M1903A1- Poor man's National Match rifle

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

  • No ad networks!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • tinydata

    Active Member
    Jul 29, 2011
    206
    Potomac
    I bought this M1903 with the intent to raid it for the stock set. It's not everyday that you come across a prewar C stock in crisp, undamaged condition.

    When it arrived, the stock was every bit as nice as I had hoped for. The outside was unsanded and there's barely any damage. Inside, there are original shavings left from the inletting process at Springfield Armory. The barrel and receiver are an original 1915 pairing. The bolt appears to be a National Match WL3. My theory, given the frankenstein nature of the rifle, is that someone wanted a National Match 03A1 but had to piece it together from a run of the mill 03 that he obtained.

    The wood to metal fit is excellent, especially when you look at the front where the band, barrel, and stock nose meet. The bolt and sear were also fitted with great care, as there is no movement of the cocking piece whatsoever when the trigger is pulled. Even my Swedish m/96 isn't quite this precisely assembled.

    After checking the headspace, I wanted to see what this NM imitation could do. Yes, I know the risk with low number 03s. I used HXP brass and Nosler 168gr CCs. Despite the rain and shifting light that I blame for the vertical dispersion, the rifle is very clearly capable of excellent groupings. I imagine that the man who put this rifle together was a serious shooter in his day.

    MNSMnLR.jpg


    lgk5sJ7.jpg


    3J69RYF.jpg


    Xbtw9Ud.jpg


    pKjl0qs.jpg


    uAJZ9fi.jpg
     

    Doco Overboard

    Ultimate Member
    That’s a good observation that the striker doesn’t move rearward right before it lets off. Usually you have to swap a lot of parts or have access to a number of them to get one working that’s just right.
    C stocks came out around 28 and were for DCM or NM rifles. Yours looks to have an S in the cut off just looking from the phone in tree stand view.
    Nice rifle, they’re fun to shoot and tinker with. Did it come with any sight covers, different slide, opposite safety or any other goodies?
     

    Jimbob2.0

    Ultimate Member
    Feb 20, 2008
    16,600
    I stumbled into something very similar a while back. Havent shot it for groups yet but someone's attempt at making a NM clone. Its well done and expect it to be a great shooter.

    Though in my case the sanded stock looks too new without that age.
     

    TheOriginalMexicanBob

    Ultimate Member
    Jul 2, 2017
    32,179
    Sun City West, AZ
    There's no secrets to building a match grade rifle...the techniques are well known. But to build a match grade service rifle such as a 1903 or M1 is really special as they're not expected to use optical sights. The proper selection of parts and careful assembly makes for a wonderful shooting experience.

    That '03 is a great rifle. Even though it's a low numbered receiver it's likely perfectly safe. The poor heat treatment problem came about during our participation in WWI when Springfield Armory hired many new workers for expanded rifle production. The way the '03 receivers were heat treated took an experienced eye by old pros which the new guys simply didn't have. Once the issue arose...and the numbers of rifles that did fracture was not high...improved procedures were instituted to eliminate the problem.

    Before and during WWI the 1903 rifles in service fired many millions of rounds without issue but the low numbered examples were supposedly condemned as unsafe but yet so many stayed in inventory and used for many years.

    In any form and from Springfield Armory, Rock Island Arsenal, Reminton or Smith-Corona...the 1903 and 1903A3 is an awesome rifle.
     

    ken792

    Ultimate Member
    Sep 2, 2011
    4,480
    Fairfax, VA
    That '03 is a great rifle. Even though it's a low numbered receiver it's likely perfectly safe. The poor heat treatment problem came about during our participation in WWI when Springfield Armory hired many new workers for expanded rifle production. The way the '03 receivers were heat treated took an experienced eye by old pros which the new guys simply didn't have. Once the issue arose...and the numbers of rifles that did fracture was not high...improved procedures were instituted to eliminate the problem.

    Before and during WWI the 1903 rifles in service fired many millions of rounds without issue but the low numbered examples were supposedly condemned as unsafe but yet so many stayed in inventory and used for many years.

    The issue was more complicated than just technique (which was deemed an issue of its own). The single heat treatment was found to harden the receivers all the way through, even if all the steps were followed correctly.

    Single heat treat receivers are fine for normal firing since they'll handle proof pressures. They behave differently if cases fail, whether it's due to bad brass or overpressure. A case failure in a double heat treat or nickel steel receiver is going to be a bad day regardless though, since it will likely blow apart the stock, blow out the floorplate, and direct hot gas back at the shooter.

    From Hatcher's Notebook

    Single heat treat
    The receiver was forged under a 2,000 pound drop hammer, hot trimmed, and then while hot was given one blow in the forging dies under the hammer to straighten it. It was next put in charcoal and allowed to cool very slowly. It was then pickled to remove the scale, and again put under the drop hammer cold to bring it to size, after which it went to the receiver shop where all machine operations were performed.

