HELP with o3A1

[Montana Ron]

I have a chance to buy a 03A1 and it has a low number of 427331 and I dont have any reference to when the single heat treat actions ended and the SAFE ones started.....................any info greatly appreciated..................[smilie=6:

[leadman]

Go to the Civilian Marksmanship Program (CMP) website, look under Sales for 1903/1903a3. This will have the info you need.

[nicholst55]

Go here (http://www.scribd.com/doc/3630045/hatchers-notebook) and download Hatcher's Notebook in .PDF format. For Springfield rifles the 'safe' serial number range began with 800,000; for Rock Island rifles it was around 235,000, IIRC. The book has the exact numbers.

If your SN: 427331 rifle was made by Springfield, it is NOT considered safe to shoot. Some will dispute that, but I'm not putting my face next to that receiver to find out. Hatcher's Notebook also details the injuries sustained by soldiers who were firing low-number rifles when they let go; very enlightening.

ETA: Springfield SN: 800,000; RIA SN: 285,507 are where the 'safe zone,' or double heat-treatment began. Those numbers should be regarded as approximate, as some doubt has been cast upon their accuracy.

[mroliver77]

nicholst55,
Thanks for the link to Hatchers Notebook. Very enlightening indeed! Everybody should read it. The parts about the 1903 should be read more than once!

At one time I figured shooting low powered cast through the low numbered actions was safe. There is no way I would fire one now. Maybe, just maybe in a life threatening situation and it was all I had.

I have an 03 and an 03A3. The former has a serial # right around the switch from double heat treat to nickle steel. I need to dig it out and see for sure which it is but I believe it was the last of the double H.T.

What a life he had! We are lucky that he was a meticulous note keeper! A gun nut through and through!
Jay

[gnoahhh]

First of all, with a low number like that it can't be an 03A1. The A1 (pistol grip stock, with finger grooves) was introduced about 15 years after that rifle was built. Obviously someone swapped out the original stock, and if this stock doesn't have finger grooves it's a WWII-era replacement stock that could, or couldn't, be an arsenal replacement. What's the barrel date? If it has a barrel from the early teens then it may well be the original barrel. If not, again a later arsenal replacement or post-service replacement.

Let's not get into the brouhaha over low vs. high # Springfields being safe to shoot. Pose that question on a serious '03 collectors forum and you'll get some enlightened info regarding that. Once the number of failures due to the ignorance of semi-literate recruits and faulty wartime ammo and the use of wrong ammo are deleted the failure rate is about in line with any other bolt gun of that era.

The receivers made after our entry into the war, and before the heat treat schedule was changed, are the ones most subject to scrutiny. When the Armory ramped up production, going to night shifts and a lot of rookie heat treaters, mistakes were made that ended up in some brittle receivers getting through. By far the majority were weeded out in proof testing. Essentially what happened was the old timers were experienced at gauging the heat of the receivers by eye, in daylight. The guys at night, and the rookies, not so much. To correct the situation, at around # 800,000, they went to a more sophisticated heat treat schedule (same steel) and the use of spectrometers to accurately gauge the temperature of the steel. Problem solved.

Note the steel used in the low # receivers was essentially the same as that used in the .30/40 Krags, case hardened like the Krags. Not many shy away from firing a Krag rifle, with one locking lug. Why shy away from firing an early Springfield that is of a much stronger design?

IMO, the truly dangerous '03s were weeded out long ago. Would I fire one? Hell yes! Would I shy away from an otherwise collectible Springfield because it has a low number? Hell no! Would I hot rod it to make it something it wasn't intended to be 100 years ago? No way, but I wouldn't try that stupid stunt with any 100 year old rifle either.

I would shy away from the one the OP is asking about because it's obviously not correct with a pistol grip stock, unless it was for sale cheap.

[Char-Gar]

Tis true the low numbered 03s don't fail at a greater rate than the later high numbered 03s. It was not that some low numbered 03 were bad as they all shared the common trates. The issue is NOT how often they fail, but what happens when they do.
.
When a high numbered 03 fails for whatever reason, the side of the receiver bulge and the bolt is welded to the ruined receiver.

When a low numbered 03 fails for whatever reason, the receiver fragments and turns into a grenade.

[doubs43]

When a law numbered 03 fails for whatever reason, the receiver fragments and turns into a grenade.

