What to do with a low number 1903?

[timspawn]

I just bought a 1903 Springfield. Serial number 6280xx. Barrel is dated 2-42 so I'm sure it has been shot many, many times. Do I hang it on the wall or use it for low pressure cast loads?

[Bullshop]

If your looking for votes you will likely get about an even split. I will start with a Hang vote. I see no good reason to take such a high stakes gamble.

[nicholst55]

I agree with Bullshop. Just because you can shoot it doesn't mean you should.

[lefty o]

i'd hang it, no point in being that 1 in a million blow up!

[mold maker]

It's the receiver that is in question, not the barrel. There are still lots of safe shooting 19O3s, why chance it.

[Reg]

What are your eyes and fingers worth ?
Every time you pull the trigger you will have to ask yourself " Am I feeling lucky !!".

[UBER7MM]

Trade it for a Spanish 1916 or a FR-7.....:kidding:

[bob208]

I would shoot it with low pressure cast loads.

[gew98]

One of my friends cousins when I was a teenager was mortally wounded by a low number 03 that let go. It had been sportered and he was using factory soft point ammo. Some things are better left as wall hangers...reheatreated or not !.
My understanding is that these low numbers are supposedly safe with issue ammo but the least little thing that causes overpressure can make them shatter..... but I have understood receivers even cracking and shattering by rough handling due to their brittle nature from bad heat treating .

[Gtek]

If 2-42 barrel is good and rest of parts are good. Nice A-3 receivers can be had for a buck and a half and away you go.

[Larry Gibson]

Over the years I shot numerous LSN 'o3s, especially with cast bullet loads. I don't own one (my two '03 actions are DHT and the '03A3 is better yet) but if I did and it had a new barrel on it such as the mentioned "2-42" and a LSN'd receiver made in 1916 I would probably shoot "low pressured cast loads" through it. That's my choice. I have read Hatcher's book numerous times. I also read a lot of the recommendations for shooting such he and the NRA made in the American Rifleman when the LSN '03 were used a lot and sold through DCM in the '40s, '50s and '60s.

Larry Gibson

[Abert Rim]

I'd shoot it with cast in a heartbeat. Can't think of a more suitable platform.

[oldred]

The thinking that low pressure loads would be ok can be very dangerous here if that is indeed an early poorly heat treated receiver, the metal is brittle and prone to cracking not just weak tensile strength -big difference there! That thing would not only be brittle but it would be old and brittle and undoubtedly subjected to many pressure cycles in the past from the rounds it has fired, who wants to bet his safety on the next round not being the one that turns out to be one too many? In a poorly heat treated and brittle condition even low pressure loads could be dangerous because it's shock as much or more so than high pressure that can cause brittle micro-cracked metal to fail and without testing (ultrasonic for example) there is just no way of knowing for sure but one thing is for certain, that receiver is too darn close to a person's face to take a chance!

[texassako]

The big question is do you like wall hangers? I don't know if I would shoot yours, but I know I shoot every gun I own at least a little bit. I would find an accurate, mild, slow cast load to take it out occasionally and keep it for the history.

[DeanWinchester]

.32 caliber round ball and 2.0g of bullseye. Let the kids have a ball! Cheaper than .22's and I've seen more than one that shoot pretty darn good with that load at 15-25 yards.

[timspawn]

I think I'll just sell it and let somebody else make the decision on what to do with it.

[DeputyDog25]

I to vote for hang it on the wall and admire it for what it is, what it has done in its long and esteemed life and be satisfied. I would probably look at it and wonder about the young soldier who was first issued that rifle and whatever became of him, but that is just how I think.

[13Echo]

Well it is your choice but if it has been shot enough to have a WW II rebarrel the action has been well tested. I'd shoot it with cast loads and never worry.

Jerry Liles

[Frank46]

Guy I bought my present house from had an attic stored Rock Island 1903 low number. Covered in rust from being stored in the attic, had some funky welding done on it and generally looked a mess. Checked the serial number and it was around the 200,000 series. pretty sure the good ones were over 250,000. Correct me if I'm wrong. He said I'll give you a good deal only $500. Tried to tell him about low numbered 1903's but was like talking to the wall. When I had my 89.00 A3 rebarreled and sporting sights installed and blued I didn't cut the barrel. Took it out of its fajen stock stuck it in a C stock and shot it for quite awhile. Looking to get a really nice set of origional sights for it and try cast boolits. Funny thing is that I never had it drilled and tapped for scope mounts. I found a partially bent and scalloped bolt for my A3. Gunsmith set the headspace so that either bolt will not take the go guage. Turns out the spare bolt is actually for the A4 sniper rifle and probably worth more than the rifle itself. Go figure. Frank

[Multigunner]

Hatcher wrote of an accident where two boys fired three rounds of .35 Remington through a 7.7 Jap rifle, the receiver blown to shards on the third shot, so any action may be destroyed if put to enough abuse.

