Safe or Not? Low Number Springfield M1903 

I personally fired a low number 1903 that actually blew up. Receiver shattered, stock split in two parts and the trigger assembly remained intact on the shattered rear receiver tang. Recovered bolt had the locking lugs sheered off at about a 30 degree angle. The other locatable parts were returned to the owner. I received damage to my right eye (multiple particles of brass and steel entered my eye {still have 2 pieces of brass in my eye}), laceration of the trigger finger, back of the thumb and a 1/4" X 1/2" section of my nose was carved out. As I am aging, the 'divot' in the right side of my nose is deepening. This failure occurred in 1968.

🗣Can someone please tell me the CUTOFF DATES for the M1903 from both Springfield and Rockisland? I am headed to the local Gun Show this weekend. Thanks. SEMPER FI 🇺🇸🤠

I just wanted to let you know this video saved me from a catastrophic incident with my low number Rock Island. Long story but after I watched this video I did an examination and found two cracks. One below the stock line and one on the inside of the receiver. I can send you some photos of the cracks. Thank you very much for posting this video.

I purchased a1903 that had been rebarreled to .308 win for next to nothing. It had been painted with some godawful brown sparkly paint, puffy kinda stuff. When the "bear poop" was removed from stock and receiver, I had the shock that the s/n was 206xx. The shock was like one had married LasVegas in a drunken stupor. After the shock had subsided, I borrowed a copy of Hatchers Notebook from a local gunsmith who adbised me to look at every angle of the issue and carefully monitoring could be a solution. A good friend offered to have it Magna-fluxed at his job, for free no less. The outcome was good, no cracks, voids and all indications of sound steel. I have used it, inspected it after every range session and use the lowest pressure load associated with the bullet used by brand, weight and profile. Does this mean I or anyone else can throw caution to the wind? No,but a careful approach to the problem and continued caution is mandatory. I was absolutely blessed by a good friend and the fact that I took the time and effort to get it right. This should apply to all firearms over 50 years old. I'm the end all or be all, just thought to share my experience. Btw, " Ol' Bear Poop" has couted for the demise of a lot of rockchucks and a few coyotes.

interesting, thanks for the story

This argument has gone on for decades. One school of thought is 'well, if it hasn't blown up yet, it isn't gonna.' That makes perfect sense, except it is false. There is no predicting when a brittle receiver will fail and there is no way to identify those receivers. Also, it didn't fail shooting what? Issue GI Ball? What if you now stick 180 or even 200 grain hunting ammo in your nicely sporterized low-number? I was collecting and shooting 1903s for a long time and my thought was very simple: there is no need to shoot a low-number when you also own a high-number. Also, for ME, snuggling my cheek up behind a potential grenade doesn't make for a fun afternoon on the range. No matter what, that little man is running around in the back of my mind yelling that the damn thing might blow up! You can find tons of guys online who dismiss the problem because they have low-numbers that they have shot for years with no problem. Those were MOST LIKELY the guns that DID get the proper heat treatment. Have a nice day, I'm not playing 1903 Roulette with my face and eyes.

I have a Springfield 03 in the 377,000 range I’ve done a very in-depth inspection and didn’t notice a crack I’m hoping I got super lucky and found a low number that can still shoot.

I have a M1903 made by Rock Island Arsenal by checking the serial number made in 1918. Looks like it had a punch mark to check it's hardness I believe to the Rock Well hardness. But it was re-barrelled with a Springfield 1942 4 groove barrel which was common during WWII. The barrels are supposed to take 70,000 PSI at the chamber which far exceeds the M2 Ball ammo. It's still strong and no problems so far. I will only reload or shoot military specs and noting more which it was designed to do. The next problem was the manufacture of M1 Ball ammo from WWI. The cartridge base was thinner which caused over pressure and head case separations. Which Frankford Arsenal and Winchester to thicken the base of the 30-06 cartridge to improve the reliability and strengthen the service round from having stuck cases and ease of extraction during the 1920s after WWI.

The receiver has a Hatcher hole on the left side. They were installed on existing 1903 receivers in the 1930s during Depot rebuild.

Just shoot proper ball ammo, 150 grain, 2,700 fps.

63 rifles out if 1,000,000 rifles had an issue. And after that issue, Springfield tested a bunch of low number rifles, exceeding the max pressure by 50%, 100% and 125%. Up to pressures of 125,000 psi, with no issues. They normally shoot around 50,000 psi. So if you believe in that propaganda, that's on you. But if you actually do the research on your own and don't even take my word on it, you'll see that you're worried about 0.000065% chance that a 1903 will blow up. Believe what you want to believe

I usely say fack it but after this i ont bye or shoot a low number the numbers i knew were under 500 000 400 000 but ill take your advice

