http://www.gunbroker.com/item/722226501

Not my rifle.
In the post is the following comment; "The serial number puts it in the low number range which is considered to be too brittle to stand up to the pressures generated by modern 30-06 rounds, so it is not recommended to be fired with high pressure ammunition."
The question is if the above is a valid statement and I am one who agrees, as others on the forum would also. (hoping you all have super good shooting glasses), what would you do with it? Mind you the price is ~$6600.
Would anyone think a person could swap out the action for a later, more safe, version without seriously degrading the rifle. If you can't do that what would you do with it or I think it would be a very expensive wall hanger.

What, you don't have another 30-06 to use in the field?

This is the ole low number high number discussion. The rifle in question is at Ron Peterson's in Albuquerque, NM. I have looked at and handled the rifle and it is a nice example. If I could afford it, would I shoot it? Probably not. Would I buy it and change out the action so I could use it? No. I would shoot it as is before doing that.

I figure the statement is a legal CYA one. I also note that it doesn't say don't shoot it, just don't use "modern" "high pressure" ammunition.
Thaine

Just my .02 and I have no issue with shooting low number Springfields nor using them for the occasional hunt. Yes I wear good shooting glasses, but then I wear them with all guns.

I think the question is more could the action be replaced with a later 1903 Springfield action? I do not know enough about the differences in the actual shape of the 1903 actions. Could a later one drop in?

"Could a later one drop in?"

I don't see why you couldn't. There are no differences between a 1916 production receiver and a 1918 (800000+ serial#) receiver that I can find in any references such as Brophy etc. As too minor dimensional differences between two such actions, you may not know until you have the replacement in hand. Have the bluing matched and you would supposedly have a safe for modern high pressure ammunition Springfield. Since I don't own a Griffin rifle, someone else will have to address if he made any alterations to the receiver itself.

Would it degrade the rifle? IMHO yes, but then who would know 10 years from now? I just can't see or justify doing it in my mind. But if someone wanted to spend the $ for it and do it, who am I or we to say what they can do with their possession.
Thaine

No mention of the G&H number. What's with that?

Thanks Thaine. It’s just an interesting thought. I do not believe anyone will do it since the current asking price is excessive, iMO

That looks like a pre-G&H SR Griffin to me. If so, it wouldn't have a G&H number. Also, the early G&H rifles marked in a banner on the floor plate were unnumbered.

Since there are no special markings on the action, I can't see how changing it out would "degrade" the gun? It seems to me if a person did so, and did the work properly, then nobody would even know it was done. And a high number action certainly wouldn't degrade the gun's value. I'd expect it would increase it's value.

I certainly agree with you Vall.

I gave this a bit more thought while sleeping last night and here's an interesting comparison.
Michael's Wundhammer
Michael started with a stock and the rest is his story. All or most of us looked at it as a great rifle, even if not "pure", because it brought back to life a classic work of art. Now all that would be needed to place the Griffin rifle into the positive "usable" side would be an action a couple of years older with a finish match done to the action. The original action could be bagged and set aside for the next caretaker. After thinking this over again I guess it probably wouldn't make a difference to most and would be "ok". I still wouldn't do it, but could understand if someone did.

There were no G&H markings on the rifle, as it is a pre &H Griffin.

Just another .02, pretty soon I'll have a whole dime in this!
Thaine

Speaking from my own experience, I would be sure my glasses are Randolph Ranger Edge glasses. They have a proven track record with respect to low number 03s. Then I would try the action substitution and keep the low number action for restoration or whatever the next caretaker cared to do with it. But I would not be shooting it with any loads of any type. Just sayin'

Whether the value is degraded or not depends on your point of view; you would lose the value of a good action and the work. If it hasn't blown up in more than a hundred years, it is not likely to blow up tomorrow with moderate handloads.
Mike

If I was doing the action swap, I'd use an action made circa 1920 so the serial number fit the era of the stock and engraving.

Actually, if it were mine, I'd just leave it alone as a piece of gunmaker art.

Wow lots of great input.
Brent I believe you were who I was thinking of with the glasses remarks.
Great point Terry
Mike, that is always the question. All can do as they believe. All would have to assess the risks on there own.
Thanks Thaine!
Thanks for the remarks. I never had any intention of owning this gun and the thread started from a discussion between me and my friend Ric. (see I did get you brought into this LOL)

Oh how I (and my face and wallet) beg to differ.

yup, that is me. I'm a bit gun-shy of low number '03s. I wish Michael were around to talk to him about this.