The low number receiver failures with known causes would have likely destroyed any action but in less spectacular manner.
Some were due to a very bad lot of WW1 manufacture ammo with soft caseheads the case head splitting and venting more gas than the tiny vents could handle, probably why the USMC bored "Hatcher Holes" in their low number receivers.
Others were due to a very bad lot of barrels provided by a subcontractor. The breech had been over heated in the bumping up process, something that was discovered in some early P-14 and M1917 barrels as well. When barrels crack at the breech they can split any receiver.
I think the defective barrels were replaced, but a few might still be out there.

The receiver failure that disturbed me was the shattering of a LN when a low pressure Guard cartridge was fired. Hatcher seemed to believe that in this case it was a mechanical blow to the bolt because the case did not expand enough to grasp the chamber walls. That resulted in a sharp blow as from a hammer. All the pieces remained in place with nothing blown out by gas escape.

If someone was killed by a blown up LN 1903 its never made it into print that I know of, but that does not mean it didn't happen.
Some will still claim that no Lee Enfield action ever failed except when using handloads but I was able to find dozens of failures documented by the Canadian House of Commons. I found one fatality in Canada and another in the U S. Published accounts of all those incidents were sketchy. People don't like having a dead relatives name tossed around, and if theres a lawsuit records are often sealed by the court.
Around here no matter what the cause of a firearms accident the only thing the public is likely to find out is the alcohol content of the victim's blood.

Even if I were willing to fire a LN 03 , with Hatcher Hole of course, I would not want one left in my estate for my heirs to possibly end up being hurt by.

The LN rifles should probably be converted to Drill rifles as so many were, or deactivated and used as museum displays.

[gew98]

Well it is your choice but if it has been shot enough to have a WW II rebarrel the action has been well tested. I'd shoot it with cast loads and never worry.

Jerry Liles

"Well tested" is a good way to get oneself dead with that potentially suicidal rifle. The steel of low number "lethal threes" is about par with that of the 30 40 krags. And using a milspec 30-06 loading in a krag would not be healthy or warranted. So imagine that same steel and being poorly heat treated with such a load...playing with fire.

[oldred]

"Well tested" is a good way to get oneself dead with that potentially suicidal rifle. The steel of low number "lethal threes" is about par with that of the 30 40 krags. And using a milspec 30-06 loading in a krag would not be healthy or warranted. So imagine that same steel and being poorly heat treated with such a load...playing with fire.


You're exactly right and "well tested" stated another way would be "well fatigued"! Just because it has fired a few thousand rounds is no proof what-so-ever that the next one would not be the one to ring the bell! Post no.21 above yours gives an example of what I said earlier about how even a low pressure load could cause a brittle receiver to come apart, it's an error to assume that a lower pressure round is going to make one of these things safe to shoot because a brittle micro-cracked receiver could easily fail with a reduced pressure load depending on the circumstances at the time.

[13Echo]

I stand by my statement. With cast bullet loads the rifle will be safe. Since this rifle was rebarreled in '42 I suspect it was used by the Marines (see if it has a Hatcher hole in the right side of the receiver ring) and it likely has been fired a lot with full pressure military ball, possibly even saw combat and it is still intact. As for metal fatigue its wear to the moving parts not metal fatigue that puts a rifle out of commission. Steel stressed below a certain level has an unlimited fatigue life. You don't get this kind of controversy about using cast in a Krag, a much weaker action also often with over heat treated steel or any one of a number of other rifles including early Model 70 Winchesters (overheat treated and brittle with coned breech and poor gas handling). If you are that concerned about it sell it to me. I'd love to have one for cast shooting. Still I can understand and respect a decision not to shoot such a rifle.

