Low Number Rock Island 1903

Joe Boleo · #1 01-02-2010, 12:52 PM

Just an update, the shop that had an original low number Rock Island 1903 priced at $1,895 has lowered the price to $1,345.00. They are headed in the right direction, but still have a long way to go. I am sure that rifle will sit in the used gun rack for a long, long time. Take care...
Joe

Gil Martin · #2 01-03-2010, 09:54 AM

I agree. At half the new sale price that would be a lot for a low number Rock Island 1903. All the best...
Gil

Adam Helmer · #3 01-08-2010, 03:34 PM

Joe,

Low Number 1903's are BEST used as cast bullet guns or Wall Hangers. IIf you want to use higher pressure loads, go to a P-17 and be safe.

Adam

Gil Martin · #4 01-08-2010, 05:10 PM

We covered the low number Springfield issue before. The U.S. Army continued to use over one million low number Springfields in service until M1 Garand production replaced them. The U.S. Marines never pulled low numbered Springfield rifles out of service until Garands were available. During WWII, many low number Springfields were put back into service. The link below covers the topic very well. Factory or military loads are still being used in many low number Springfield rifles every year. All the best...
Gil

http://m1903.com/03rcvrfail/

Adam Helmer · #5 01-09-2010, 05:31 PM

Gil,

Interesting link. I still maintain Low Numbers, now a century old, need cast bullets or a place on the wall. I believe the link made my case: "Who has a low number receiver "eyeballed by a worker" that was treated +/- 300 degrees on a sunny or cloudy day? I have lots of military stuff that I feel safer shooting than a questionable Low Number. As for the military not pulling the guns from the troops; at $57.00 per month for a soldier and rifles costing $26.00, let the guns stay with the troops. Most were shot once a year for 50 rounds and the soldiers' luck held out.

I shoot the Lyman #311467 cast bullet and 2400 in my Low Numbers and the receivers are ALL in tact. Try that with Hornady "Light Magnums" and give me a final report!

Adam

Gil Martin · #6 01-09-2010, 07:06 PM

The number of low number Springfield failures was very low. Some may be traced to attempting to shoot enemy cartridges in a 1903. Other failures may have been caused by front line conditions. When did you last hear of a low number 1903 coming apart? The fact is thousands of low number Springfields were made into sporter rifles and are still being used. A gun shop I visit had two new arrivals sitting on the used gun racks. These rifles appear to be doing just fine with military ammo, factory ammo or reasonable reloads. Based on your feelings regarding this topic, it is probably best that you do not shoot a low number Springfield. All the best...
Gil

Adam Helmer · #7 01-12-2010, 04:53 PM

Gil,

I shoot Low Number Springfields with cast bullets. I suggest you reread my prior post.

As for "all the sporter Low Numbers", most get carried 3 days a year and only fired once every ten years. I suggest there are better rifles than Centurians of doubtful safety. Why take a chance?

Adam

Gil Martin · #8 01-12-2010, 06:26 PM

I shoot a Krag that is even older than any 1903. All the best...
Gil

Adam Helmer · #9 01-14-2010, 05:41 PM

Gil,

I have several Krags and respect the Single Lug configuration of that fine arm by judiciously using loads appropriate to that venerable arm. Be well.

Adam

Gil Martin · #10 01-14-2010, 06:16 PM

Suitable loads are what I use in my low number Springfield. All the best...
Gil

Joe Boleo · #11 01-15-2010, 07:44 PM

This topic generates more heat than light. Some folks get really cranked up when the danger is about as over-rated as the drastic fear over headspace. True, one has to be sensible in shooting these older rifles. I have one and am about to get it rebarreled in .30-06. I got to get the wear out of it. Take care...
Joe