Any old gun gurus out there?

[hunthikecamp]

Hey all, just curious if there's any old gun or old military gun gurus out there that might have might know a thing or two about my old Springfield 1903 or might have some more resources i can poke around on.

I don't know much about it other than it was manufactured in 1906 based on SN (148XXX), and was sporterized sometime in the 1970s for use as a hunting rifle. https://www.nps.gov/spar/learn/historyculture/u-s-springfield-model-1903-production.htm

Additionally, it's considered a 'low SN' gun so there's a non-zero chance it could blow up in my face but after thoroughly researching it and the stats on failures, as well as the fact that it's been in 'service' as a hunting rifle for over 50 years along with potentially 70 years of varying military service, I'm pretty confident that any brittle fracture failure mode would have presented itself. That being said I do plan to retire it this year and upgrade to a more modern rifle, but was always curious to learn more about it. https://thecmp.org/sales-and-service/m1903-m1903a3-rifle-information/

I've noticed a bunch of random punch marks on the bottom of the receiver and also some more worn away ones further up the barrel and always wondered where the heck these have come from? Punching to indicate some kind of modification or service doesn't seem unreasonable but these seem really haphazard.

Otherwise, I've had some extraction issues occasionally that have almost cost me a few critters via missed follow up shots, and I noticed this on my latest round through it (which ejected normally), any thoughts on what might be going on?

 

[Tmac]

There were a number of manufacturers, best to check for the serial numbers to avoid for your manufacturer. I have an O3-A3 model that had brittleness issues below about 800k serial numbers for that manfu. Spend some time google searching your exact model and manufacturer. There are quite a few resourced available.

 

[hunthikecamp]

Yep, this one did come out of the Springfield armory early on, and does fall in that category based on SN. That's one of the reasons I'm retiring it but also just looking to get something a little more modern and step up my shooting game and effective range a bit.

 

[TaperPin]

That’s a cool old rifle. It’s too bad the steel in these is so questionable, or more of them would be seen sporterized.

That is quite the collection of marks. At least one is the stamp for a government inspector. One is a proof mark after firing the rifle. Maybe a plant stamp and or lot stamp. Different variations of a rifle will have a mark. Since it was an early model, any upgrades will get a mark. If it was repaired or refurbished while government property there would be a stamp or two for that. Batches of rifles transferred to specific new departments or branches of the military may get a stamp. Many rifles are given or sold to other governments and that would get a stamp or two or three. There’s probably a stamp when it was surplused. Some surplus buyers will add a stamp.

 

[LeftyWilbury]

regardless of that the issues are with that rifle, the protruding primer and ding in the case plus all the mystery say retire it and buy something a bit more modern. if i was going to fire that, it'd be some weaker garand loads to make holes in paper but most likely just hang it on a wall and call it good.

i dont even know what to make of all those marks. i feel like there was a 19 yr old kid somewhere who was handed the hammer and told, "put down the proof mark" and he's like OK! but had no idea what it was or where to put it........

 

[hunthikecamp]

yeah here's a slightly better view of that primer which is also the first time I've ever seen it protruding like that.

I appreciate the insight on the various reasonings for the punch marks, not far off of what I was thinking but it may be hard to ever truly know for all of them. Definitely a cool heirloom rifle that I plan to keep and pass down but I've also read that, can be playing with fire with some modern rounds in these older rifles (I always assumed it was limited to garands) but I'll consider myself lucky that I've been able to take the critters I have with it, it's been good to me.

 

[TaperPin]

View attachment 788274yeah here's a slightly better view of that primer which is also the first time I've ever seen it protruding like that.

I appreciate the insight on the various reasonings for the punch marks, not far off of what I was thinking but it may be hard to ever truly know for all of them. Definitely a cool heirloom rifle that I plan to keep and pass down but I've also read that, can be playing with fire with some modern rounds in these older rifles (I always assumed it was limited to garands) but I'll consider myself lucky that I've been able to take the critters I have with it, it's been good to me.

The most knowledgeable guy on stamps has to be Ian at Forgotten Weapons (YouTube and/or whatever the gun friendly video hosts are) - I can’t recall if he ever did a deep dive on the Springfield. War time production is interesting - you end up making guns with the manufacturing facilities and processes you have, not the ideal ones you wished you had.

When a rifle has a good amount of headspace and fairly moderate pressure, when it’s fired the firing pin pushes the cartridge forward as far as it can go, the case is then held tight to the walls of the chamber by pressure, and the primer is pushed back by pressure to the face of the bolt - with higher pressure the entire case head would be forced back to the bolt, but the primer sticking out is a clue that pressures weren’t that bad, and the marks around the case forward of the head shows the chamber is plenty rough enough to get a good hold of the case. The cool thing is, most high pressure loads do this exact thing, but the case head reseats the primer flush to the case head as it’s pushed back. I made some lower velocity plinking loads for a 7 mag and every one would leave the primer slightly proud of the case head.