    After machining was finished, the receivers were heated in bone, four in a pot, to 1500 F. and kept at this temperature four hours. This was in a muffle type oil furnace. The receivers were then quenched in oil.

    At Rock Island receivers were made from the same steel until 1918. The treatment was as follows:

    Pack in charred leather in pots. Heat to 1475 to 1500 F. and hold at this temperature for 3 to 4 hours. Quench in oil.

    This quenching from a high temperature made the receiver fairly hard all the way through, though the surface and the material near the surface into which the carbon from the charred leather had penetrated were harder than the interior, so that the piece was actually case-hardened.

    Double heat treat
    The receiver was forged under a 2000 pound drop hammer, hot trimmed, and then given one blow under the hammer to straighten it, after which it was allowed to cool in an open pan. It was then pickled to remove scale, cold trimmed, and brought to size cold, under the drop hammer. It was then annealed by packing in charcoal, heating to 1500 degrees F. for 2 hours, and cooling in the furnace, after which it was pickled, inspected, and machined.

    After machining, the receiver was heated in bone in an American Gas Company Carburizing Furnace at 1500 degrees F. for 2 1/2 hours, then quenched in oil. It was re-heated to 1300 degrees F. in a salt bath for 5 minutes, and again quenched in oil. It was next drawn at 350 degrees F. in an oil bath and air cooled, and tested for hardness with a Scleroscope, which should give a reading between 45 and 60. This would correspond roughly to from 33 to 44 Rockwell C.

    The difference in the resulting receiver (and bolt) structure between the old and the new treatment can be outlined briefly as follows:

    In both methods, the receivers (and bolts) were carburized so that the metal on and near the surface had a higher carbon content than did the inside. In the old method the receiver was simply heated above the hardening temperature of the steel and then quenched. This made the receiver hard all the way through, though the carburized surface, having a higher carbon content came out harder than the lower carbon interior, which, however, was still hard enough to be brittle under shock.

    The new treatment was based on the fact that the higher the carbon content of the steel, the lower the temperature to which it muse be heated to make it harden when quenched from this temperature.

    As the reader is no doubt aware, the hardness of carbon steel is largely dependent on the form in which the carbon exists in the steel. If the carbon is in a form called Pearlite, the steel will be soft. If it is in a form called Martensite, the steel will be hard, If it is part one and part the other, the hardness will be intermediate. When steel is heated, a point is reached at which it seems to absorb heat. At this so-called decalescence point, the Pearlite turns into Martensite. This is one of the “critical” points of steel. If the steel is heated to this point and then cooled slowly, another critical point, called the recalescence point, is reached some 200 to 250 degrees lower, where the steel stops cooling for a time and actually seems to give out heat as the Martensite turns back to Pearlite. Steel cooled slowly in this way will come out soft. But if, when the steel has readied the first critical point, it is cooled suddenly, as by quenching in brine or oil, the Martensite is trapped before it can change back and the metal becomes very hard, This operation is called hardening.

    If the hardened steel is then heated, it begins to soften. If heated a little, it is softened slightly. If heated nearly to the critical point, it becomes very soft.

    Now the newer double heat treatment takes advantage of the fact that, as noted above, the higher the carbon content of the metal, the lower the temperature to which it must he brought to make it harden when cooled suddenly.

    Thus if the piece is quenched from a temperature just high enough to permit hardening the carburized outside surface, the lower carbon inside core will remain very soft.


    In the revised heat treatment, hearing to 1500 degrees and quenching hardens the receiver through and through, and refines the grain. Re-heating to 1300 degrees draws the temper and softens the metal. This temperature is above the hardening point of the high carbon outside surface but not hot enough to cause the low carbon inside core to harden when quenched. When the piece at 1300 degrees is then plunged into oil, the outside surface becomes very hard, and the inside core remains soft and tough. Afterwards the receivers are heated to 350 F., which slightly reduces the hardness of the surface layer and adds to its toughness.
     

    TheOriginalMexicanBob

    Ultimate Member
    Jul 2, 2017
    32,179
    Sun City West, AZ
    In "Hatcher's Notebook" it's stated that from 1917 through 1929, that "31 receivers of Springfield manufacture are recorded as having blown up, together with 25 of Rock Island manufacture and 5 listed as unknown." So the number of receivers that blew up was small considering the large number of rifles manufactured. There may have been more that were unrecorded. In Bruce Canfield's book the "'03 Service Rifle" he states faulty ammunition to be the "primary culprit" of blown 1903 receivers with German 8mm ammunition was found to be among the most common causes of receiver failures along with faulty ammunition with poorly manufactured cases.
     

    Doco Overboard

    Ultimate Member
    I cant remember if it was Canfield or Culver who wrote about tin can ammo and greased match bullets/ cupro nickle bullets. Cold welding occurring at the case mouth causing a rapid spike in pressure due to bullet pull. It was an enormous amount resulting in significant tension.