Hatcher recounts an incident wherein a low number receiver was dropped onto a concrete floor and shattered like glass. It was hard all the way through. Double heat treated receivers have a hard surface but are softer inside. That allows them to be more elastic and less likely to become a "grenade".

IIRC, Hatcher explained the reason for the low numbered receivers being as they were like this: New furnaces were installed to heat treat the '03 receivers. The new location changed the lighting. The "old timers" refused to use the new spectrometers, depending instead on their experienced eyes to get the right color. The changed lighting fooled them and the receivers became too hard and brittle.

Once the problem had been identified and a double heat treatment process adopted, it also became policy to use the spectrometer rather than eyeballing the color of the metal. Hatcher also commented that the DHT receivers never had the smoothness in operation that the single heat treated receivers did but they were far safer.

[mroliver77]

Tis true the low numbered 03s don't fail at a greater rate than the later high numbered 03s. It was not that some low numbered 03 were bad as they all shared the common trates. The issue is NOT how often they fail, but what happens when they do.
.
When a high numbered 03 fails for whatever reason, the side of the receiver bulge and the bolt is welded to the ruined receiver.

When a low numbered 03 fails for whatever reason, the receiver fragments and turns into a grenade.

Yep, and stuff happens.
Jay

[leadman]

I also read that when the military was using the cupro-nickel jackets a grease was employed to reduce the lumpy fouling that occurred. This grease was put on the bullet by the soldier just before loading the rifle. some grease got on the case if not proper applied and caused excessive bolt thrust. The blown up gun problem was diminished when the change to gilding metal and prohibition of grease use was made.

The article is in the 2010 Gun Digest.

[madsenshooter]

I've a Krag receiver that appears to have been a bit overcooked too. You can see cracks radiating in the floor of the receiver behind the locking lug. The bolt lug was only bearing on the outside, where the cracks start. It got retired after I removed the .308 bored barrel. In removing the barrel, some little chips came off the receiver threads too. Serial # in the 13,000 range.

[Dutchman]

Let's not get into the brouhaha over low vs. high # Springfields being safe to shoot. Pose that question on a serious '03 collectors forum and you'll get some enlightened info regarding that.

There is no enlightened information that refutes or supersedes Hatcher. None.




Note the steel used in the low # receivers was essentially the same as that used in the .30/40 Krags, case hardened like the Krags. Not many shy away from firing a Krag rifle, with one locking lug. Why shy away from firing an early Springfield that is of a much stronger design?

Pardon me but this is a faulty line of thought. The "design" of the 1903 isn't the problem. You're introducing factors that have nothing to do with the issue of 1903 failures. By doing so you confuse unknowing readers by mixing apples & oranges.



IMO, the truly dangerous '03s were weeded out long ago.

Oops. You gave away the worth of your opinion of the subject.



I would shy away from the one the OP is asking about because it's obviously not correct with a pistol grip stock, unless it was for sale cheap.

A low number 1903 with a Type C stock is absolutely "correct" insofar as US military practice goes.


I don't like to argue about this issue but I also don't care to see mis-informed and wrong information spread around as if it were fact. It's true there are two schools of thought on the low number Springfields. Just like right and wrong, yin and yang, this and that. I swing with Hatcher because there is no one, anywhere, more qualified to have an opinion on the subject than Hatcher.

Dutch

[Larry Gibson]

Hatcher does seem to be the accepted "authority". However, I've always thought it strange that after leaving the Army Ordnance Department he worked for the NRA on the American Rifleman staff (managing editor?). Back then then (mid '60s when I read it) the AR advised it was safe to shoot the low numered M1903s with modern ammo or safe reloads. Seems a bit of contradiction there? Read somewhere back then that Hatcher, when working for the Ordnance Department was pushing for the manufacture of new M1903 actions to replace all the LN'd ones to keep Sprinfield Armory open during the Depression. Common practice was/is to condem the current article in favor of the new article. Hatcher was unable to convince the war department or the "unserviceability" of the LN'd M1903s and they stayed in service. Turns out SA stayed open anyways with the adoption of the M1 without having to replace those LN'd actions. Now I don't know if this is true of Hatcher having that axe to grind but it does seem contradictory that later, while he was at the AR, the policy was to shoot the LN'd M1903s. Many other "authorities" disagreed with Hatcher but they never wrote a book about it. It seems Hatcher's recommendation has become written in stone only with the advent of the internet.

