Air Service Rifle....kinda

[Cecil]

I know they didn't have sling swivels but I don't own airplane. The rifle is a 600k rifle with a 6-16 barrel. The only modification I made was to a rear sight, not the original. Plus I finally found a use for a piece of modified fire wood. Were these low number rifles heat treated again? It has that nice WWII green color.

[Fred]

Pretty Neat Cecil!

[Rick the Librarian]

Except for some experiments done in the 1920s, no low-numbered M1903 was "reheat-treated". WWII was considered a "war emergency" and they were used. When they were overhauled like yours, they were proof-fired.

[Cecil]

Which begs the question, shoot, don't shoot?

[mhb]

any low-numbered 1903 has to be made by the individual shooter. Ordnance determined by extensive testing that some of them are inherently unsafe because of burnt forgings and/or improper heattreatment. They also determined that there is no non-destructive way to determine which ones those are, and so condemned ALL of them. They weren't destroyed, it is true, but that has more to do with the poverty of the military structure during the period between the wars and the lack of rebuild activity. Then came WW2, and the emergency required that any available arms be issued.
None of that changes the facts about the rifles. There is no one who can tell you that any specific rifle is safe to fire, and the fact that it still exists is no indicator, either, since the recorded failures were often due to problems with ammunition - problems which the rifles were intended to survive intact, but sometimes didn't.
I've seen cartridge case failures with military, commercial and handloaded ammunition, some of which would certainly prove catastrophic in one of the affected 1903s.
So, it comes down to a cost/benefit analysis: is it worth the risk?
And I freely admit I've fired low-numbered 1903 rifles (in fact, I don't know anyone who has shot a lower number than I have - #217), but I'm under no illusion that it is perfectly safe to do so.
And those who belong to the 'Aw, shucks, I've done that a thousand times and nothin' happened' group are just angling for a spot in the next Darwin Awards.

mhb - Mike

[PhillipM]

any low-numbered 1903 has to be made by the individual shooter. Ordnance determined by extensive testing that some of them are inherently unsafe because of burnt forgings and/or improper heattreatment. They also determined that there is no non-destructive way to determine which ones those are, and so condemned ALL of them. They weren't destroyed, it is true, but that has more to do with the poverty of the military structure during the period between the wars and the lack of rebuild activity. Then came WW2, and the emergency required that any available arms be issued.
None of that changes the facts about the rifles. There is no one who can tell you that any specific rifle is safe to fire, and the fact that it still exists is no indicator, either, since the recorded failures were often due to problems with ammunition - problems which the rifles were intended to survive intact, but sometimes didn't.
I've seen cartridge case failures with military, commercial and handloaded ammunition, some of which would certainly prove catastrophic in one of the affected 1903s.
So, it comes down to a cost/benefit analysis: is it worth the risk?
And I freely admit I've fired low-numbered 1903 rifles (in fact, I don't know anyone who has shot a lower number than I have - #217), but I'm under no illusion that it is perfectly safe to do so.
And those who belong to the 'Aw, shucks, I've done that a thousand times and nothin' happened' group are just angling for a spot in the next Darwin Awards.

mhb - Mike

Some have argued that the poverty of the military structure was the chief reason they were condemned. Idle hands at SA needed something to do, if they could get the national arsenal condemned that would put a lot of people back to work. The Navy and Marines never condemned theirs.

I don't shoot 36018, it has a like new 4-22 RIA barrel that gauges a perfect 0. I figure it shoots just like any of my high numbers so I leave it be, however I'm not scared to shoot it.

[chuckindenver]

nice...however...Air service was in hot air balloons. not air planes...and i dont recommend anyone fire a SHT 1903.

[Cecil]

nice...however...Air service was in hot air balloons. not air planes...and i dont recommend anyone fire a SHT 1903.

Sad to say I don't have a balloon either....

