What to do with a low number 1903?

[Mr Humble]

Why doesn't this thread just die and go away. Most of the posts are by folks who don't own low # 03s, Cannot produce any contemporary evidence of one blowing up, or obviously do not have an extensive library on 03s.


The site is dedicated to cast boolits, not rehashing ancient data from a long dead General.

I repeat my offer that if anyof you have a 100% correct low number gun you are afraid of, I'll buy you a brand new Ruger American in trade. No one has taken me up nor been able to identify the photo of a very low # 03 I posted (yet to blow up).

While I DNS about collectible bullet molds, I do about 03s. Like this one from my collection that is identified to a specific NYNG soldier.



Yeah another low number rifle that has failed to blow up.

The reason for the punch marks is all explained in Harrisons book on the 03'.

[Multigunner]

Cannot produce any contemporary evidence of one blowing up,

If this boards archives go back far enough there has been at least one recent low number blow up posted of here by a member. As I remember it the results were as spectacular as those pictured in Hatchers book. No one was injured.

not rehashing ancient data from a long dead General.

Hatcher made this information available to the public so they could judge for themselves. Hatcher's credentials are certainly better than those of the gun rag writters of today.
I'll trust the old time sources when it comes to those events they were very close to in time before I'll trust in revisionist sources.

It was never a matter of all LN Springfields having brittle receivers, is was the proven fact that some unknown percentage of these rifles had or still have brittle receivers due to over heating during the forging process.

Were I to obtain a Low Number 1903 in a trade I'd be more than happy to trade it to you for a High Number 1903 of equal value. I'm not particularly impressed by the Rugers.

[Mr Humble]

Well as soon as you get one, remember 100% original, you'll get your Ruger. You must not own any Ruger Americans either as they are excellent in all respects.

As I have said, unlike you, I actually completed a spread sheet of Hatcher's "blow ups". All but a VERY few could be explained by operator error of faulty WCC ammo. Over one million low number guns Hmmmmmmm. Put an full house 8x57 in your Model 70 30-06 and pull the trigger. Be sure to take lots of photos.

Still drinking from a hand dug well 20' from the outhouse. Lots of "old time sources" said that was okay too. Ever hear of Dr. John Snow ?

[Multigunner]

[quotes]As I have said, unlike you, I actually completed a spread sheet of Hatcher's "blow ups". All but a VERY few could be explained by operator error of faulty WCC ammo. [/quote]
Which is pretty much what Hatcher said, and what I've been saying, though in some cases the exact cause wasn't given. And how many of those receivers did you actually examine in person?
The problem wasn't that the rifle was more likely to have these sort of incidents it was that those with brittle receivers turned into razor sharp shrapnel when they did. High Number receivers, and the other actions of that era, might fail in some manner under the same conditions but they are far less likely to fragment in such a spectacular fashion, though the receiver was almost certainly going to be ruined.

They had launched a detailed investigation and examination of the remains of many of the shattered LN receivers, they weren't going by guess work when they declared that the blown up receivers were brittle, it was obvious to the eye that the steel had shattered like glass and they could easily inspect the grain of the steel at the fracture sites.
This is one reason I believe that the USMC rifles with Hatcher Hole would have almost certainly have revealed to the machinists whether or not the steel was brittle below the carburized layer.

Should I get a defective cartridge, far less likely these days though it still happens from time to time, I'd rather lose a receiver that lose an eye.
If you hadn't noticed I've been more on your side than on the side of people like Gew98 who have often used the LN failures as an excuse to denigrate practically all American firearms , lumping all Springfield in with the LN 03 , while they try to build a myth of their favorite Yurp bangstick as being indestructable by claiming that none of those ever ka-boomed while using milspec ammunition.

The LN 03 rifles among the most handsome and accurate rifles ever made, but a double heat treated or nickel steel receiver 03 or 03A1 is going to be as good a shooter and far safer in case of a blown case head, its as simple as that.
Also as I have stated on several occasions I would not have qualms about using one of the USMC LN rifles with the hatcher hole bored in the left side of the receiver ring to vent gas , one of these might fracture in event of a blown case head but is not likely to turn into a hand full of razor edged shards heading for my eyes.

A high number 1903 is the best of both worlds, fine workmanship and far superior metalurgy.