Now, as to LN'd '03s, I'm not recommending shooting them or not shooting them here. I am only making some observations on the history of the controversy. I have 2 M1903 rifles (DHT'd) and a SC M1903A3. Had I a nice LN'd '03, I don't but if i ever got the urge to have one, I know what I would do. The same choice is up to everyone who has a LN'd '03.

Larry Gibson

[gnoahhh]

Like I said, any discussion on this subject is likely to bring forth as many opinions as there are participants.

As for my statement concerning a pistol grip stock on a low number Springfield, it is categorically true. While many LN rifles were arsenal-fitted with PG stocks when sent back for rebuild, making them correct as far as that goes, the only stock ever fitted to LN service rifles at the time of their manufacture was the Type S straight grip stock. The PG service rifle stock was introduced 10 years after the last LN receiver left the Armory. A LN rifle living in a Type C stock, even if it obviously spent the last 80 years in it, is simply not worth what the same rifle in it's original stock would be (all else being equal). How does one know for a fact that said stock wasn't installed in a garage in Dayton, Ohio or at a government arsenal?

[ilcop22]

What it all boils down to, Montana Ron, is do you want to put your face next to a rifle receiver forged in failing sunlight, when the smith was judging hardness based on the coloration of the steel? Did I mention that the coloration of heated steel can vary significantly depending on lighting conditions? You have a nice display rifle receiver and an interesting piece of history. Bottom line: They were improperly heat treated and inspection was... Non existant. There's a reason every knowing person thus far and every professional strongly discourages the use of low number receivers... The can explode.

[gew98]

I am personally only aware of one 03 detonation. It killed a family member of a friend back in the mid 1970's.
My feeling is that they got roughly the same heat treat as the krag rifles and if kept at the Krag milspec loadings one would be good to go.
But on the other hand not being a fan of the 03 at all and having witnessed one and experianced myself a second failure of the two peice firign pin held over from the Krag... the delicate sights front and rear...I'll pas on them. Too much to go worng with the "early" examples and not enough merit for rugged use for the rest.

[nicholst55]

I suspect that the WWI-surplus ammo being shot up during the '20s and '30s may have contributed to some of the receiver failures of the low-numbered Springfield and Rock Island 1903s. Hatcher writes about some of the problems experienced with it, both during and after the war. It seems to have stemmed from inadequate or even nonexistent QC measures in some of the plants pressed into the production of military ammunition.

[shotman]

As they say you cant belive everything you read. I will shoot them
I saw the statement about the receiver breaking when dropped. I am not from MO but you will have to show me That is BS, Its would be hard to break cast iron from a drop

[Char-Gar]

It is debatable if the Krags and low number 03's have the same issues in terms of steel and heat treatment. It have heard it both ways and don't have enough personal knowledge to pick a side.

Steel and heat treatment aside, the Krag doesn't grenade in failure mode like the low number 03s because of the design. The Krag does not trap gap in the action like the 03.

[leadman]

There are still many fairly low priced high serial number 1903s and 1903A3s that already sporterized to various degrees does it make sense to shoot a LN?
I bought a sporterized 1903a3 for less than $200 a few years back. I see many advertised around $300 to $400 in the Phoenix area.
The price seems to be coming down on full military versions also, at least around here.

I do have an old sporterized Krag that I shoot with low velocity cast loads. The man I bought it from said his grandfather used factory loads for hunting in it for years.

The article I referenced earlier stated the cupro-nickel gave no problems at the Krag velocities, but when pushed to the higher velocities in the 1903 made very lumpy fouling that had to be removed with an ammonia solution. The grease (mobilule) was employed to prevent this fouling.

[gew98]