Jerry Liles

[oldred]

As for metal fatigue its wear to the moving parts not metal fatigue that puts a rifle out of commission. Steel stressed below a certain level has an unlimited fatigue life.Jerry Liles

Very true BUT metal fatigue does not usually become apparent until the rifle "lets go". The fact is these rifles have a long history of failures and while I agree too that the likelihood of such a catastrophic failure is slim one must ask "is it worth the risk just to shoot that particular rifle"? While I understand that yes it just might be worth it to some folks and they are willing to take a chance is it really a good idea to downplay the risks and encourage someone else to do it?


Of course really low pressure plinking loads in all probability would not hurt a thing as long as they were indeed very low pressure rounds, I guess it would depend a lot on a person's definition of low pressure for that particular rifle, considering the consequences of erring on the wrong side of this debate I have to ask again "is it really worth the risk"? .

[Larry Gibson]

Yes, the sky is falling and we must tell the king......and now I am really confused............

How many years old does a rifle or handgun have to be before "metal fatigue" sets in? Is it based on round count, number of barrels, how many times the bolt was cycled or years old? If I buy a used M98 Mauser how do I know if it "fatigued"? If 10,000 rounds are shot in a rifle/handgun over 10 years is that rifle/handgun then "safer" than if those 10,000 rounds were fired in a year? Should I hang up my M884 TD and not shoot service level BP loads any more in it because it is old and "fatigued" because I've no idea how many rounds were shot out of it before I got it? Is my M1A match rifle "fatigued" because it is on it's 3rd barrel?

If the service technicians at Ruger, Winchester, Colt, S&W, Remington and Savage would only write books about how many of their rifles/handguns they've gotten back blown up I'd bet several models would be much more documented than LSN'd '03s. As I recall in the last 15 - 20 years I've been on gun forums on the internet I've seen all sorts of actions of every make destroyed by SEE, overloads but mostly bore obstructions. All the pictures of those destroyed actions were as bad or worse than anything pictured in Hatchers Notebook. Come to think of it I've not seen a "long history of failures" of LSN'd '03s in the same last 15 or so years.......

I'm not advocating anything but this sure has scared the c**p out of me......think I'll give up this "risky" shooting business and take up golf......no wait. I've read about more golfers killed wrecking those golf carts than I've read about blown up LSN'd '03s in the last 15 years. Oh what to do........

Larry Gibson

[Abert Rim]

I was going to make a crack about having a round-counting chip installed, but some nutty Dem might see it and run with it ...

[Bullshop]

After seeing how easily some receivers were shattered into several pieces by rapping the rails with a mallet in tests done by Parker Ackley I just would never be able to shoot one. I mean I would never be able to hit anything because my mind would be on those pictures of shattered receivers and not on aiming and squeezing.
I have always tried to recognize potential danger and remove myself from it. When I walk under a big tree I look up it for hidden danger. When I walk into a large building I look up to see what is over my head so I know what to do if things start falling. I am a cautious person by nature. To me the reward in using such a rifle is not worth the risk no matter how slight.
Perhaps if it were the only rifle I had or could get I might use it with greatly reduced loads but that is far from the case for me and I will guess for most members here.

[oldred]

The issue is about fatigue in a rifle of already questionable integrity due to improper heat treating not a normal rifle that that has no known issues. In this case if the rifle is indeed one of the many produced with improper heat treating then it has been fortunate enough to survive despite it's known weakness, as most (but not all!) have, but to continue firing this rifle is tempting fate IF it is indeed one of the poorly built examples. Fatigue, while not a concern normally, in this case could be a real concern but that does not have anything to do with a properly built rifle that does not suffer from the known deficiencies that exist with these firearms due to the improper heat treating. Weak and brittle receivers on these rifles is a well known fact and documented accidents have happened in the past, considering the past record I would hardly say that a warning about the shortcomings of these rifles (NOT all rifles) is a case of crying the sky is falling.

[Larry Gibson]

So, I'm still confused; Is it "fatigue" or is it "questionable integrity due to improper heat treating not a normal rifle that that has no known issues" or is it "tempting fate"?

The one thing I learned from the mallet test was "don't smack the receiver with a mallet."

Again, don't get me wrong. I am not advocating anything. I would just like something more concrete than the above. I know of many LSN '03s that are still in use. I know of no deaths or serious injuries from a LSN '03 action for no reason other than letting go just because of the "fatigue, heat treatment or fate" in the last 25+ years. If you have an SEE, an over load or a bore obstruction the damage will be catastrophic regardless of the action used. We have seen too many other actions catastrophically destroyed posted on forums in the last 20 years to believe other wise.

