas tanks on 71-80 cars leaked, so why didn't they leak on Chevys & Chryslers?" Different guns, different designs, different makers, different requirements, different folks trying to guess where to cut quality.
Neal0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
10 comments