I've got a buddy with a low number action in an 03A1 stock...he got that rifle like that 30 + years ago. He has shot it alot.... but I won't be around when he does. I've warned him . A neighbor got a sportered low number 03 with a redfield sight on the receiver...I warned him and he's using Remington factory 150 PSP's. He asked me to load him up some 168 & 200 grainers ...Nope no sir.
The same alloy of the krag - we know this. Heat treatment on these the same as the krag - we know this too. Problems oh yes , otherwise they would'nt have such a track record of blowing up. The 30/40 krag is a good deal less in operating pressure but they still turn up with cracked receivers and bolts...that should tell you something too.
I fail to see how a lowly recruit had anything of merit to add to the 03's failures in Q & A. If ammo was that bad and coupled with a marginally strong rifle....it's asking to go off like a grenade , pretty bad trait for a rifle.
The low numbers and even reheat treated low numbers are questionable at best...not so much of how they may blow but when they may blow...anytime.Sort of like playing russian roulette.
With reloads of about or less than Krag velocities the low number 03's may very well be safe. I err on the side of caution as I have plenty of other nice rifles to shoot than taking a chance with a grenade to the face. How many guys do you know that shoot last ditch uber crude japanese rifles of WW2...I don't know a soul. And as crude as the german machining got on late WW2 mauser production you never hear of them blowing up...even VK98's.
Over time about any rifle type you can think of hads been monkeyed with in after service and during service use. No telling how high end stocks got on low number rifles ...but since there is another noted now safe to say it happened and happens still.
With all the failures associated with 1903 rifles I'm surprised so many do still hot rod them and are surprised when they go kaboom and or peices fall off.
When I had a couple krag long rifles and a 99 carbine I had alot of fun loading 200 grn cast bullets in them.. very easy to shoot and fairly accurate for the plinking I was doing with them. If I had to get into shooting the sportered 03 I have left it's gonna be on the krag side of pressures... I'm not taking chances like a cowboy on this.






First of all, with a low number like that it can't be an 03A1. The A1 (pistol grip stock, with finger grooves) was introduced about 15 years after that rifle was built. Obviously someone swapped out the original stock, and if this stock doesn't have finger grooves it's a WWII-era replacement stock that could, or couldn't, be an arsenal replacement. What's the barrel date? If it has a barrel from the early teens then it may well be the original barrel. If not, again a later arsenal replacement or post-service replacement.

Let's not get into the brouhaha over low vs. high # Springfields being safe to shoot. Pose that question on a serious '03 collectors forum and you'll get some enlightened info regarding that. Once the number of failures due to the ignorance of semi-literate recruits and faulty wartime ammo and the use of wrong ammo are deleted the failure rate is about in line with any other bolt gun of that era.

The receivers made after our entry into the war, and before the heat treat schedule was changed, are the ones most subject to scrutiny. When the Armory ramped up production, going to night shifts and a lot of rookie heat treaters, mistakes were made that ended up in some brittle receivers getting through. By far the majority were weeded out in proof testing. Essentially what happened was the old timers were experienced at gauging the heat of the receivers by eye, in daylight. The guys at night, and the rookies, not so much. To correct the situation, at around # 800,000, they went to a more sophisticated heat treat schedule (same steel) and the use of spectrometers to accurately gauge the temperature of the steel. Problem solved.

Note the steel used in the low # receivers was essentially the same as that used in the .30/40 Krags, case hardened like the Krags. Not many shy away from firing a Krag rifle, with one locking lug. Why shy away from firing an early Springfield that is of a much stronger design?

IMO, the truly dangerous '03s were weeded out long ago. Would I fire one? Hell yes! Would I shy away from an otherwise collectible Springfield because it has a low number? Hell no! Would I hot rod it to make it something it wasn't intended to be 100 years ago? No way, but I wouldn't try that stupid stunt with any 100 year old rifle either.

I would shy away from the one the OP is asking about because it's obviously not correct with a pistol grip stock, unless it was for sale cheap.

[George Tucker]

I have used a few high number Rifles to Rebarrel, i know a fellow who has a low number chambered in .270 Gibbs, he has shot it a lot, i dont care to do that myself, George.

[Multigunner]

How many guys do you know that shoot last ditch uber crude japanese rifles of WW2...I don't know a soul.
The "Last Ditch" Japanese rifles are plenty strong, like the Germans the Japanese used good actions and barrels, only the furniture and sights were crude.
There were experimental very crude weapons they considered producing that would have been dangerous, little more than zipguns, but most stories of crude last ditch rifles blowing up came from people trying to fire ball cartridges in the smooth bore blank firing training rifles that looked little different from the real military rifle.
A gunsmith told me he had managed to blow up an Arisaka by chambering an 8mm mauser cartridge by mistake. No rifle is immune to such errors.
I owned one of the blank firing rifles, I gave it to my brother as a wall hanger. This rifle had a simple mild steel tube threaded into a cut off barrel shank. The receiver was from a real infantry rifle that had been condemned and the bolt was an odd one, it did not look like the standard bolt.
My brother keep wanting to try firing it, I finally convinced that would be foolish. I heard that the previous owner had fired several live rounds through long ago, the bolt looked battered so that might be true.
The rear sight was gone, possibly taken off so the two piece blank barrel would be exposed to avoid mistakes.
There were also pot metal gallery rifles intended for an extremely low powered cartridge. Firing one of these with a real cartridge of any type that might fit the chamber would be very dangerous indeed.