Well maybe I am advocating something; how's about you all sending me all your LSN'd '03s so you won't tempt fate.....I'll pay the shipping.........then I'd have one!

Larry Gibson

[13Echo]

I believe the mallet test broke the receiver rails, not the receiver rings. Most of the rings that let go that I'm aware of were due to defective cartridges, blockages, or suspect practices such as greasing bullets that increased chamber pressure. The real problem with the '03 is how much cartridge head hangs unsupported outside the chamber. When that lets go it can be a mess. But that's also how the highly regarded Mod 70 is breeched as is the M17 Enfield. Incidentally early Mod 70s are also brittle and can fail the mallet test. Still the low numbers are suspect and I can't fault someone for being cautious. I still believe they are perfectly safe for cast bullet loads.

Jerry Liles

[oldred]

The LSN action failures are not myth, they have happened in sufficient numbers to cause major concerns even "back in the day" so there's no doubt about the potential for failure. As far as "fatigue" or "questionable integrity due to improper heat treating" it's not a question of one or the other, in this case it's both. The potential for failure in these LSN receivers is well known and the fact one may have been fired several thousand times without incident is not necessarily proof that it's safe, rather the fatigue from that wear could easily be a contributing factor to failure of an otherwise already compromised receiver. Maybe you think these old LSN receivers are safe but documented failures along with the known facts surrounding the improper heat treating makes a LOT of others think otherwise.


The warnings about these poorly treated receivers have come from many sources for a long time it's pretty well documented and not just "an old wives tale"!

[oldred]

From the Civilian Marksmanship Program,

*WARNING ON “LOW-NUMBER” SPRINGFIELDS
M1903 rifles made before February 1918 utilized receivers and bolts which were single heat-treated by a method that rendered some of them brittle and liable to fracture when fired, exposing the shooter to a risk of serious injury. It proved impossible to determine, without destructive testing, which receivers and bolts were so affected and therefore potentially dangerous.

To solve this problem, the Ordnance Department commenced double heat treatment of receivers and bolts. This was commenced at Springfield Armory at approximately serial number 800,000, and at Rock Island Arsenal at exactly serial number 285,507. All Springfields made after this change are commonly called “high number” rifles. Those Springfields made before this change are commonly called “low-number” rifles.

In view of the safety risk the Ordnance Department withdrew from active service all “low-number” Springfields. During WWII, however, the urgent need for rifles resulted in the rebuilding and reissuing of many “low-number” as well as “high-number” Springfields. The bolts from such rifles were often mixed during rebuilding, and did not necessarily remain with the original receiver.

Generally speaking, “low number” bolts can be distinguished from “high-number” bolts by the angle at which the bolt handle is bent down. All “low number” bolts have the bolt handle bent straight down, perpendicular to the axis of the bolt body. High number bolts have “swept-back” (or slightly rearward curved) bolt handles.

A few straight-bent bolts are of the double heat-treat type, but these are not easily identified, and until positively proved otherwise ANY straight-bent bolt should be assumed to be “low number”. All original swept-back bolts are definitely “high number”. In addition, any bolt marked “N.S.” (for nickel steel) can be safely regarded as “high number” if obtained directly from CMP (beware of re-marked fakes).

CMP DOES NOT RECOMMEND FIRING ANY SPRINGFIELD RIFLE WITH A ”LOW NUMBER” RECEIVER. Such rifles should be regarded as collector’s items, not “shooters”.

CMP ALSO DOES NOT RECOMMEND FIRING ANY SPRINGFIELD RIFLE, REGARDLESS OF SERIAL NUMBER, WITH A SINGLE HEAT-TREATed “LOW NUMBER” BOLT. SUCH BOLTS, WHILE HISTORICALLY CORRECT FOR DISPLAY WITH A RIFLE OF WWI OR EARLIER VINTAGE, MAY BE DANGEROUS TO USE FOR SHOOTING.

THE UNITED STATES ARMY GENERALLY DID NOT SERIALIZE BOLTS. DO NOT RELY ON ANY SERIAL NUMBER APPEARING ON A BOLT TO DETERMINE WHETHER SUCH BOLT IS “HIGH NUMBER” OR “LOW NUMBER”.



Some interesting info on the bolts there but that line,

"CMP DOES NOT RECOMMEND FIRING ANY SPRINGFIELD RIFLE WITH A ”LOW NUMBER” RECEIVER. Such rifles should be regarded as collector’s items, not “shooters”.

makes it plain what their stand on the issue is! Like I said earlier this is a real safety concern and NOT just an "old wives tale"! Considering the consequences of what could happen if a person chooses to ignore these warnings is it really worth the risk just to shoot a rifle?

