What to do with a low number 1903?

[frnkeore]

Dye penetrant is an approved method for ferrous (steel). For the past 20 years I have managed both machines shops and NDT labs in the aerospace industry. Dye penetrant is widely used and approved by both milspec and Boeing standards for steel. For inspection of ferrous components Magnetic Particle Inspection (MPI) is preferred for its subsurface detection capability but dye penetrant as still widely used for some applications.

I manufactored aircraft parts from 1978 until I closed my business in 1997. In all thoughs years, I never had a drawing that had a mil spec requiring DPI for magnetic steel parts. Milspecs are required for structural aircraft parts.

Could you please cite the milspec for the use of DPI in machined, magnetic, steel parts? It's been awhile since I made aircraft parts so, maybe I'm wrong.

Frank

[M-Tecs]

Could you please cite the milspec for the use of DPI inmachined, magnetic, steel parts? It's been awhile since I made aircraft parts so, maybe I'm wrong.

For newly manufactured parts you are correct that MPI is the most commonly specified method. For depot level and normal maintenance inspections of flying aircraft DPI is commonly used for the inspection of machined magnetic steel parts.

In 1996 MIL-STD-6866, dated 29 November 1985, was canceled and replaced by American Society for Testing and Materials Standard, ASTM E1417/E1417M-13, Standard Practice for Liquid Penetrant Testing. It is still current today. About the same time MIL-STD-1907 was reactived.

For the Mil-Std you have to pay to play to get them. You will find the info below free and it should address your questions.

http://mmptdpublic.jsc.nasa.gov/prc/7051d.doc

http://www.cnde.iastate.edu/faa-casr...%20summary.pdf

[MtGun44]

"I have to replace wheel bearings and other parts on my vehicles and arms just
because of wear and stresses (metal fatigue) even though it is scientific fact
that those parts should not wear."

No - it is NOT a scientific fact that rolling element bearings should not wear. All
rolling element bearings have extremely high local stresses and are guaranteed
to fail by spalling - which is a subsurface fatigue failure caused by the maximum
shear stresses which are actually below the surface for a point or line contact like
a ball or roller.
The fatigue cracks start below the surface a few thousandths and
eventually chunks of the surface flake off - spalling. Anyone that has ever seen
a failed rolling element bearing (ball or roller bearing) will attest to this being the
normal failure mode - metal fatigue. Other failure modes are possible, like
loss of lubrication causing overheating, but if all is well and normal essentially
all rolling element bearings that are loaded up well will fail eventually due
to fatigue.

A few extremely lightly loaded designs like instrument bearings manage to stay
below the 50% of yield stress level and get into the infinite fatigue life zone,
but it is extremely unlikely for normal applications like wheel bearings and
transmission bearings, etc.

Infinite fatigue life is absolutely real, whether you understand it or not.
A typical example is a properly designed and torqued cylinder head bolt.
These will never fail. If one does fail it was not properly torqued, since
proper torqueing eliminates the stress reversal phenomenon which causes
fatigue.

Bill

[PAT303]

How much does it cost to buy a good quality safe '03?. Pat

[JHeath]

I'll leave the subject alone But I am still giggling over the fact that we are both too hard headed to concede to the other.

t

Aha! There's your example of infinite wear!

JNH

[Multigunner]

On the side issue of the Japanese rifles I remembered reading something interesting about Japanese Iron ore. In the book "Helmets and Body Armor in Modern Warfare" theres a footnote that tells of a German metallurgists examining a fragment of a Samurai sword made by a master sword maker named Masasume. His blades were reknowned for their hardness.
The German discovered that the sceret to Masasume's blades was the element Molybdenum, that was found in the ore he had used. The German obtained a large quantity of this ore and years later Japanese metallurgists examined German cannon barrels they found these were made from Masasume's Iron ore.

One attempt to blow up an Arisaka by welding a steel rod into the muzzle resulted in the barrel stretching around one foot narrowing to about a quarter of an inch before breaking away cleanly.

Now this also demonstrates that the pressure spike at the point of obstruction does not always travel back to the bolt face. A broken or split barrel relieves pressure before the action is seriously over stressed.
The further towards the muzzle the obstruction is the less stress is put on the action.
If the barrel steel is burnt the cracks can travel back from the point of obstruction and split the receiver along with the barrel shank.

