What to do with a low number 1903?

[JHeath]

Fascinating. That's a great presentation of data. Thanks again Sgt. Mike!

Next:

1) Are there examples of even the worst receivers (the 1909 RIAs) failing with proper ammunition and unobstructed barrels? If you eliminate the preventable factors, it still sounds like the failure rate is zero in 100,000. No?

2) If you shot 100,000 Rolling Blocks and 100,000 Krags with the same rate of bad brass, wrong ammunition, and obstructed barrels, would the graph look any better for 1909 RIAs?

If somebody blows up a Roller with the wrong ammunition, plugged barrels, bad brass etc. we blame the user.

But if they do the same thing with 03s we blame the receiver. Right? Because an 03 receiver should be able to handle 125,000 and vent gas so that makes it different than a Roller?

[Larry Gibson]

Small Arms Design & Ballistics Vol. IIby Townsend Whelen “All Army rifles which have been “accidentally” injured inservice are shipped to Springfield Armory for examination. Mr. A.L. Woodward,Engineer of Test at the Armory for the past thirty years states that in ninetynine percent of the cases the accident has been caused by an obstruction in thebore, or by firing a wrong cartridge, that is an improper or wrongly sized cartridge,or one handloaded to excessive pressure. It is interesting to note that in themajority of these accidents an effort is made to conceal the real cause of the accident, but the evidence is always perfectly plain.”

Hmmmmmmm.......interesting, just about what I and others have deduced from Hatcher's work and stated not only here but in like threads.

Larry Gibson.......still considering though; "Please, Larry, for the sake of all mankind.... "

[JHeath]

I don't think so. Not my job to take you by the hand and lead you to the obvious conclusion. IMO, you need to take your pencil and paper and sit in the back of the class and listen instead of incessantly asking others to lead you to the water. Make the effort to read Hatcher. More than once.

Dutch

I always listen to you Dutchman, because you are among the most credible and interesting on this forum. And no that's not sarcastic. You one of my favorite members and I'm sorry I pissed you off. But I am not going to the back of the classroom because I am slightly deaf from shooting so always sit in front when the subject is interesting.


"Obvious conclusion" means a hypothesis so good it doesn't need evidence.


I am puzzled that after eliminating barrel obstructions, bad cases, and 8x57 ammo, the failure rate appears to be zero in 1 million. That's hardly credible. Surely we're missing some examples. If they exist in Hatcher why not just share them?

Hatcher is a 91 meg download and this is a low-numbered iPad. I took several shots anyway, but it vented gas and I had to hammer the bolt open. Apparently I got one of the good ones.

If 03 failures in the absence of other preventable factors don't exist in Hatcher or elsewhere then it seems the hypothesis that low-number 03's can blow up at any pressure and without other factors does not correlate well with reality, no matter how obvious.

[Fishman]

Attachment 111517Attachment 111518

But to answer the OP on 6280xx manufactuered in 1916. hmmmm 7.5 % chance of probability of failure based on failure versus production Risk Management says .......?

It's actually 7.5 failures per 100,000 units, so quite a bit less than a 7.5% chance of failure. By my calculations it is a 0.0075% chance that the gun will explode in your hands. While better odds, it still doesn't sound very good to me. Fascinating discussion though.

[JHeath]

It's actually 7.5 failures per 100,000 units, so quite a bit less than a 7.5% chance of failure. By my calculations it is a 0.0075% chance that the gun will explode in your hands. While better odds, it still doesn't sound very good to me. Fascinating discussion though.

But aren't these the failures associated with wrong ammo, bad brass, and obstructed barrels? After you eliminate those causes, it's how many failures in 100,000 units?

1916 RIA averages 7.5 in 100k based on a sample size of a little over 13k, and one failure. One doughboy stumbles and pokes the muzzle in the dirt and the yearly stats go off the chart. If he'd tied his boots that would have been the safest year for 03s.

[13Echo]

Would you look at that! We made a Sticky!

I'm so proud!

Jerry Liles

[Eutectic]

Yes and what did he tell you on the subject If I recall correctly ( correct me if I am wrong here Brother Eutectic) he attempted to take out a few of the LSN Springfield I think his success rate was Zero

Well Sarge, one of Elmer's first guns was a .32-20 Colt Lightning pump rifle! I at least.... think that is cool! (Wish I had one.) But guess what his first modern high power rifle was????

A Springfield! He was a kid still in Montana about 1914 (I think) and got a 1903..... In 1914 guess what one he had?
IT WAS THE GUN that started Elmer bad-mouthing the .30-06 for large game! Elk size and up......