Good video. This is a subject that a lot of people get very defensive about. There are a lot of other videos out there with titles like “Why it’s safe to shoot low number 1903s” and their reasoning usually boils down to “because I think it is”. These are usually accompanied by made up facts like “there is only a 1:100,000 or 1 in a million chance that something could go wrong” or “it’s all the ammo’s fault - all ammo is perfect now”. First off, if 68 receivers out of 1,000,000 failed, your failure rate is 1 out of every 14,706 (somewhere around the murder rate of San Francisco). Now I do accept that rate estimate is probably too high for the surviving receivers given the lack of recorded failures in the past 80 years but I don’t see anyone else presenting evidence or anything that contradicts previous studies besides wishful thinking. I don’t begrudge people who weigh the risks and decide to shoot theirs but I do dislike people saying “it’s just as safe as xxxx” when that’s not an accurate statement. Honestly, your receiver could have been brittle or it could have had the “good” heat treatment but cracked because the design back then wasn’t as good as later rifles with regards to case support and gas venting. Good thing you recognized the issue before firing it! A guy at my range had a milsurp blow up before I got there one day (don’t know what kind or if ammo was a factor) but it looked like a bloodbath! I don’t think the injuries were permanent but it’s pretty much dumb luck which way shrapnel will fly.

here's my low number in action Sprinfield: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-At5yMW_XXUI.html

High Cal .. thanks for that.. My 03 came from the CMP and its a high number. I do use the 30-06 M1 grand ammo that out there too. I subed ya too. THANKS great video !!

A rifle with a cracked receiver isn’t worthless - it has just become a parts donor (and may actually be worth more as parts than a functional rifle).

Great video. Bummer your rifle was messed up

Subscribed! I have a low # I got about 4 years back and I've shot it a couple times before I knew about the controversy. It's a Springfield that is 100 numbers below the 800,000 serial number range that is recommend. Mine was also WWII refurbished and dated to about November 1918. Could it be okay to shoot? Probably but haven't shot it since. A couple months ago I was browsing a gun shop in Upperville, Virginia and came across a low SN 1903 that was on the rack. The owner said the person they sold it to had noticed a crack in the receiver and brought it back. I inspected it and sure enough it had a cracked receiver. That was the first time I had seen one in-person myself.

A. Gun shop has 1, don't know what the serial is- now i'm curious because I want one

Gun was probably worth a lot more with the crack. Probably should have kept it as a collector piece only

Thanks so much for making this video. I've heard and read scary stories about low serial number Springfields for nearly 50 years, but this is the first time I was able to see a photo of one, and this was the very best and most detailed narrrative of how this problem came to be, and how it was solved.

I have both a low number Springfield and Rock Island 03. I got them for my collection. They are part of American military history. While I have shot them from time to time I don't make a habit of it. I don't want to destroy them or injure myself. I have both an 03 and 03A3 that I do shoot, neither of these are low number receivers. I also have a 1917 Eddystone Enfield. Those are the rifles that tended to have their receiver's cracked when re barreled. Mine has a 1942 Johnson Automatics barrel. The receiver has no cracks. I also have both a Remington and Winchester 1917. Both of these have their original 1918 barrels. The bottom line is heat treatment techniques have changed in 120 years. 95% of these rifles will live forever if taken care of. The other 5% can be destroyed and cause serious injuries or death. Why roll the dice over this. Shooting is supposed to be a fun hobby.

my 27K looks fine. do they magnaflux gun barrels to check for cracks?

Just curious why would you blur out any serial number on a firearm. And especially this one, I would want every viewer to be aware of this 03’s serial number just in case they happen to run into it they will remember this video and steer clear of that rifle. You never know what some scrupulous seller would do to cover up these cracks to to get a firearm sold. But back to the first sentence, I have never found any where, where someone was able to use a SN# to do whatever it is ,that guys that block them out, think people can do, lo, if that makes sense.

I own an ott-6 Springfield with a serial # well below the 500.000 mark. Also, I reload for it and use 46.2gr of Dupont 3031 powder 165gr projectiles. I've had one problem with it. I chambered a round that was difficult to close the bolt on. I knew the pressure wasn't dangerously high, so, I touched it off and was pelted with fragments of something. (Wear your safety specs) Upon opening the bolt, I discovered the primer was GONE!! The primer pocket was much larger! Well, that was exciting! I don't know what happened, any thoughts on this, please advise. According to the serial#, this rifle was built in 1911.

Did you get another low-number gun? Honestly unless I bought the gun specifically to be a shooter, the cracked receiver kinda makes it more interesting, as it is the living proof embodiment of the history in this video. I would have considered keeping it, or maybe asked for a partial refund since the gun wasn't safe to shoot.

Thanks for your research. I been driving my self crazy trying to weed through all the info on line. I'm still lost for my bolt though. Trying to make sure it's safe.

Hi! I just found a Springfield 1903 with serial number 807411. The reciever is stamped with it and I'm going to the gun store next week to check on it before I buy it. Do you think it would be safe to fire since it's 7411 above the "low serial" number? I'm planning on getting it with a hunting license to hunt boar, elk, etc. Also just having it in my collection is fine. Thanks for the video aswell!

Marines never retired any.