Those Mannlicher Carcanos made from Poldi steel are noted for elasticity of the receivers. I've read of one incident where the barrel was blown forwards by two threads then screwed back in place and used for many years without further problems. Neither the receiver threads nor barrel threads showed any damage.

Hatcher's Notebook says the Arisaka was made from SAE 1085 (6?) a simple carbon steel with some Manganese. The Japanese helmets were of a high manganese content steel that proved stronger than that used for helmets by the Allies.

I've yet to see a full list of the content of the Japanese alloys. I wonder if theres a relatively high Molybdenum content along with the Manganese?

PS

By the third shot the wood was toast (from all the gas from blown primers) or he may have shot the other two rounds he had!.... The load he used (THIS IS NOT A RECOMMENDATION!!!) was a reformed Denver 43 '06 case, a Peters #12 primer and a 215gr .303 bullet... Oh the powder? All the 2400 he could get into the case!!!!!

Remember that the 7.7X58 chamber is a loose fit for the base of a .30-06 case, and that cartridge case brass normally cold flows at 85,000 PSI. Its more likely that the cases would have blown out before the guestimated 100,000 PSI figure was reached possibly before the 85,000 PSI mark. You'd have to examine the cases closely to get a good idea of the actual pressure before case failure released gas into the magazine well.

[Eutectic]

Remember that the 7.7X58 chamber is a loose fit for the base of a .30-06 case, and that cartridge case brass normally cold flows at 85,000 PSI. Its more likely that the cases would have blown out before the guestimated 100,000 PSI figure was reached possibly before the 85,000 PSI mark. You'd have to examine the cases closely to get a good idea of the actual pressure before case failure released gas into the magazine well.

Not unlike Elmer Keith's desk.... (Yes, I have looked through it in detail...) My father's roll top desk also had memorabilia galore. Sadly, others thought the stuff 'junk' and disposed of it while I was 1100 miles away.... I truly wish I had the cases to photograph for this thread; but I don't. But I looked at them many times over the years while visiting my father at his desk. So this is what I saw...... ALL primer pockets was expanded to around 5/16" diameter by eye (and I have a good one) with flashholes also huge! Two of the cases split and blew out through the solid web area of harder brass. The third remained intact but expanded just as large. The pressure ring at the end of the case web was expanded to the larger 7.7 dimension in a sharp contrast and the actual chamber area on the cases showed each and every machine mark of the chamber itself. The brass was a satin appearance on the case walls it had seen so much psi!
My father had taken out the magazine spring and follower anticipating an expanded/ruptured case which he surely got. There was no splits in the case wall areas held in the actual chamber containment.
The escaping gas was tremendous! I was young but remember my Dad's 'verbiage' like it was yesterday! He knew the old Jap stock split some on the first 'bluepill' round but he put two more through it until the stock was beyond 'tying down to the tire'!

Denver 1943 (also 1942) is some of the very BEST military .30-06 brass ever made. My father thought so and so do I after trying most every headstamp there was over many years. Wildcatters in the 40's and 50's also preferred Denver brass as they could load 'hotter' without expanding primer pockets.
So plenty of gas vented out but I think that ol' Jap saw at least 100,000 psi each time for three consecutive 'punches'!!

Eutectic

[Bullshop]

I have a very nice 1903A3 done on the Sedgly patern. I would sell it for $500.00 Pics available

[PAT303]

I have a very nice 1903A3 done on the Sedgly patern. I would sell it for $500.00 Pics available

So people are putting themselves at risk for $500?,sorry but it's not worth it. Pat

[timspawn]

So people are putting themselves at risk for $500?,sorry but it's not worth it. Pat

This thread is about the 1903. The 1903A3 BULLSHOP has is a later manufactured rifle without the problems associated with the 1903.

[M-Tecs]

So people are putting themselves at risk for $500?,sorry but it's not worth it. Pat

Not everone agrees that firing a low serial numbered Springfield is putting themselves at risk. I don't own a LSN but I do have Trapdoors Springfields and Krags that are not as strong as low serial numbered Springfield. I shoot the TD's and Krag's all the time.