[Multigunner]

Well From what Hatcher and others wrote not all the Low Number receivers were bad, but there was no "non destructive" method of weeding out the bad ones, all those that failed so spectacularly had been proofed at 70,000 CUP so pressure alone was unlikely to be the culprit in the failures.

I'm not a machinist but I've drilled enough holes that I can judge by the feel, and the sound, whether core steel is brittle. I'm fairly sure any USMC armorer boring the hatcher hole would have been able to judge whether the core metal of the receiver ring was brittle.

As for the Krag, while made with old school methods these had no record of blowing up, but some suffered fractures or setback when they tried to up the FPS of the service Ball cartridge increasing the chamber pressure. The bolt was more likely to be damaged rather than the receiver.
Some European Krags also suffered fractures, though this was mostly put down to a sharply machined corner without the proper radius, some FN Mauser bolts fractured one leg of the split left hand lug for the same reason.

Some Lee Metford and LE rifles suffered broken bolts due to defective ammunnition, and some action bodies cracked as well. As metalurgy improved incidents became uncommon.

Till someone puts the effort into devising a reliable non destructive method of determining if an LN 1903 receiver is brittle the question will never go away.
I'm pretty sure that such a method already exists , its just never been applied to antique fire arms as of yet.

[M-Tecs]

Interesting read

http://m1903.com/03rcvrfail/

http://m14forum.com/bolt-action/100323-low-number-m1903-springfield.html

http://forums.thecmp.org/showthread.php?t=134357

[fatnhappy]

I shoot mine. There are only 11,231 springfields with lower serial numbers. I neither advise nor encourage anyone to do the same. I feel "if you need to ask then don't."

[Alferd Packer]

Tie it to a tire pointing downrange and fire a magazine full thru it'
It its still ok, then shoot cast loads thru it and enjoy shooting it.
That's my story.

[mpbarry1]

what numbers are considered low? i know some of the eary receivers fail with higher pressures, just not sure where the safe serials start?

[mpbarry1]

oops, i see it in the great link posted by MTech. thanks!

[WILCO]

Thanks for the information guys! I learned a thing or two today!

[Blanket]

Better not shoot Krags either, same steel and HT process. By the way does anyone know how many failures there were?

[oldred]

I think the failure rate was really low with no fatalities but several people were blinded in one eye and several were "severely" injured (I guess losing an eye is not a severe injury??????) but the fact is, no matter how some try to downplay it, even the military took these rifles out of service and launched an investigation that determined them to be unusable. None of this matters at all unless a person has one of the "bad" ones and even then the chances are nothing bad is going to happen BUT is it a good idea to shoot a rifle with a known defect that is known to have caused serious injury in the past? That receiver is awfully close to the face and that bolt is pointed right at your eye and this defect has not only been known since the rifles were new people HAVE been injured by them, is it really worth betting on?

[Blanket]

Actually the military left the ones issued in service and did not reissue any after 1928 but kept them in reserve. Of the 68 known to fail, bad brass cases, 8x57 fired in and unknown causes played a big part.

[gew98]

Actually the military left the ones issued in service and did not reissue any after 1928 but kept them in reserve. Of the 68 known to fail, bad brass cases, 8x57 fired in and unknown causes played a big part.
I read the interesting links supplied by M-tecs. Good read. The reason those potentially suicidal 03's were put in reserve was imply politics and cost. Politically and financially they could not destroy them without a huge scandal and some serious explaining . And like good politicos it was basically swept under the rug as usual.
I have personally had two different 03's ( high numbers ) that experianced peirced primers on surplus US made ball where the gas that entered the bolt caused the rickety two peice firing pin to snap and send the cocking knob half out the bolt with considerable velocity. One hit my youngest brother in the cheek right below his eye and dang near chipped some bone. He would not ever again shoot an 03. Next was one I was bolting and shooting from the hip and the cockknob peice went through my sleeve luckily not hitting my forearm. The pierced primers on 03's can have some consequences with that two peice pin arrangement. I still do shoot a 1942 remington for ***** and giggles but use only mild reloads with it and a sportered 03 I inherited from my father. I just don't have the faith in them like I do a quality solid 98 action.