Interesting vid! That's honestly really interesting to see a actual cracked receiver! The Gewehr 88 commission rifle was also know to pop and M1917 enfield rifles started having issues with cracked receiver rings when going in for rebarrels along with barrels trying to banana peel at the receiver ring due to poor steel quality, i've seen a gewehr 98 action before with a cracked receiver ring as well. I noticed a Hatcher hole on that receiver, do you remember if it's a marine rebuild rifle? The hatcher hole was designed to fix that issue but ya don't need a case failure to make a receiver crack poor quality ammo will do that or a rifle being in a fire or overloaded ammo.

The only low serial number rifle I’ve shot is my 1913 rock island that has a WW2 1942 replacement barrel I figured if it had to have a replacement barrel it must have shot out it’s old one and therefore be safe and it was

I own a 1903 Springfield built in 1918 that fall into the questionable serial number range. 66**66 The Rifle has a 20x Lyman Targetspot Scope( scope# 23*5)that is USMC marked Beautiful C-Stock, NM Heavy Checking Buttplate Barrel dated 10-42 I have had 20 years and have never fired it because of the Serial Numbers issue. I printed an article years ago, that part of the problem was Gun Power measurement in the WW1 War time Production, over filled, Higher Pressures.

Why? The cracks are observable. What else needs to be said? They're antiques.

So, 1903 A3s (in good shape) would be considered "safe"?

I guess I inherited something to look at only. Thanks for the info.

My Rock Island 1903 produced in 1917. Serial number 250xxx. It was remarried with a High Standard barrel in 1944. I figure that if it was shot enough to justify rebarreling 27 years after original manufacturing, it should have failed long ago if it was going to. The government was not going to spend the money rebarrel a rifle if it didn't need it. So I have to ask how many shots did it take in that 27 years to just t if rebarreling and still no catastrophic failure plus how many shots from 1944 to now. I feel as safe shooting this rifle as I do any other in my collection.

I truly appreciate your video here. My own Springfield is a Remington-made (Apr 42) Model 1903 numbered 3,125,xxx, and from what I've been able to gather, was never issued. In fact, I don't believe it ever had a stock installed and was only proof fired. My close examination of the bore shows it to be as pristine as I've ever seen on a military rifle. At any rate, your video here reminded me of the old Krag-Jorgensen rifle I purchased about forty years ago. I was very leery of even thinking of firing it until I met a gunsmith who recommended a test called "magna-fluxing" in which the receiver was examined magnetically. No cracks or stress points were found, and I did fire the gun twenty times before finally retiring it to an honored place on the wall of my manacle. The biggest takeaway I got from your video here is that "just because one has never seen such-and-such is not an indication that it doesn't exist." That's a great warning more people should take to heart, and this lesson goes beyond just military weaponry. Thank you.

How do I know if my rifle a 1930, 1903 is a A3 or a four

I have seen a number of low numbered 1903s that were rearsenaled during WW2 with barrels dated 43 or 44. Do you know if the receivers were somehow checked and then reused?

I wouldn't shoot a low number gun, just to be safe. But if I were a betting man, I'd say this 1903 fell victim to a sloppy reloader.

What do you know about Sedgley Springfields? I think all of them were low numbered and were reheat treated and Sedgley claimed they made them safe to shoot. I have one that is a beautiful rifle. I have shot it and it shoots great but one wonders if they really are safe?

So far, this is just an anecdotal observation of one rifle. Wouldn't it be more scientific to actually take thid receiver and have it tested to determine its actual hardness. That would be much more interesting.

I have a 1903 made in 1930 no cracks and I have also a 1903 made in 1918 Mark one

Given the fact that a very low portion of the rifles actually shattered, I'd surmise that a very large portion of low numbered receivers that are still around, are probably the ones that were heat treated correctly, since they made it this far along without cracking. Hence, you found a needle in a haystack. Probably should have kept it just for a very rare example.

Have a 1903 with a 4 digit serial number that I’m thinking about buying. I just wanna know if it will still be able to shoot.

Two things. Julian Hatcher was not in charge of finding out the issue with the M1903s, nor was it ever a fault with the heat treating. It's unfortunate that most of the information on this subject comes from Hatcher's Notebook, but most of what is stated is just information that he compiled and not everything he compiled was that good. The actual problem, what was being "eye balled" by the workers, was the forging temperature. That is done at much higher temperatures. You can't "burn" steel at heat treating temperatures, nor could you "eye ball" it since the receivers were inside of clay pots mixed with bone and charcoal. The change to the heat treating process was more of Springfield not exactly knowing what was going on and just trying something. This is also why we don't have an accurate serial number cutoff for Springfield. Either way, the change to the heat treating method was more coincidental.

How, oh How, in the name of historical research " and 1.5 million youtube views," did you not tie that rifle to a table, point a high-speed camera at it, and pull the trigger with a string from behind a barrier? The first ever opportunity to document what happens when a flawed low # 03 goes boom....and you take it back to the dealer? Dude......you blew it

You can Magnaflux the receiver to detect cracks and have an uncracked receiver properly heat treated.

Forget the military rifles and get a modern rifle

Very well presented, no stumbling and stammering or saying "You Know" or "Like" every other word. I subscribed!