doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion Classic & Custom Single Barreled Sporting Rifles @ doublegunshop.com Springfield receiver on Gunbroker.

When I come across a nice custom low number 1903 I tell Michael about it .... I am not a prospective buyer of these old timer hand grenades. Nor will shoot one, reduced load or otherwise.

That's a good thing and I think others should follow your lead

MK...Hey did'nt you hear the recent news, Michael Petrov has moved on to collecting "only German made Mark V Weatherbys" just send all the info you find on available Pre War 03 Sporters to me and me alone, Michael has kindly designated me as his heir apparent suicide designee. Sorry MP I just could'nt resist! Warmest Regards Jerry

I never knew the issue with the 17's. Sure been a lot of magnums built on that action. I do know of a heavy barreled Springfield (high number)that was bought by a friend of mine that was stamped .308 on the barrel. He fired a .308 in it only to find out it was actually chambered for .300 Win Mag. The extractor had held the case against the bolt enough to allow it to fire. No harm was done other than the case was split from stem to stern.

I’d like to summarize what I have covered so far. Because the 1917 problems were all related to a bore obstruction. As soon a people realized that you can't shoot out the grease or cleaning patch the problem with them became a non-issue. The 1903 has always been under the cloud of bad metallurgy and will stay that way. The LN 1903 was designed for a cartridge around 50,000 pounds and around double that pressure the action will fail. The later 1903 actions, when they fail they deform and do not shatter, never mind that in both cases the rifle is junk. I don’t try to get people to shoot or not shoot the LN’s but I do tend to voice my opinion when I see the same old tired stuff that keeps getting parroted. Only damascus shotguns get more incorrect press than the LN 1903. Here are a couple of responses to the LN question back in BC (before computers).

1936 “American Rifleman” I see that the practice of exchanging the low-number receivers for high-numbers when a rifle was sent in by a civilian for work was stopped unless the person requested it. Seems some people did not like loosing these (hard) smooth working actions. This question is not new, from Nov, 1932 American Rifleman, person asking if his low-number was still serviceable. Answer: “These older receivers are safe to use with any standard factory ammunition of old or modern ballistics, providing the cases are in good condition. There should be no grease on the cartridge or in the bore, and the breech space must be no greater than about .005 inch.”


American Rifleman March 1, 1925 By Major Whelen….”It happens; that beginning with serial number somewhere about 800,000, Springfield Armory adapted a new method of heat treatment for their receivers. This new method gives greater tensile strength than the old method. It is simply progress and improvement, and does not mean at all that previous receivers were defective in any way. As a matter of fact they are not, and from a practical point of view the difference between the two heat treatments means nothing at all. I would just as soon have an old receiver as a new one. In fact the receiver of my favorite Springfield sporter rifle is in the 200,000s, and I would not think of changing it for anything.”

I have seen some Eddystone 1917 actions (still on military rifles) that appeared to have less steel in the forged part than other 1917s. The action wall on the left side looked incomplete, as if there was less metal in the steel to be forged and it did not get spread everywhere it was supposed to go in the forging process. I should have thought such actions would have been rejected at inspection, but they seem to have made it through. All rifles observed were marked 30-06, stenciled in black on a red-painted band around the forward part of the stock and handguard. If Eddystones were visibly flawed, what might have happened inside the metal? Three rifles out of a case of 10 that I examined were so flawed. Has anyone else seen these actions?

Well we are obviously not going to resolve this here. People will have to look at the evidence and make their own risk assessments. What I wonder is if it is now possible to do any sort of non-destructive testing that was not available 50 or 75 years ago. Any metallurgists or engineers with this expertise out there? That is what we really need: some way to identify the bad ones. Blowing up individual rifles is no doubt fun, and potentially useful for identifying the mechanism of failure, but not ultimately very helpful. I don't know if the bad ones are one in 1,000 or one in 10,000 or one in 100,000, but I have read enough from credible sources to believe that there is some problem with some percentage of the low number rifles. I also believe that the problem is related to the steel and/or heat treating, possibly helped along by the breech design. I guess I'm just not buying mass hysteria as the explanation.

The 1917 action is much stronger, and faster than the '03 Springfailed. The late Fred Wells built many .500 Wells custom rifles that sold for huge money, and never had any problems with any of them.
Fred turned down .50BMG barrels and rechambered them for his cartridge, and I can personally tell you they're brutally high pressure, and recoil, yet the old Enfield holds it great!
The only reason Fred ever started building his own receiver was he ran out of cheap used Enfield actions to customise.

waterman...I can say that 1917 US Enfield rifles with that stenciling you describe was used on 1917 rifles that were sent to England by the USA for Brit use during WW2. The marking was applied in England .
Meant to be used as home guard, C/D type weapons, they were prominetly marked as such to try and avoid a mixup with 303 ammunition destined for P14 Enfield rifles already in same use on the home front there and familiar to the locals from the earlier war.

There is a portion of the left wall (top edge) on 1917s at the rear that is relieved to assist in charger loading,,I'm not sure it's also on the P14.

Another possibility is the conversion of P14's to 30-06 caliber though I can't come up with a reason why it would be done or if done, why it would require the left rec'vr wall to be altered.

Perhaps they were in fact 'reject' but shootable 1917's and sent off the England for guard duty weapons.

Vall, I must respectfully direct your attention to the blowup tests conducted by P.O. Ackley and recounted in his Handbook for Shooters and Reloaders. In fact the 1917 actions are not generally as strong as commonly thought, especially the Eddystones. Ackley admits that he himself was greatly surprised by the 1917's relatively poor showing, but it's really not such a shock when we consider that it's made from basically the same type steel and with the same design breech as the 1903.

For any of you who are still laboring under the misapprehension that M70s are notably safer than the 1903 'grenades', I respectfully direct your attention to the photo of a blown-up M70 in the same publication. Behaved in exactly the same way as the early case-hardened 1903s, that is, shattered. As Gomer Pyle says, "Surprise, Surprise, Surprise!"
Regards, Joe