3006 a303

[peqoup cal]

seeking advice on my 1943 springfield a303 . ammo being in short supply Im down to a few boxes of 220- grain rem corelock. Ive heard not to shoot6 heavier loads in old rifles because of higher pressures, however this rifle is 1943 manufacture. would I be on the safe side shooting these rem. corelocks at 22o grains..

THANKS peqoup CAL

 

[TroyF]

Will be just fine, so long the stocks in good shape.

 

[Joker12]

Perfectly safe, its a good strong action.

 

[Delloro]

Ive heard not to shoot6 heavier loads in old rifles because of higher pressures,

THANKS peqoup CAL

That applies to gas-operated semi-autos, the M1 Garand in particular.

03A3's are good to go.

 

[Sabattiboy]

I read that somewhere recently about the 1903 and 03A3 springfield rifles. 1903 rifles I believe S/N# 800k and under are not supposed to be fired due to improper heat treatment of the day. It may also have been tied to the alloy of steel in those actions. I am certain they say not to fire them.
It is already common knowledge that the M1 Garand gas system was designed around certain pressures and powder burn rates. I just wonder how "Someone" suddenly decided aging steel actions of proper manufacture and heat treat need to fire reduced pressure loads. If this is true then it applied to all Mauser, Rigby etc aged rifles. Get ready to turn them all into wall hangers. NOT!

 

[mark-hunter]

Probably because American system does not have proof system, like Europan, Belgian CIP.

European started system of proof marks around 1375 for artillery, then this was followed for small arms as well, first in France. In st Etienne first proof marks were recorded around 1670, in similar time around 1672 in London, then followed Beligian, Germany, Spain, etc. Today it is all under CIP.

So, if in Europe is found an old gun, with CIP proof marks,it can be fired with appropriate ammunition, because there is a standard for pressures and proof system.
In USA this was not established, and modern companies are run by lawyers, then there will be restrictions on modern ammunition use in older guns.
Wall hangers.

 

[Sabattiboy]

Very interesting how far back proofing firearms started.
At that point of fired projectiles I would have thought they would have been more concerned with other things.
In the early 1903 springfields it was cracked receivers that brought the issue up. Some were double heat treated in an attempt to fix them. If I remember correctly better steel alloy and heat treatment solved the problem so moved on.

 

[Wyatt Smith]

Don’t quote me, but I think all 03A3s are safe because they were made after the heat treating was corrected.

 

[sestoppelman]

Don’t quote me, but I think all 03A3s are safe because they were made after the heat treating was corrected.

I will quote you. That is exactly correct. Long after.
As mentioned above 800,000 for Springfield and above 285,507 for Rock Island.

 

[sestoppelman]

That applies to gas-operated semi-autos, the M1 Garand in particular.

03A3's are good to go.

The M1 is a strong rifle, the issue is using the proper powder range, (medium burn rate) for the gas system for proper operation and port pressure.
A bent op rod is the usual worst case scenario when use of the wrong type of powder takes place over time.

 

[Sabattiboy]

I will quote you. That is exactly correct. Long after.
As mentioned above 800,000 for Springfield and above 285,507 for Rock Island.

I thought Rock Island was involved in the early springfields but wasn't sure if it was them only.
For sure 03A3's were past any of those issues.
I've been looking for the recent warning but so far haven't found it. I'll post it when I do.

 

[sestoppelman]

I think the CMP put out some overly cautious warning recently about using heavy bullets in the M1. Basically it was telling us to stick with light ball ammo of 150 grs weight, which is just plain silly.
With proper powders and sane charges, the M1 is good to go in just about any bullet weight.

 

[TroyF]

I think it was more about the dwell time and not so much pressure

 

[sestoppelman]

I think it was more about the dwell time and not so much pressure

Yes, that is the port pressure.

 

[Sabattiboy]

@sestoppelman
It was the CMP. Here is a print screen.

 

[Sabattiboy]

The original 1903 Springfield fired the 30-03 cartridge that used a 220 grain bullet. It was short lived in favor of the 1906 revision to a 147gr bt-fmj bullet but was to operate at 50,000 CUP pressure. According to Wiki SAAMI is still 50,000 CUP so modern ammo and load data still conforms no matter the bullet weight. If the CMP had left the Springfield rifles out of the warning it would make better sense tied to the M1 Garand.

 

[ZG47]

According to Hatcher (Hatcher’s Notebook) there were some failed receivers with higher numbers but he believed that they were actually earlier receivers with the incorrect heat treatment that not were used up until after the newer receivers came into use.
Poor stock rotation is nothing new, just like the abominable machining work at Springfield Armory which required the clips for the first production Garand M1 rifles to be specially loaded for their Camp Perry debut.

 

[peqoup cal]

yes .thats where I read it on C M P. ! THANKS for the responds .I have a rack of elk caliber rifles but its the U S REMINGTON MODEL 03A3 THAT I ALWAYS REACH FOR when I want to shoulder a rifle. custom stock, jeweled bolt ,nice. someone worked on it before I accuired it at the pawn shop. Now it needs to go to Africa!!!
P.S. with a large gas hole on the action should be hard to over pressure,, is this military standard?

 

[sestoppelman]

yes .thats where I read it on C M P. ! THANKS for the responds .I have a rack of elk caliber rifles but its the U S REMINGTON MODEL 03A3 THAT I ALWAYS REACH FOR when I want to shoulder a rifle. custom stock, jeweled bolt ,nice. someone worked on it before I accuired it at the pawn shop. Now it needs to go to Africa!!!
P.S. with a large gas hole on the action should be hard to over pressure,, is this military standard?

You will find it on some not all.
Its not that it will be hard to overpressure, it just gives the gases a place to exit upon overpressure.

 

[Sabattiboy]

If you ever look at the extractor on a 1903 you will find the gas vent hole there. I believe it was an add on for a vent. I think the bolt had a matching hole in the lug.
The 03A3 vent hole is in the left side of the receiver with no hole in the extractor and must be a later revision. The extractors look the same so think either one will fit the 03A3 bolt.
Someone may know if the hole was moved before the 03A3 model.