As for a Ruger, last commercial centerfire sporting rifle I bought new was a Remington 788, after that rifle my only interest has been in military surplus or antique sporting rifles. The Ruger and practically any other modern rifle interests me no more than a new lawn mower. They are tools and won't have gained any of the old magic till long after I'm gone.
A classic sporting rifle like a 95 Winchester, Remington Model 30, or a pre 60's Winchester Model 70 have accumulated the dignity that goes with their age and well earned reputations. Even then I'd be very careful what ammo I fed a 95 Winchester chambered in .30-06, too many have been shot loose by use of some of the more intense post WW1 high performance hunting cartridges, just as they were sometimes ruined by use of M1 Ball ammunition.

I'm glad to see you are collecting and preserving the LN Springfields, theres a lot of excellent workmanship there that future generations should have a chance to see one day.

Still drinking from a hand dug well 20' from the outhouse. Lots of "old time sources" said that was okay too.

Since you did not use a question ? am I to take it that you are saying that you drink from such a well?
The vast majority of people knew better than that for thousands of years, They didn't need a microscope to know that bad water was a health risk even if they didn't know why, in wartime they contaminated wells of enemy strongholds and towns with corpses, feces and other nasty stuff because they knew that fouled water would almost certainly bring about a plague among the defenders, but sooner or later some numbskull will ignore common sense and do it anyway. So the wisdom of the ancients trumped whatever crack pot theory you are talking about.
Mind listing any such publications claiming that water could not become contaminated by seepage from latrines and cess pits , then subtract those that were not long ago condemned as pure balder dash by every sane member of the medical profession.
I expect your list would very very short indeed.
Anyone that can not recognize that brittle steel is the worst possible metal for a receiver probably shouldn't be allowed around firearms at all without his keeper present.

[Mr Humble]

Oh gee, I forgot a question mark ! The basic point is that with over 1,000,000 low number guns out there neither you or Hatcher or anybody can produce a fully documented case of a low number 03 with proper headspace using modern ammunition blowing up. Until you can, you're just blowing smoke just like the NRA.

ANY comprehensive complete test of any particular gun would not doubt produce some tiny percentage of failures. Most, as Hatcher's, could be traced to the nut behind the bolt, not the gun.

You can sit with your head in the sand, just like all the dolts who sold off 280 Ross stalking rifles for chump change. I thank you and them for improving the cost per unit of my collection which includes a lot of low # 03s (of which you own none).

Keep spreading the big lie, I'll keep buying them.

[Multigunner]

neither you or Hatcher or anybody can produce a fully documented case of a low number 03 with proper headspace using modern ammunition blowing up.

Maybe you should re read the posts on this thread, then re read what Hatcher actually wrote, otherwise you're just blathering on with strawman arguments. I've seen a lot of that on this board and some others.

So long as you prefer low number 03 rifles to high number you'll be able to trade in as many high number rifles as you can get. Don't expect anyone with common sense to give you a discount or take a beat up rewelded drill rifle or generic modern sporter in exchange for a fine example of a LN rifle. Start gathering up the best examples of high number Springfield M1903 rifles you can find.
While many of the surviving LN rifles show fine workmanship those high number rifles built in the 20's look just as good and shoot just as well, plus they have a much higher safety margin than an LN even if the LN was properly forged and heat treated.
One reason low number rifles in original condition are scarce is that so many were converted to non firing drill rifles.

[Multigunner]

For those who think Modern Ammunition can't be defective
http://www.firearmsid.com/Recalls/Ammo_Recalls%201.htm
There are lists like this at other sites as well. Besides these sporting ammunition recalls bad lots of milsurp ammunition show up from time to time.
With a brittle receiver it only takes one defective cartridge to ruin your day.

[Mr Humble]

Really getting bored with your DNS problem on 03s. How many "drill rifles" have you ever seen ?
The ones the honor guard in DC uses are all chrome plated 03A3s.

My offer stands as it has for years and NOBODY has ever come up with the proof.

Wannabes like you are the curse of the internet. You have no idea what you're talking about, have no 03s, especially original low number guns. All you can do is parrot a study by a long dead General, whose own statistics support my contention that the idiots behind the gun were the problem.

DONE ! go talk to yourself because nobody cares.

[Multigunner]

How many "drill rifles" have you ever seen ?