Elmer spoke of using it on coyotes just before WW1 with the 'little' 150gr cupronickel loads with good success. About 1918? Elmer almost lost an elk with this single heat treat gun using 220gr factory loads but coupe de grace him with a 150gr military round. (finally)

In 1919 another elk really got Elmer in trouble with the Springfield first and the .38-40 Single Action Army second!

I've attached a picture of the finally dead elk and you see his Springfield in the antlers. The elk was down and Elmer poked it with the Springfield's muzzle.... The elk came to and flung Elmer down the mountain.!! Elk had the Springfield full of snow and he begin shooting the elk with the .38-40 revolver! Keith had alternated Remington factory loads with a 180gr cupronickel soft point and some heavy black powder loads using a .40-65 boolit (shortened to 210gr weight I believe...) The cupronickel soft points flattened like a quarter on the elk's skull! Elmer hated cupronickel to his dying breath but not for fouling. He was stll hot about this elk in his 80's! A picture of one of the failing .38-40 rounds is also attached. This is not a round like it..... it is one of the rounds!
Elmer shot Camp Perry as well. Two different times I think. The last time in 1940 he may have had another gun but it was a Springfield 03 as well I believe??.
After that 1919 elk Elmer either shot varmints or targets with the .30-06! His .33 caliber 250gr minimum was born!
I don't remember anything on single heat treat 03's being tested or mentioned. Most of his old bunch is now dead but I'll ask a few still around. If you find something please post it.
My gut tells me Sgt. Mike that he would champion the single heat treat guns and if he indeed tested them I think he rooted for them as well!

Eutectic

[frnkeore]

JHeath,
You know a lot about metallurgy and you said that you do aerobatical rigging, let me pose a situation to you......... You been using steel anchors for a short while in your rigging (I assume peoples lives are at risk in your rigging work) and one day, you accidently drop one, it hits a steel surface and shatters so, you grab somemore and about 1/2 of them do the same thing, the other half turn out to be stronger than the advertized strength but, the only way to test them is destructive testing. Would you continue to use that same batch of anchors in your work? Now, if you heard that others riggers had used them w/o knowing for quite a while, would you start using them again?

Now, I'm not against shooting LN 03's with cast bullet loads, I thing most have been cycled enough to be relatively safe. I've never had the bug to buy one, mainly because of the unsupported chamber but, they are a very LARGE piece of our history and there are a lot of them used in the CBA Milsurp class competition w/o any problems, at least, so far. Would I own one, yes if I got a deal I couldn't turn down. Would I shoot it, yes, again but, most likely with cast loads.

Frank

[13Echo]

That 1930s accident looks like a 7.92 Mauser was fired and the case head blew out. Looks like the receiver ring held but the rear bridge cracked off and gas blew out the magazine. I'd say that other than poor gas handling and a brittle bridge the action held. I can't read the captions on the picture so I may be missing something.

Jerry Liles

[M-Tecs]

It would be sweet to have a Elmer Keith stamped rebuild http://m1903.com/isstamps.htm

Ogden Arsenal (OG) (Rebuild only)
Marking	Font/Notes	Inspector (if known)
	BLOCK	Elmer Keith
O.G.E.K.	BLOCK	Ed Klouser

During World War II, Keith served as an inspector at the Ogden, Utah Arsenal. The rifles that he inspected were cartouche stamped with the initials "OGEK" in a rectangular box, on the buttstock. Rifles stamped OGEK without a rectangular box were inspected by Ed Klouser at the same Ogden Arsenal.http://military.wikia.com/wiki/Elmer_Keith[/url]

[Eutectic]

Shotguns too! A bunch of Winchester Model 97 trench guns! He spoke highly of them....

Eutectic

[JHeath]

JHeath,
You know a lot about metallurgy and you said that you do aerobatical rigging, let me pose a situation to you......... You been using steel anchors for a short while in your rigging (I assume peoples lives are at risk in your rigging work) and one day, you accidently drop one, it hits a steel surface and shatters so, you grab somemore and about 1/2 of them do the same thing, the other half turn out to be stronger than the advertized strength but, the only way to test them is destructive testing. Would you continue to use that same batch of anchors in your work? Now, if you heard that others riggers had used them w/o knowing for quite a while, would you start using them again?

