Getting surplus arms ready for hunting

Gil Martin · #1 10-16-2013, 06:45 PM

I spent some time at the range today getting two 1903 Springfield rifles ready for deer season. Both had been sporterized when I bought them years ago and have a scope mounted on them. One is a low number Springfield made in 1908 that appears to have spent a lot of time in the woods. The other is a high number Springfield made in 1928 with a perfect barrel. Both rifles shot very well and are not fussy about what i feed them. Anyone else getting a surplus arm ready for big game season? All the best...
Gil

Adam Helmer · #2 10-17-2013, 11:51 AM

Gil,

I have my M1898 .30/40 Krag Rifle ready for use afield. My accuracy load is a 150 grain spritzer and H414. I have a sporterized M1896 Krag Carbine that likes the same load as my second line deer/bear rifle for 2013.

Adam

skeet · #3 10-17-2013, 12:14 PM

Heck the only military rifle I use is a nice 1909 Argentine Mauser that was sporterized many years ago by Dale Goens. He did beautiful work. It was barreled to 35 Whelen. It is a good shooter. I do have a 1903 A4 without a stock. Never even shot it. I did find wood for it. Never put it together. Someday I guess

wrenchman · #4 10-17-2013, 09:02 PM

My son wants to use my m44 Russian hunting he likes the gun and shoots it well I just have to find some hunting rounds for it.

toxic111 · #5 10-18-2013, 09:58 AM

I haven't used my 2 old military guys in many years now. I do have a P17 Enfield & a '44 Long Branch .303 that have both taken deer for me. The P17 is semi sporterized, but the .303 is still in full mil spec.

Larryjk · #6 10-19-2013, 12:47 PM

The latest American rifleman has an article on the "low number" Springfields. They claim those are unsafe to shoot. Could be. Read Hatcher's Notebook for his investigation of low number Springfield blowups. He blames the shooters. I have had three low numbered actions re-heat treated by a reliable firm and they are currently .270 Winchesters dong their job.

skeet · #7 10-19-2013, 03:19 PM

Larry, That article may be right but I have done quite a bit of checking etc on those blowups. I'm not certain they were the fault of the guns. There was a lot of difference in the loading procedures for rifles back then..powder was a LOT different and dimensions were nowhere near as close as they are today. There was a lot of unsafe ammo back then. And some of the problems looked as though there was some fault that could be attributed to the shooters themselves Re-heat treating is probably a good thing but personally if in good condition I would shoot a low numbered Springfield the way she came. How many real blowups did they hav with low numbered guns. And I'd use new factory ammo..not my somewhat hottyer handloads. They have reduced pressures on factory loads these days anyway..mainly because of all the 100 yr old 30-06s out there.

Adam Helmer · #8 10-19-2013, 06:17 PM

skeet,

I have read all I could find on the "Low Number" Springfields. The Low Numbers were NEVER pulled out of the Line Units in France in 1917/1918.

Adam

skeet · #9 10-19-2013, 07:19 PM

I've read quite a bit on the subject too. They never really considered the rifles as bad until some were destroyed after the war..but during the war (both of them in fact) we were notoriously short on arms which is usually pretty much the norm anyway..Till VN I guess. I guess during WW I they considered they were destroyed by plugged bores etc..musta happened quite often I'd say. But I did read an essay on the ammo of the time..Brass was no where near as well made and hardened as it should have been. Powder was rudimentary smokeless compared to now and it was being used under untried conditions and in wartime I am certain that some lots of ammo were not as well checked as during peacetime. Heck my father in law told me he remembered using up 30 cal ammo while training in 1939 that was made in 1917. Said it was ok in bolt guns but much of the necks were cracked. He even told me that every now and again the whole end of the cartridges broke off feeding 03s with the stripper clips. But even after they gave him a Garand he always wanted his beloved 03 back and he was a left hand bolt shooter. Even at 80 YO he could work an ol pre war M70 better than I could and he did it left handed. So I traded him a 4 digit Win 88 for it

Larryjk · #10 10-20-2013, 02:25 PM

Skeet, I refer people to "Hatcher's Notebook' on the low numbered Springfield subject. The Army assigned him the task of investigating the blown up rifles. He found the actions were probably destroyed by unsafe practices of the shooters;ie, leaving cleaning patches in the bore, greasing the chamber, etc,etc. As I said, the ones I have on hand have been sent to a reputable firm for re-heat treating before rebarreling to anything. I usually do that with any Mauser action I have any questions on. I made a .338 magnum for my son-in-law on an Argentine 1909 action and I had it re-heat treated before I put the barrel on it. I always perform the modifications to actions before I have them treated; drill and tap, alter bolt handles, face the receiver, lap the lugs, etc. Some are repeated after the treatment in case any warping occured during the process. Stoning the rails,etc. are always left until after the process. I have shot a low numbered Springfield I have in military dress with surplus ball ammo and have not been concerned about it's safe.ty

Gil Martin · #11 10-22-2013, 08:15 AM

The link below covers the low number Springfield topic very well. Note that the U.S. Army continued to use low number Springfields, but issued rifles with high number receivers to new recruits. The U.S. Marines continued to use low number Springfields during WWII. We gave thousands of low number Springfields to the Free French in WWII. There were about one million low number Springfields made and some are still in use today. Hope this provides some clarity. All the best...
Gil

m1903.com/03rcvrfail/