The 1905 type 30 rifle did have some weaknesses, and those were withdrawn from service before WW1. Some of these may have blown up.

The most radical last ditch design that may have seen use was a Cast steel receiver with a barrel extension that the bolt actually locked into, these turned out to be very strong actions though you wouldn't think so to look at them.

The Krag has no reputation for failures when only the original ball load was being used. An attempt to increase velocity resulted in a new ball cartridge with only a 3,000 CUP increase in chamber pressure, then bolts began to crack.
I suspect it was not due to AWP but rather increased Max Deviations.
Cold soldering of the tin lined cartridge cases to the cupro-nickel bullet has also been considered.
The hotter cartridges were recalled and the charge reduced to the original level.

The Springfield Armory offered new bolts free of charge to any civilian Krag owner who's rifle suffered a cracked bolt. They asked that the damaged bolt and a letter describing the conditions at time of failure be included with the request.

I personally wouldn't shoot or care to own a low number Springfield, but the only incidents of brittle steel in a high number receiver found Hatchers Notebook were unfinished low number receivers accidentally mixed in with the higher numbers and numbered along with them.

The one piece firing pin conversion has been around for decades, I first saw these in the 60's and they weren't new then.

If I did own a high number or nickel steel Springfield I would shoot it using the one oiece pin and save the issue two piece pin if I wanted to return it to original condition for a vintage milsurp match.
The High number rifles may not be allowed in Great War vintage matches, and some ranges won't allow the low number to be used in matches on their premises.

The reactivation of demilled drill rifles may result in accidents in the future. That goes for Drill and DP rifles of all sorts.

PS according to Hatcher, if the receiver is brittle low chamber pressure itself won't prevent breakage. It depends on how hard the casehead makes contact with the bolt face. A sharp rap from a cartridge who's charge won't expand the case far enough to grip the chamber wall can shatter a brittle receiver even though the same rifle fired thousands of full power cartridges with no ill effects.

[gew98]

The "Last Ditch" Japanese rifles are plenty strong, like the Germans the Japanese used good actions and barrels, only the furniture and sights were crude.{QUOTE}

Apparently you have not handled many last ditch type 99's..some even had cast receivers , some horribly worn out chambering reamers used on their chambers etc etc. Only a fool not having it looked over by some very experianced smith would live fire such things. I at one time had a gagle of japanese rifles , and reloaded for them..excepting the last ditch types as their safety is questionable just from visual defects noted alone.

[QUOTE] There were experimental very crude weapons they considered producing that would have been dangerous, little more than zipguns, but most stories of crude last ditch rifles blowing up came from people trying to fire ball cartridges in the smooth bore blank firing training rifles that looked little different from the real military rifle.[QUOTE]

I have personally never seen or heard of a first hand account of an idiot using live ammo in any of the japanese type 38 6,5mm trainers...note they did not make 7,7 trainers and all last ditch rifles were 7,7 cal type 99's.

{QUOTE}A gunsmith told me he had managed to blow up an Arisaka by chambering an 8mm mauser cartridge by mistake. No rifle is immune to such errors. [QUOTE]
Have a pic in tedK's book on mauser sporterization of a US model 1917 rifle that some sod managed to chamber a 7,92 german cartridge in. It went kaboom.


[QUOTE] I owned one of the blank firing rifles, I gave it to my brother as a wall hanger. This rifle had a simple mild steel tube threaded into a cut off barrel shank. The receiver was from a real infantry rifle that had been condemned and the bolt was an odd one, it did not look like the standard bolt.
My brother keep wanting to try firing it, I finally convinced that would be foolish. I heard that the previous owner had fired several live rounds through long ago, the bolt looked battered so that might be true.
The rear sight was gone, possibly taken off so the two piece blank barrel would be exposed to avoid mistakes.
There were also pot metal gallery rifles intended for an extremely low powered cartridge. Firing one of these with a real cartridge of any type that might fit the chamber would be very dangerous indeed.[QUOTE]

The vareity of japanese trainers runs the gamut from made with left over sewer pipe , to need a second glance to make sure it's not a real type 38. But all in all those with pot metal actions or worn out actions of real rifles are wall hangers.