Now, I'm not against shooting LN 03's with cast bullet loads, I thing most have been cycled enough to be relatively safe. I've never had the bug to buy one, mainly because of the unsupported chamber but, they are a very LARGE piece of our history and there are a lot of them used in the CBA Milsurp class competition w/o any problems, at least, so far. Would I own one, yes if I got a deal I couldn't turn down. Would I shoot it, yes, again but, most likely with cast loads.

Frank

I wouldn't fly a performer on the equivalent of a low-number 03. I am currently busting the performer-flying industry's b***s to use better wire rope even though failures in the absence of a preventable outside cause are exceedingly rare. I'm doing it because I uncovered a flaw in the existing products, the risk is unecessary, and it invalidates some of our calculations.

But aerial/acrobatic riggers have to think for themselves. If somebody tells me I can do something, that it's safe, I need to know why it is safe.

On the other hand, I get paid to make things happen. So if somebody tells me I can't do something, I want to know their reasons so I can work around the problem, if it even exists. Half the time it turns out they are just being trepid.

Safety in my work, like everywhere, is relative. I use an 8500lb wire rope to fly a 100lb girl hanging -- literally -- by the toes of one foot, while swinging 30' above the stage with no net. But I've done my part.

If shooting were performer-flying, I probably wouldn't own any .30-06 but a High Wall or Arisaka. The strongest I could get without excessive weight, and with acceptable accuracy. Everything else would go in the dumpster.

But shooting is not performer-flying. Like motorcycling is not performer-flying, and I've driven some sketchy antiquated under-braked motorcycles, unsafe by modern standards. Offer me a '64 Corvair and I'll drive that too. Notice I said I've "driven" motorcycles. You "ride" a Ferris wheel, a wave, things you don't control. Horses are collaborative.

If there's a reason to let that pretty girl swing by one foot, I'll find a way to do it as safely as possible. What's a good enough reason to do it at all? Entertainment? Well, yeah. Is it worth it? Well if saving one human life were all that mattered, the speed limit would be 5mph on the highway.

What's a good enough reason to shoot *any* 03? Tradition. Hobby, craft. Discipline. Name it.

Same justification for shooting a Rolling Block or Krag or 88 Mauser. Or reworking a .32 rimfire to .32 S&W. Why? No economic sense, and any of them have at least some level of risk. If you could nail down the numbers on Rolling Blocks per 100,000 maybe they've hurt more people than low-number 03s. Nobody even questions it because they haven't been prompted to by a bunch of hype.

If low-number 03s are prone to explode at normal pressure with good ammo, for no preventable reason, then they're no good. Shelve them.

But near as I can tell from this discussion, that's not the case. Instead it's is an assumption apparently unsupported by a pattern of it actually happening, out of a sample size of 1 million. People *imagine* it to be so. Well you can't *imagine* your way to safety and it's a poor habit to listen uncritically either to daredevils or fearmongers. The worst 03s have reportedly tested to 80k, the limit for the cartridge is 50k. That's a low margin, but compare it to a Rolling Block or Krag on a per-100,000 basis. You probably can't because the data is missing. So we assume RBs and Krags are okay even though we know sometimes they blow up, but nobody told us not to shoot them.

[MBTcustom]

Elmer looks just plum mad in that picture with that Elk. What a story!
You guys are awesome BTW. OK, I'm going to go sit down, shut up and listen some more.

[Multigunner]

I'm still leaning towards there being methods to determine if the core steel is brittle.
Bear with me. The Ordnance report said "No Non Destructive Method". In my mind at least I would expect they would have considered boring a "Hatcher Hole" as destructive. They were leary of boring holes in existing receivers.

While some may not have the sensitive touch to tell when a hardened layer gives way to a softer core, I figure most professional machinist would be able to tell.
Theres an even more certain method. Rather than using a drill bit use a hole saw, though finding one of a small enough diameter may not be easy.

In any case the Hatcher Hole seems to have proven its worth, the value of such vents on so many types of actions are so well known none can argue with that, and I can see no reason to not bore one on any Low Number (or High Number for that matter) unless the value of the individual rifle is is too great to mess with it, in which case it probably shouldn't be fired at all.
Certainly no rebarreled or otherwise non 100% original would lose any significant fraction of its value, and sportered rifles including those assembled by big name gunsmiths aren't going to be made less valuable by making them safer by adding a proven safety feature.

I'm unfamilar with the Springfields that have the Pederson Device ejection port.
Seems to me that if the port were added to existing receivers the machining would have revealed brittle rails, and if added before final heat treat the thinned side wall would have been even more embrittled if the steel was burnt in forging and it would probably have cracked or shattered early in its service life.