The 1903 rifles converted to noin firing Drill rifles were all over the place a few years back, some members here have even posted of reactivating them by cutting the welds , rebarreling, and cuuting loose then rewelding and reactivating the cut off so they could put a good bolt in it. They of course use only medium pressure cast boolit loads. One managed to blow up a LN sporting Springfield that had been used by his grandfather with no problems. One bad load did that fine old rifle in.

The ones the honor guard in DC uses are all chrome plated 03A3s.

Which has exactly what effect on the price of tea in China?

You have no idea what you're talking about, have no 03s, especially original low number guns. All you can do is parrot a study by a long dead General, whose own statistics support my contention that the idiots behind the gun were the problem.

And you were too full of yourself to recognize that all you have to go on is the same information Hatcher compiled in that book.
An idiot behind the gun would be the one who thinks all ammunition is going to be within specs, even lot by lot testing can't garantee that, it just improves the odds that the worst of any lot that passes won't be so far out of spec that a Kaboom is unavoidable.

The facts about the inferior nature of the metalurgy of the Low Number 03 rifles can't be changed they are scientific fact, that doesn't go away just because you yell the loudest.
The Double Heat Treat and Nickle Steel 1903 rifles are better rifles because they were better from the day they were made.

Having a big collection of any particular item doesn't make you an authority on that item any more than a used car salesman with a huge back lot would be expected to know more about cars than Parnelli Jones.

Tell us. Just How many of the Low number receivers you personally forged, machined and heat treated?
How long did you serve with the U S department of Ordnance during WW1?
When the hammer testing of LN receivers was done did you wear your googles to avoid getting steel splinters in your eyes?

PS
I haven't looked it up yet to find out which New York National Guard soldier that rifle is associated with but I'll get around to it. We've had discussions on the NYNG troops assigned to the British army during WW1 and they were armed with the British SMLE rifles to beat all. They garnered their share of medals and honors. Theres a nice Bronze tableau statue dedicated to them in Central Park.

[Multigunner]

Theres a Double Heat Treat 1903 in Hatcher's Note Book that was subjected to a load of 45 grains of Bullseye powder under a 170 grain bullet. The stock shattered and the magazine well was bowed out but the action held. Lets see you do that with one of your less collectable Low Number receivers. Be sure to wear a welder's mask and kevlar vest, or don't if your confidence is that high.

[Multigunner]

Since Humble doesn't trust Hatcher as a source though he depends on Hatcher's data

From Arms and the Man, 1917 “In Defense of “the Short Gun”. By Captain James H. Keough

I can attest, by having experienced the misfortune of blowing both locking lugs from the bolt of my service rifle in the 900 yard state of the Leech Cup Match at Camp Perry in 1913, which fortunately did me no more harm than to record a goose egg for my first record shot at this distance, forcing me from the match and putting me out of the running for the Palma Team. The shock of the blow-back had no serious effect on my nervous system, as I was well hardened to the echo of the boiler shop (as the shed in which the International Meter Matchers were held was dubbed) by being a daily constant in the several matches. On this same day on which this accident occurred a team mate, Col Sergt Leary, of the Massachusetts Infantry, had a similar accident, but was slightly bruised about the face. The cause of these blow-ups was attributed to the bolts being too hard or burned in the case hardening process. Last year at the annual encampment of the 6th Massachusetts Infantry, at Martha’s Vineyard, a blow-black put a sergeant of one of the companies in the hospital for a week and nearly cost him the loss of one eye, and I know of another case nearby when two bad accidents occurred in one afternoon, the rifles being blown to pieces in both instances and one of the men having the side of his face torn away. These are the only cases that I recall as having happened in my locality or where I was at the time. Records of many others are well known, so that perhaps there is some cause for this alarm as to the safety of the (M1917) Enfield, which we all know*, is not as strong as the US Magazine rifle…

At that time there was little practical experiance with the M1917 rifle so belief that it was inferior in strength to the M1903 of the day was based more on rumour than fact.
The incidents in 1913 were long before the wartime manufactured ammunition began to cause problems. But even when wartime pressure was not an issue the quality of smokeless powders of the day was often iffy.