[mhb]

that the earth is flat.
The evidence is that it isn't.
If you have read Hatcher's Notebook, you will be aware that Ordnance took the problem seriously - they really, really wanted to find a way to repair over a million rifles that had been rendered suspect by failures in service, under conditions the rifles were designed and intended to withstand intact.
They put their best men on it - senior Ordnance officers, metallurgists, representatives of other services. Many of them had been involved with the 1903 rifles since before adoption - they knew what the rifles were supposed to be and do - and found that they couldn't be relied on for it.
They couldn't find a way to assure that the early rifles could be made safe (any of them), and did the proper thing: they condemned all of them.
You may be sure that this didn't win them any friends in the upper echelons, especially when they stopped production for 6 months at one of the only 2 facilities manufacturing 1903 rifles (Rock Island), and didn't resume production until the problems had been resolved; first by improving the controls over forging and heattreatment (DHT receivers and bolts), and finally changing the basic material to 3 1/2% nickel steel. If you don't believe those men thought long and hard about stopping production in the middle of the war, you've never been a military Project Officer. That function can, if carried to successful completion, lead the Project Officer to stars - if the program is killed, that officer needs to start considering alternate career options.
I've many a time raised a glass to Hatcher and his fellows: they took the duty seriously, and did what they knew was right. Hatcher went on to 2 stars, and was Chief of Field Ordnance in Round 2 of the World Military Games. And the destroy order stood with regard to any low-numbered rifles sent in to depot or higher-level maintenance until it was rescinded in 1932, by the then - Chief of Ordnance. His reasoning appears in Hatcher's book, too, and had nothing to do with keeping the hands busy.
Springfield kept manufacturing rifles, but introduced the improved processes at the same time: conventionally assumed to be at around #800,000 = which figure is not ironclad, either. Hatcher wrote a technical discussion of the problem in the 1920's, and illustrated a rifle in the 750,000 range, IIRC, which he described as having received the new heattreatment. That rifle was subjected to the most strenuous tests AND DID NOT FAIL.
Put bluntly, if you haven't read (and understood) what Hatcher wrote on the issue and its resolution, I strongly suggest you do so. It's a fine book, full of useful historical and technical information - facts - he was THERE.
If you still have doubts after reading the book, let's discuss where you think Ordnance went wrong in their work.
Uninformed opinion is background noise, and many an uneducated or uninformed potential 1903 shooter has been led down the garden path: that bothers me a lot, and I never miss an opportunity to spread facts over, well, fertilizer.
Your decision to shoot your low-number rifle is entirely proper - for you - no one can decide for you - neither should you be in doubt as to what the actual risk is.
I've tried to make sure that you and others contemplating the same decision have the facts at hand, when they do.
FWIW, you did not say that your rifle is actually an SA with the serial number you give: if it's actually a Rock Island of that number, the point is moot, since RI changed to DHT with #285,507 (there is no real doubt about it, as that was the first number they recorded when production commenced with the new heattreatment. And RI was also instrumental in the introduction of Nickel Steel, commencing with #319921, and neither of the post-interruption RI rifles are suspect of being unsafe: quite the contrary, they are some of the best actions and to be preferred over any low-number by either manufacturer.

PRD1 - mhb - Mike

Some have argued that the poverty of the military structure was the chief reason they were condemned. Idle hands at SA needed something to do, if they could get the national arsenal condemned that would put a lot of people back to work. The Navy and Marines never condemned theirs.

I don't shoot 36018, it has a like new 4-22 RIA barrel that gauges a perfect 0. I figure it shoots just like any of my high numbers so I leave it be, however I'm not scared to shoot it.

[Rick the Librarian]

They didn't actually condemn all of them, although many wanted to. The low numbered receivers were scrapped when sent in for major overhauls to one of the arsenals. A large number of them soldier on through World War II. The policy of scrapping low numbered receivers ended in 1941, when it was decided that the shortage of rifles, even those not considered 100% safe, made it necessary to keep them in service.