[Multigunner]

PS to above.
To be clear about the hole saw for a Hatcher Hole, this would allow removal of a narrow plug of steel from the receiver ring. This plug could be examined by modern methods and the condition of the core steel determined.

Remember that its not so much that rifles failed under circumstances that other rifles probably wouldn't have survived, but that when the LN 03 failed it did so in a spectacular manner sending needle sharp and razor edged fragments in all directions.

The Double Heat Treat receivers could fail but when they did they stretched and broke in a much less dangerous manner.

Also while bore obstructions were behind many of the LN failures a really well made receiver can survive some types of bore obstructions with the only damage being a bulged or split barrel.
Hatcher's NoteBook contains details on bore obstructions and the damage done, and the British did some serious testing on the effects of bore obstructions of various types. More often than not the action survived intact, though with the Lee Enfield obstructions around two inches from the chamber could blow out the bolt head or bolt.

I don't think a 7.92 can be jammed into a .303 chamber, though some are mighty loose. The .30-06 with its large case body has a chamber that will accept some very dangerous substitutes.

PS
While looking though an online journal entry of a WW1 U S soldier I found mention of "the company clown" managing to put one eye out when he got mud in the muzzle of his rifle and tried to shoot it out. It did not identify what rifle he used.

[Eutectic]

"Elmer Keith wrote on several occasions about his work in reconditioning low-number Springfield rifles at Ogden Arsenal (Utah) during WW II.

He said that the low-number receivers were fitted with new nickel-steel bolts, properly headspaced, and then test-fired with (I think) three "blue pill" proof cartridges before being released for service. I don't recall that he reported any receivers failing the proof test."

I have hunted and hunted for something written in Elmer's hand about his testing of low-numbered Springfields at Ogden to no avail. The above quote and several similar to it, tells me Elmer wrote it. Vaguely as I searched it came back to me I may have saw this many years ago in the "American Rifleman" like 1955 way back! If anyone sees it please let us know! This subject has only recently became of interest to me so my usually good memory is not very great. If my timing is close I was probably totally engrossed in the brand new .243 Winchester! I got one of the very first Model 70's in .243 too. So brand new the first shells I bought were referred to as .243 Winchester 6mm" What? Some of you young guys might say? See picture attached.

Also I want to clarify my father's 'test' of his last ditch Arisaka. He was not testing the old gun for safety going to .308 Win on the action some 15 years later. At the time he was really and truly TRYING TO BLOW IT UP! I guess it impressed him he couldn't and then he used the action over a decade later!

Eutectic

[BruceB]

[QUOTE=Eutectic;2867698]"

I have hunted and hunted for something written in Elmer's hand about his testing of low-numbered Springfields at Ogden to no avail. QUOTE

My shaky 71-year-old- memory SEEMS to recall seeing Elmer's '03 work described in his "Gunnotes" column in Guns and Ammo magazine. I'm fairly certain that he referred to his arsenal work at least a couple of times that I saw.

[Eutectic]

Thanks BruceB! I'm looking through a "Gun Notes" now and still searching..

I did see where Elmer used a different "Springfield" in the 1924 Camp Perry shoot. He called it his "sporter version of a 19 and 22 Springfield"

Keith went on to say on his return to Idaho that this 1922 Springfield and his 'old' Springfield (low number??) is all they had to hunt elk in Idaho that season. He said: "My Sharps single shots were still in Montana." So ol' Elmer lowered himself to using the .30-06 for the last time on elk in his own words!

What a time to live!!!! "My Sharps rifles are still in Montana!" I guess ol' Elmer knew the REAL Ultra Mag way back in 1924!

Eutectic

[texaswoodworker]

I wouldn't shoot a low number 03', even with low pressure cast loads. It's just not worth the risk, Especially since there are so many shootable 03's out there. One poster suggested replacing the old receiver with a new one. The gun would loose some collectors value, but it would be a good shooter then. Well worth the $150 (or less) for the receiver.

The following is from Hatcher's Notebook. It gives you an idea at just how little can cause one of these guns to blow.

"Another fact that will bear noting is that two of the receiver failures recorded were caused by firing the guard cartridge, which is supposed to be loaded to extremely low pressure and velocity. These guard cartridges used the regular 150gr bullet with 9.1 grains of Bullseye powder to give a muzzle velocity of 1200 feet per second."

[10-x]

By chance the low number Springfield has the original stock, just sell the stock and be done with it. Look at what original stocks( grasping groove) are selling for.