[James Wisner]

I am working on building a sporter using a Rock Island receiver in the 131,xxx range.
Will be along the lines of the Whelen/Mauser/Sedgely style

Have a Lyman 48C, and will make a Sedgley style band ramp.
Have a double set trigger fitted to the bow, and most of the fitting done to the kickoff.
The magazine conversion parts are there ready to be installed.
About 1/2 of the new bolt is done, once the barrel is fitted I then get to make a new extractor.
Am using a Shilen # 2 contour barrel, but will finish it at 20 inches long for a short rifle.

I am not worried about the receiver, now or years down the road.

Ohh did I forget to tell that it will be in the high pressure 22 Hornet caliber.

[ascast]

4 DAYS- i have gotten up to page 7.
best line so far IMHO
"Probably you are not fated to be the next Elmer Keith, so don't invest in a big cowboy hat."

snow snow snow - gotta go

[varsity07840]

For some reason, I never noticed this thread before. I was given a low number Sporter back in the late 70s. I knew the implications. I sent the receiver to P.O. Ackley. He annealed it and re-heat treated it. His theory was that poorly treated bolts were a more probable cause of failures than receivers. I substituted a late bolt that met headspace and since then have occasionally shot the rifle with 150 gr factory loads. No problems.

Duane

[Mr Humble]

As perhaps the only member who had an extensive collection of low number 03s, all of which had proper headspace and were shot A LOT ! Also perhaps the only member who put all of Hatcher's data on a computer for analysis. The analysis showed that once you removed operator error and bad ammo, the failures were single digits THAT COULD NOT BE EXPLAINED. I dare say that IF like data were available of P 14s, P17s, SMLEs, Mausers, M-1s and so on, we'd all be scared to shoot them as well. I found the low number terror to be a great benefit as, back then, I was able to purchase many original low number military guns as well as excellent sporters built on low number 03' actions for low prices. I'll always recall a R.F. Sedgley 03' sporter in 270 WCF (a hot cartridge) that had been shot so much it had 2+ inches of throat erosion. Headspace was dead on and it actually would hold 3" groups with iron sights and 170 gr factory ammo. FYI ALL Sedgley Springfields were built on low number actions(with the exception of some customer supplied actions). The NRA still parrots the Hatcher myth as he was a God there and the NRA is not noted for it's investigative ability. (Ever seen a critical gun review there ?)

Sedgley 9.3x62 (pop gun ?) on a customer supplied action. NOTE serial number.......

[M-Tecs]

Nice rifle. I have always wanted a Sedgley.

[Mr Humble]

Once I had a lot. Kept the best 4

Short action 22 Hornet


6.5x55 and 22-06



400 Whelen



And a matched pair I sold, engraved ones. Right bolt left cheekpiece. 257 Bob & 06'

[M-Tecs]

Dang now I am really jealous...

[HangFireW8]

Busting on Hatcher and the old-time NRA, huh? Try reading what they really wrote about Springfields.

The problem is not that they are all bad. The problem is a few are. They can be discerned by a Rockwell test of core metal under the receiver ring. The bad ones are too hard and are brittle. Most are fine.

[Mr Humble]

Well for many years I offered a LARGE reward to any "03' expert" who could come up with a documented low number, unmessed with 03', having correct headspace, that blew up with standard military or modern factory ammo. I still have the money. Hatcher was just plain wrong as were many experts. The Rockwell test is a non invasive proceedure that does not give a clue of anything beyond the outside. You can blow up anything by using soft case head ammo, shooting 8X57 in an 06', stuffing the bore with mud or lubricating 220 gr cupro nickle bullets with Mobil-lube chassis grease. These account for most of Hatcher's failures as you would know IF you did the research I did. I imagine most modern rifles would not like this treatment .... especially a cone breech design like the 03, M54 or M70. BUT if you have any 100% original low number 03' military rifles OR classic sporters built on them, I'll be happy to relieve you of your fear for a reasonable price.
Like this individual and unit identified low # 03' that belonged to a member the NYNG 7th "The Gray Jackets" that went to France w/o their 03's, fought with British Weapons, under British command, contrary to what another "expert" General Pershing said.
Of course he didn't have the advantage of owning the three WW I unit histories covering this unit.



Another interesting 03'. How it got that Mauser Werke banner on the receiver is another interesting story involving Whelen and Stoeger.



Having to do with these......





you can own a set.