[JHeath]

So people are putting themselves at risk for $500?,sorry but it's not worth it. Pat

Hey Pat303:

1) the $500 quoted is for an 03A3, which are not low-number Springfields, so your premise seems incorrect on that head.

2) Your comment is premised on cost. Relative cost-to-safety has almost nothing to do with gun values, or why people shoot old guns. A new Super Blackhawk is vastly stronger than a First Gen Colt SAA. Where's your cost-to-safety ratio there?

2) this thread is about relative risk. You put yourself at risk when you shoot ANY gun. What if the barrel is obstructed? What if the ammunition is defective? You will probably argue that those are manageable risks. But they are just as manageable with an '03.

Some people *assume* that the risks of low number 03s are not manageable because they *assume* the receiver could fail at normal or sub-normal pressures. You seem to fall into that category. So far this thread has not revealed any evidence to support that assumption.

Shooters take risks on Krags, Rolling Blocks, small-ring Mausers, even SMLEs without being aware of the safety margin, the statistical odds of a flawed receiver, and without taking any steps to mitigate the risks like dye-testing or magnafluxing, etc. the receiver.

The guy who tests a low-number 03 receiver for cracks, checks headspace, then shoots mild cast loads in it, is being more cautious than somebody who buys a SMLE and factory ammo at the LGS and heads to the range.

[PAT303]

Sorry but I lines of communications have been crossed,If the rifle in question is dangerous to use don't use it,I'm not talking about later rifles but the known earlier ones that have been proven to be brittle.I have Hatchers book,on page 216 there is photo's of receivers that snapped after being hit,they aren't safe to fire even with light loads,if you can buy a good quality late model springfield for $500 there is no reason to risk injury with an early model.I would bet money on litigation if someone was injured who was shooting next to you if you knowingly used either ammunition or a rifle that was unsafe.As far as using so called ''weak'' actions like Krags or SMLEs they are not dangerous,they simply need to be loaded to their pressure rating,that is totally different to a rifle that is dangerous because of a manufacturing defect. Pat

[PAT303]

Hey Pat303:

1) the $500 quoted is for an 03A3, which are not low-number Springfields, so your premise seems incorrect on that head.

2) Your comment is premised on cost. Relative cost-to-safety has almost nothing to do with gun values, or why people shoot old guns. A new Super Blackhawk is vastly stronger than a First Gen Colt SAA. Where's your cost-to-safety ratio there?

2) this thread is about relative risk. You put yourself at risk when you shoot ANY gun. What if the barrel is obstructed? What if the ammunition is defective? You will probably argue that those are manageable risks. But they are just as manageable with an '03.

Some people *assume* that the risks of low number 03s are not manageable because they *assume* the receiver could fail at normal or sub-normal pressures. You seem to fall into that category. So far this thread has not revealed any evidence to support that assumption.

Shooters take risks on Krags, Rolling Blocks, small-ring Mausers, even SMLEs without being aware of the safety margin, the statistical odds of a flawed receiver, and without taking any steps to mitigate the risks like dye-testing or magnafluxing, etc. the receiver.

The guy who tests a low-number 03 receiver for cracks, checks headspace, then shoots mild cast loads in it, is being more cautious than somebody who buys a SMLE and factory ammo at the LGS and heads to the range.

Sorry mate but I don't agree with anything you posted,your making out that our firearms are grenades waiting to go off,I have three SMLEs and have no issue shooting factory ammo in them,they do not have manufacturing defects and the ammunition is loaded to the actions designed strength,the same with a Krag or any other 1900's era firearm,if they are safe to use and shoot ammunition that is designed for them and their pressure level there is no worry. Pat

[JHeath]

Sorry mate but I don't agree with anything you posted,your making out that our firearms are grenades waiting to go off,I have three SMLEs and have no issue shooting factory ammo in them,they do not have manufacturing defects and the ammunition is loaded to the actions designed strength,the same with a Krag or any other 1900's era firearm,if they are safe to use and shoot ammunition that is designed for them and their pressure level there is no worry. Pat

Well mate, you beat me. You don't agree with a single idea I posted, but I cannot contest that you are comfortable with off-the-rack SMLEs and "ammunition that is designed for them." Can't argue with a guy who says he's uncomfortable coloring outside the lines drawn by others.