Maybe someday, I'll own another 03. I do have one other bolt rifle, a sporterized Krag, but I'm not comfortable to shoot it, or any other bolt rifle. Just me.

Certainly can understand your feelings, I and many others may feel the same if what happened to you, happened to us.
The vast vast majority of bolt rifles are perfectly fine as long as in good functioning order. However the low number 03's are not in my opinion and the Krag I just steer clear of.

I would use my Marble's inserts, if I could find them.

Unless said high number receiver post-dated the time when Griffin built it. I feel the value in this rifle lies primarily in the wood work and overall craftsmanship due to Mr. Griffin's talents. Replacing the receiver would certainly detract from its value somewhat, but as long as the original receiver were retained and not one whisker's worth of harm was done to Griffin's work then I could sort of support doing it.

Personally I would shoot it with some low-vel cast bullet loads occasionally and leave it go at that. I wouldn't employ it as a hunting rifle and as such wouldn't have a need/desire to ever introduce full throttle loads into its chamber.

I'm afraid that doesn't really hold water. Each year there are 100+ year old guns that blow up. Some are carelessness in loading by their owners. But others are unexplained, and usually attributed to the age of the action, and the metal finally saying enough. Every low serial number '03 that ever blew up didn't do so when it was first sporterized. There's enough recorded cases over the decades since they've been pointed out as potential problems to show that this can still happen over 100 years later.

I think I'll have to agree with Vall on this one...

On my low # Springfields, they are used for Cast bullet guns, they are shot, act like rifles, and all is well. Pressures are kept low and they are fun to shoot.
There are plenty of other rifles out there for shooting full up jacketed rounds.
Mike

Brent and Vall, me too.
Gary and Brent can correct if I am wrong, but I think that Brent was shooting a low powered round and with cast bullets when his blew up. There is a whole thread about it on this forum back when Brent's experience occurred.

Remember I and you have driven thousands of times without any issues of accident until you are killed in an accident! Accidents are unknown events but can be avoided by risk management and not doing stupid things.

Vall,
Yes, and my brother blew up a Mod 700, I don't think it was 100 years old. Look again at my comment, I specified moderate loads.
Mike

Is there a reply to my comment about using Marble's inserts? I don't know much about them, but some shooters used them in the dark ages.

Sorry I do not see any connection between Marble's inserts and this discussion om 1903 rifle actions?

Marbles inserts allowed the use of 32 S&W cartridges in 30-06 rifles.
There is a good discussion with pictures here

chamber inserts

That is correct. Of course, everyone on the internet who has heard about this even 25th hand can say with conviction that it was something else entirely. I also heard that one gun magazine writer, who knows me personally but never contacted me about it, got a good article out of it too.

If I could do it over, I would refit that action and save the old one. However, there was nothing about the old one that had been part of the sporterization process (in other words, no gunsmithing artistry or craftsmanship would be lost by its being replaced). But life is not like golf; we don't get do-overs in life.

Brent, I wasn't aware that an article was published about your experience, I would like to see it. Anyway as you already know, after I purchased the remains of RIA # 220892. (Steve Meunier 1903) from you l sent the barrel and action to a highly experienced metallurgist in the field of metal failure. He has spearheaded an intensive study on the subject and has secured a "state of the art" metallurgy lab with award winning status for metal testing and evaluation. Current tests have been nearly a year in process and nearing completion.

Newton, I haven't seen it myself. I heard about it 3rd hand. I don't think my name is mentioned explicitly but the word is, everyone knows who it is... I dunno. Blow up a gun and it's like you are a celebrity who's sex tape just got leaked. Frickin' ridiculous.

I'd sure like to hear what you find out about it. I should write a book about all the slam-dunk verdicts that have been given to explain what happened for absolute certain. Personally, I really don't know, but I have 2 or 3 favorites.

No, I saw the "moderate" part. But there's still evidence that these guns have indeed come apart with "moderate" loads.

I think the bottomline is that exists a considerable amount of evidence that there exists a problem with low number 1903 Springfields. If this evidence did not exist then there would not be the amount of discussion that has taken place over the last nearly 100 years. What worst is that you could look at 2 of these actions and one might blow up and the other not. And whats scary is that there is not anyway of telling which is which until BANG! To deny is just to fool yourself and not use good understanding of risk management and or statistics.

The reality is that if these guns were made in this century there would be lawsuits up the hind end and significant recalls.
Everyone can do as they wish, I believe Darwin wrote a whole book about the issue here. Survival of the fittest.

Brent you did nothing wrong and no matter what all the self proclaimed experts say the first and foremost first order failure here was a defectively manufactured rifle action.