[QUOTE]The 1905 type 30 rifle did have some weaknesses, and those were withdrawn from service before WW1. Some of these may have blown up.[QUOTE]

The type 38 is the model 1905 rifle. You are I owuld think referring to the type 30 "hook safety" rifle. These are every bit as good as the type 38 for use with the 6,5 arisaka cartridge. I've owned a bunch and did shoot them alot. The weakness of the type 30 was it's overly compicated bolt to manufacture . It was simplified withthe introduction of the type 38 in the same caliber in 1905. Never heard a single account of a type 30 failing anywhwere by anyone. And the type 30's soldiered on through china and the pacific. Got a couple direct from combat veterans myself.

[QUOTE]The most radical last ditch design that may have seen use was a Cast steel receiver with a barrel extension that the bolt actually locked into, these turned out to be very strong actions though you wouldn't think so to look at them.[QUOTE]

You are refering to the type 99 naval 'special' Rifle. With tthe locking recess as part of the machined steel barrel this was and is a safe rifle to shoot...nothing to do with the last ditch dangerous peices out there.

[QUOTE]The Krag has no reputation for failures when only the original ball load was being used. An attempt to increase velocity resulted in a new ball cartridge with only a 3,000 CUP increase in chamber pressure, then bolts began to crack.
I suspect it was not due to AWP but rather increased Max Deviations.
Cold soldering of the tin lined cartridge cases to the cupro-nickel bullet has also been considered.
The hotter cartridges were recalled and the charge reduced to the original level.[QUOTE]

You are referring to the 1898 introduction of the same bullet with a loading to give 2,200 fps at 45k psi over the standard loading of 2,000 The accelerated wear was duly noted in failed locking lugs and this loading was discontinued in mar 1900. As well the 30/40 ball ammo was produced with powders thatthe ordnance board noted caused considerable bore erosin due to their particular content of nitroglcerine content , however they gave uniform ballistics and were used extensively.In 1899 ten million rounds of cordite loaded 30/40 ball was procured from Kynoch. It was found to be unsuitable in the krag carbines due to incomplete ignition of propellant in the carbine length barrels.

[QUOTE]The Springfield Armory offered new bolts free of charge to any civilian Krag owner who's rifle suffered a cracked bolt. They asked that the damaged bolt and a letter describing the conditions at time of failure be included with the request.[QUOTE]

A guilty concience , though I have neevr seen any example of original correspondence.And these rifles no doubt were cracked from use with standard ball ammunition as they were sold many years after the 2,200 fps loading was discontinued.

[QUOTE]I personally wouldn't shoot or care to own a low number Springfield, but the only incidents of brittle steel in a high number receiver found Hatchers Notebook were unfinished low number receivers accidentally mixed in with the higher numbers and numbered along with them.[QUOTE]

I should think Lewis' two pst Cass C steel failure 1903's hints at other possibilities.

[QUOTE]The one piece firing pin conversion has been around for decades, I first saw these in the 60's and they weren't new then. [QUOTE]

But they were not around when the mistake was adopted in 1903 .

QUOTE ] If I did own a high number or nickel steel Springfield I would shoot it using the one oiece pin and save the issue two piece pin if I wanted to return it to original condition for a vintage milsurp match.
The High number rifles may not be allowed in Great War vintage matches, and some ranges won't allow the low number to be used in matches on their premises.[QUOTE]

Since most of any such competitions use reproduction or built form part guns I would think none foolish enough to impose such rules , and if a range feels a Class C steel rifle a potential hand grenade...can you blame them ?.

[QUOTE]The reactivation of demilled drill rifles may result in accidents in the future. That goes for Drill and DP rifles of all sorts.[QUOTE]

I think you will find that the Officer in charge - the author of the drawings and instructions on the deactivation to drill rifle of the 03 did so with not destroying the rifle for future reuse in mind. that is the abillity to be able to reactivate it from such work safely. I don't think he failed in that regards at all.

[QUOTE]PS according to Hatcher, if the receiver is brittle low chamber pressure itself won't prevent breakage. It depends on how hard the casehead makes contact with the bolt face. A sharp rap from a cartridge who's charge won't expand the case far enough to grip the chamber wall can shatter a brittle receiver even though the same rifle fired thousands of full power cartridges with no ill effects.

Brophy elaborated on this a bit in his book describing the brittle condiiton of the Cass C receivers and their inherant unsafe condition "but as soon there was a departure from the normal they were found that they were too near the allowable safe limit ". Page 582 of brophy's book on the '03.