Cracked bolt lugs are a known problem with Krags using "ammunition that is designed for them," so that might not have been your best example. And they seem to have been forged by the same method as low-number 03s.

But you are on entirely safe ground sticking to your SMLEs and "ammunition that is designed for them." And that is undoubtedly exactly where you should be.

Probably you are not fated to be the next Elmer Keith, so don't invest in a big cowboy hat.

[Dutchman]

The problem with that theory is that there seems to be no evidence that uncracked low-number 03s fail at normal pressures.

It's apparent from reading your many notes in this thread that you've never read Hatcher's Notebook. Is that a correct assumption?

Page 204, "The Strength of the Receiver":

"Both rifles had failed while using a certain make of wartime ammunition. This, on the face of it, pointed to defective ammunition as the cause of the trouble, but only a cursory examination of the steel in the receivers was required to show that it was coarse grained, weak and brittle. I reported that soft cartridge cases had probably contributed to the failure, but that the real underlying cause was poor steel in the receivers."


Perfectly fine operational rifles will fail at normal gas pressures when that normal gas pressure is dumped into some part of the receiver where it wasn't supposed to be dumped. With no previous crack or flaw in the rifle it can grenade when introduced to a normal limit of chamber pressure. This may or may not be the result of flawed cartridge manufacture, excessive cartridge age, poor design function, malfunction by any number of factors.

Page 214: "...... weakened by overheating...".

Hmmm... again, no cracks previous to the KABOOM.

Page 214: "Half a dozen new receivers were taken at random from the assembly room and fastened in a vise and struck with a hammer. Several of them shattered to pieces."


Hatcher's Notebook is available in pdf format FREE online. Seek and ye shall find! There is no book that has more information* on 1903 Springfields and no other writer anywhere who has the bone fides to refute Hatcher's opinion or knowledge.

*Brophy's book, The 1903 Springfield, does not even mention the situation with low number failures. But as a collector's book it does have more information than Hatcher.

Exactly what is your personal experience with the 1903 Springfield?

Have you read the Zen master himself, Hatcher?


Dutch

[PAT303]

Well mate, you beat me. You don't agree with a single idea I posted, but I cannot contest that you are comfortable with off-the-rack SMLEs and "ammunition that is designed for them." Can't argue with a guy who says he's uncomfortable coloring outside the lines drawn by others.

Cracked bolt lugs are a known problem with Krags using "ammunition that is designed for them," so that might not have been your best example. And they seem to have been forged by the same method as low-number 03s.

But you are on entirely safe ground sticking to your SMLEs and "ammunition that is designed for them." And that is undoubtedly exactly where you should be.

Probably you are not fated to be the next Elmer Keith, so don't invest in a big cowboy hat.

You might try reading the part were I said rifles in good condition without defects shooting correct ammunition loaded to their designed strength.Your making up excuses such as Krags with cracked lugs,well if the lugs are cracked it has a defect there for it is unsafe and should not be used,that again has nothing to do with a Krag/SMLE/'94 whinny etc that is in sound mechanical condition.Don't worry old boy I have no interest in becoming the next Elmer Keith,there's too many of them around now. Pat

[JHeath]

Thanks, Sgt. Mike.


Dutchman, I qualified my comments as you quote -- "seems to be no evidence." I've been waiting for somebody to correct me, and am still waiting.


Yes, a correct assumption -- haven't read Hatcher in his entirety. Haven't successfully downloaded the PDF despite attempting now -- only seen long excerpts, and keen to read the full text.

The first and third passages you quoted are not on-point. Defective cases burst and subjected the receivers to abnormal stress. That is more comparable to an obstructed barrel, it may be a "normal" pressure cartridge but creates an abnormal condition. A defective case bursting is not an example of a receiver shattering under normal conditions.


A receiver unable to handle a burst case without breaking into pieces is sub-optimal but arguably could be managed with good brass and moderate pressures, which is the point of this thread, no?