    O3, albeit very small has an unsupported case head particularly around the extractor milling. Same is true of the a3 but ammo production had caught up to the deficiencies of soft case heads manufacturing difficulties by the time m2 ball had come out.

    M98 mausers are said to have been found with a case hardening that extended deep into the soft core of the receiver. So much that rc hardness tests can be found around the receiver ring when you look at them. I guess no one was ever able to stuff an 06 round in the chamber far enough to light off resulting in less fanfare than the 03 spectacle. I've d/tpd a number of them that you couldn't tell they were case hardened at all. Especially at the rear of the receiver sides and top for scope bases. It was how they were packed for hardening and the size of the lug and mass of the reciever ring that supposedly did it. Or slave labor if any one could ever prove that as well, so highly unlikely.

    SC receivers are known to be hard as a rock with a skin that's pretty deep and tough to drill if you ever worked on one. It's very unlikely anyone would have ever heard of one of them letting go short of a bore obstruction. By that time a lot of ammo problems had been sorted out with WW1 surplus being sent downrange long before the SC even showed up.

    Fascinating rifles all of them for sure.
     

    SmokeEaterPilot

    Active Member
    Jun 3, 2011
    524
    In "Hatcher's Notebook" it's stated that from 1917 through 1929, that "31 receivers of Springfield manufacture are recorded as having blown up, together with 25 of Rock Island manufacture and 5 listed as unknown." So the number of receivers that blew up was small considering the large number of rifles manufactured. There may have been more that were unrecorded. In Bruce Canfield's book the "'03 Service Rifle" he states faulty ammunition to be the "primary culprit" of blown 1903 receivers with German 8mm ammunition was found to be among the most common causes of receiver failures along with faulty ammunition with poorly manufactured cases.

    You're correct but I think mixing problems up.

    It's important to separate when and where the failures took place. The first reported failures occurred in December 1917, bursting on the Navy firing range during target practice. There were a few reports that followed, but I haven't tallied them up.

    But failures weren't limited to the M1903, but the M1917 had its own failures. Splitting at the barrel being the most common. Here is a list of rifles submitted to the Watertown Arsenal for investigation. As you can see there's even a M1917 receiver failure in the lot.

    zlCKLpB.jpg


    When you're talking about the 8mm in US firearms, that was more of a M1917 problem in 1919. Which makes sense as the AEF most likely took control of German war material.

    There's a lot of these reports of Enfields causing eye injuries. Several reported being the shooters own carelessness. But you are correct US ammo was reported being a problem as well, was WRA manufacture.

    mfX3UR6.jpg


    zaT2Szp.jpg
     

    TheOriginalMexicanBob

    Ultimate Member
    Jul 2, 2017
    32,179
    Sun City West, AZ
    I'm not surprised it was an Eddystone...they were known to be somewhat weaker than Winchester and Remington 1917 rifles though certainly strong enough for standard ammunition. 1903 rifles had some issues with barrels splitting at the seams as well but was pretty much confined to overpressure loads. Another manufacturing issue. Just goes to show no matter how well designed problems crop up. Some H&R built M14 rifles blew up as well and it was traced to them using the wrong steel than specified. Early Beretta M9 slide fractures were traced to Italian made Beretta made pistols using leftover steel from a French contract rather than Pentagon specified steel.

    Probably not the last time such events will happen.
     

    SmokeEaterPilot

    Active Member
    Jun 3, 2011
    524
    I'm not surprised it was an Eddystone...they were known to be somewhat weaker than Winchester and Remington 1917 rifles though certainly strong enough for standard ammunition. 1903 rifles had some issues with barrels splitting at the seams as well but was pretty much confined to overpressure loads. Another manufacturing issue. Just goes to show no matter how well designed problems crop up. Some H&R built M14 rifles blew up as well and it was traced to them using the wrong steel than specified. Early Beretta M9 slide fractures were traced to Italian made Beretta made pistols using leftover steel from a French contract rather than Pentagon specified steel.

    Probably not the last time such events will happen.

    You're right and I hope I wasn't coming off as confrontational or argumentative. Everyone focuses on the M1903 failures because of Hatcher's Notebook, but in reality the Ordnance Department had a lot of problems to deal with at that time.
     

    Allen65

    Ultimate Member
    MDS Supporter
    Jun 29, 2013
    7,063
    Anne Arundel County
    You're right and I hope I wasn't coming off as confrontational or argumentative. Everyone focuses on the M1903 failures because of Hatcher's Notebook, but in reality the Ordnance Department had a lot of problems to deal with at that time.

    With the huge numbers of these rifles produced (~2M for the 1917, ~1.5M for the 1903), the number of failures was statistically tiny. I wonder how those failure rates compare with those of modern rifles?

    And many of the 1903 and 1917 rifle failures were more accurately described as ammunition failures, making the problem rifle numbers even smaller as a percent of total production. Really good QC by that era's standards.
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    274,930
    Messages
    7,259,473
    Members
    33,350
    Latest member
    Rotorboater

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom