Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Mausers and Military Rifles Remington 1903 Safe?

Some of the early '03s under S/N 800,000 were rebarreled and used in WWII.

Gnnoah is right and can't reiterate it enough
I do a lot of gunshows allways some asswipe trying to pedal a low number 03 either springfield or rock island for big money . Hatcher's Notebook is the best refererence , as a shooter the low #'s are a major risk. A guy I know had his low number immaculate Sedgley sporter come apart like a bomb at a cast.bullet shoot awhile back.
The brittle receiver shattered. He sustained minor injuries and luckily no one adjacent to him was injured. I have and shoot all my springfields but do NOT have any 03's less than 875,000 serial number wise or rock islands under 280, 000 serial range. Hatchers Notebook is the best reference on that factual history of the 1903 Springfield , if you want to own and enjoy using a Springfield get one there is no doubts about not one some bubba that says bullshit I know more than Gen Hatcher did. Magnum bob

They were held in emergency reserve and not used.

There is at least one major facility not far from where I live that flat out bans the firing of low number 03's on their firing line, as that was where one let go a few years ago.

Sedgleys, as beautiful as they are, are a real crap-shoot. You don't know if you're getting a low or high number gun as they, in their infinite wisdom, obliterated the serial numbers on most of them. On top of that, Sedgley claimed to have a process whereby they could safely re-heat treat low number rifles making them safe. Kind of a P.T.Barnum-like claim, as due to the low carbon primitive alloy that was used it couldn't be done. (Once steel like that is "burned" there's no fixing it.)

I think if you look at this link, you might have a different view of the unsafe '03's.

http://m1903.com/03rcvrfail/

Interesting read. I'll still leave the shooting of low number Springfields to others though. Statistically he makes a lot of valid points.

He makes one point I disagree with: that the adoption of the "double heat treatment" didn't really fix the problem, that said receivers continued to fail. But, notice that said receivers merely bent, they didn't shatter which to me makes them a lot safer.

I used to shoot ‘03’s a lot - there was a time when the only center fire rifles I had was a 6mm Remington on a 98 Mauser action and a “customized” ‘03.
If I owned one of the low numbered ‘03’s I’d probably shoot cast bullets in them - even though I believe that the often stated alarm regarding danger on these is over stated.
If the only rifle I owned was an ‘03, I’d be hunting anything I could in the USA with it and I’d bet it would work well enough. It would work pretty good in Africa too for most game. But I’d not push the pressure beyond factory level pressures.

I still shoot 03's a lot. I own 10 .30-06's and 8 of them are 03's. My 03A1 Sniper, Style T Target, and NRA Sporter see the most use and to lessen the wear on their bores I shoot mostly reduced cast bullet loads, but that's just me as I'm a lifelong cast bullet experimenter and would shoot such loads regardless. My service rifles stand by with ammo belt and bandoliers stuffed with 5-round clips of home made Ball M2 ammo, as well as the trusty M1 with several ammo cans full of the same stuff in enbloc clips. Let those Zombies try to crash my party, haha!!

I had what I thought was a great supply of 4895 and Sierra 150 FMJBT's until last year when the Zombies got restless. I still have those components but now they are in the form of over a thousand M2 Ball copies.

I may have mentioned before that I have a pristine early Remington 1903 (not 03A3, I really don't have much time for them) action that I'm on the fence whether to "restore" it, sporterize it, or sell it.

Thanks. I did not know that.

Model 70 man that's what Hatcher said. The barrels aren't the problem it's the brittle receiver that is.

The story of early 03's blowing up has been blown up. They were not as dangerous as many claim. There were a few, but there were other circumstances.

I have read similar, lots of hype, and little evidence as to the exact cause. Lots of variables in those days. I have a beautifully done, low number 03, a classic for the 50's. Like Bugger I don't push it.

My first deer rifle was a Remington 1903-A1, sporterized. I still have it and I haven't shot it in decades.

Dan

Have a couple US Rems, both 6/42 and numbers in the same range as the one the OP noted. One sporter, one original except for the stock. Both are good shooters. And the original one is pretty much the same as the 1903s turned out by US armories.