Striking six receiver rails with a hammer (your third example) is interesting but not very scientific. Strike a few Krag receivers the same way and if the results are different it would tell us a lot about what happens when you strike receivers with hammers.

And THAT is the problem. Hit it with a hammer and it breaks. Ergo, it could obviously break without warning under even the mildest handload, right? A reasonable assumption? So we can start wholesaling it as a fact.

No. And I think that's how this all started. Receivers that might have fired 50k loads until the sun hits E, shattered where their longest unsupported span was struck by a hammer. Hatcher says this was "several" out of six. Say four, or 75%, were so brittle a hammer-strike would break the rail. If that is equivalent to failing under normal loads with good cases, etc., it indicates three-quarters of a million rifles that could fail under normal loads. But I'm still waiting to see even one clear example of that happening without some preventable other factor. There must have been at least a few so brittle that they Kb'ed under normal conditions, perhaps after being dropped against a hammer-like rock. But they seem so remotely far from common that you (Dutchman) are not citing examples, but instead turning to receivers being mauled with vises and hammers as evidence for how they will act when the barrel and case contain normal pressures and the receiver ring takes the bolt-thrust in tension.

The second example you reference I don't have enough context to respond to, and Hatcher is gagging my iPad.


My personal experience with the 03 is that I've considered them from time to time over the last 30 years, and passed up a low-number recently, and want to get to the bottom of the issue, and am finding I have to wade through lots of fear-mongering from people who assume that a low-number 03 might shatter at the least pressure, even with good brass, modest cast loads, and an unobstructed barrel.


What I am finding is that nobody seems able to cite examples of that happening. One can't prove a negative; perhaps there are 10,000 examples of 03s going orbital from 25k handloads but nobody is bringing them to our attention. Hatcher's burst/defective ammunition does not show that 03's cannot be safely fired with proper ammunition. It shows that they handle defective ammunition less-well than a sound 03, which is a different proposition.


What I have learned about 03's from all this is that they aren't that impressive. The case is poorly supported, the two-piece firing pin is marginal, and the metallurgy as pedestrian as the lock time. They are only superior in tradition and aesthetics. Otherwise I preferred my Model 30S Express and pre-war M70.


What I have learned about people's treatment of facts I already knew from work (aerial/acrobatic performer rigging). There are a lot of orthodoxy-bound people who will demand we all color within the lines, on the assumption the lines are not arbitrary. Well some lines are, and some aren't.

Crank (among other achievements) is looking at chambering an old rifle to .270 REN but stamping it ".277 Bird Poop" because it would be marginal-to-unsafe with 270 REN. So he'll load it down to .277 Bird-Poop specs, which he makes up. He's drawing his own line and coloring inside it. How is that different from loading down for an 03?

I know, I know, different because an 03 might shatter under any load, even with a good case and unobstructed barrel. Well show me.

[Eutectic]

Thanks for the long detailed post Mike!

I was in the 'camp' that thought milder cast boolits loads in a single heat treat 03 would probably be fine; now I'm thinking that may be risky as well......

It was commented about damage in the pictures initiating with a blown case or ruptured case head in some instances. This got me thinking..... Then looking at the pictures; particularly receiver rings (and how they failed) has my concerns now higher. The early 03 receiver is too brittle!
Let's say the early receivers are very strong (which I believe they are IN A STRAIGHT-LINE LOAD) Then something happens to change that load to more of an angular or torsional type of load? (like a blown case?) Here too much brittleness may pay the price!
A high-speed drill bit has great tensile strength and great strength as well in a straight longitudinal load. But how many of you have drilled into an irregular surface or into another hole or even pushed a hand drill not straight and have the bit suddenly snap? Humm?

And quit picking on Elmer's hat! In some parts of our country a cowboy hat is common dress.... Kind of like other places it's pants worn with the crotch at the knees.....
One shouldn't automatically pick on Elmer either.... How many here have sat by his stone-faced fireplace in his ol' house on Lombard Street in Salmon, Idaho just talking to the man?? Or even better.... who has shot with him at the old BLM range 5 miles south of Salmon?? Not many I suspect.... So as you see, our speculation covers many subjects!

Eutectic

[Dutchman]

Well show me.

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