[oldred]

Well it's up to the owner to choose what to do and if they want to shoot one of these things for whatever the reason, what the hey, it was only an eye in most of those accidents and most people have two of them so the loss of one wouldn't be so bad would it???? All those warnings over the years I suppose have all just been overblown, and likely they have actually to some extent, but honestly considering the consequences of choosing to ignore the warnings and being wrong is it REALLY worth the risk?

[Kevinakaq]

I thought I would lend someone else's vast experience to this issue. I have taken two pages from Frank de Haas Bolt Action Rifles books where he addresses this issue I think quite well.

You will have to zoom in a bit to read the article which starts at the bottom right of first page -
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/67729401/low_1.jpg
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/67729401/low_2.jpg

Hope this helps!
Kevin

[Der Gebirgsjager]

Some additional points to consider, a couple already touched on:
The low number receivers were made by the same arsenal workers that had made many of the Krag receivers. They judged the heat treatment of the steel by it's color. The color could appear a different shade of red/orange on an overcast day as opposed to a clear day, and therefore some of the receivers were overheated and consequently brittle. But all days were not sunny or overcast and it therefore stands to reason that many of the receivers were good.
The low number receivers that survived the "blowup years" documented in Hatcher's Notebook continued to be used for years and years and thousands of rounds. I own two that were purchased from China by Fed Ord and rebuilt into virtually new rifles with unissued surplus parts. They were likely given to the Nationalist Chinese as aid in WWII and subsequently used by the Communist Chinese (probably against us in Korea). Since when the Chinese finished with them there wasn't much left of use except the receivers, this speaks volumes about the durability of the receivers that survived. 1903-1920 was a long time ago, and those receivers that were going to fail have done so long ago.
A reading of Hatcher's Notebook and the incident reports of failed receivers makes it very plain that much of the problem was high pressures generated by defective ammunition having soft case heads and poor metallurgy, a situation almost non-existent today.
I happily shoot my two low number rifles with modern brass loaded to .30-30 mid-level pressures and enjoy sub-two inch accuracy at 100 yds. But the decision is yours, and yours alone. If you're uncomfortable with the idea, don't shoot yours. Several good suggestions have been offered including stripping the receiver for parts and building a new rifle on a better receiver, or selling it outright.

[webradbury]

Are there any other military firearms with known questionable metallurgy? I've heard about the early 03's. Are there any krags that should be looked upon with suspicion?

[Larry Gibson]

I've often wondered if those Soldiers/Marines had been wearing eye protection as most everyone does now (methinks the greater "lessen learned") if this would have been such a "disaster"? I've known of numerous M16/M4 blow ups in the Army and other services (we used to get safety notices all the time) yet those weapons are still in service. I've observed 3 separate M2 50 cals destroyed and the gunners injured because of improperly set headspace yet they continue in service. Does anyone know of any action that has not been catastrophically destroyed by SEE, bad ammo or a bore obstruction?

Larry Gibson

[oldred]

Does anyone know of any action that has not been catastrophically destroyed by SEE, bad ammo or a bore obstruction?


You keep referring to these irrelevant reasons for failures, irrelevant because it was determined the LSN rifles also failed for other reasons -improper heat treating leading to weak and brittle metal. The LSN receivers are known to be sub-standard because of being brittle and weak due to improper heat treating and that has NOTHING to do with "normal" receivers failing because of bore obstructions, SEE, etc. In the case of the receivers in question they have been reported to fail when none of those other conditions exist so why keep pointing to that as if it is somehow proof that a brittle receiver is going to be safe to shoot? Certainly not all of the LSN receivers were bad (betting on which ones however might be costly indeed, the stakes are high!) but it was determined by the military inspectors that the metal on some of them had been over heated by as much as 300 deg F causing internal crystallization that could not be corrected by re-heat treating. It was also determined that there was no way to differentiate between those that were safe and those that had been improperly heated, the shooter gets to guess which ones are safe!


Like I said it was only an eye lost in most cases so the owner can decide for himself.

[cwheel]

I guess I'm of the opinion not to shoot it. Working for 40 years as a maintenance machinist, I've seen things fail that one would think their would never be a possibility of failing. One example was a 8"+ dia. solid 4130 shaft that just snapped at the load point that I made just a couple of years before. Enough cycles at the stress points caused it to let go. Clean crystalized break from repeated cycles. That particular shaft was almost strong enough to lift a battle ship with when put into service. With these low numbered rifles, we have no idea how many cycles have been through them. Sure, same would hold true for any other rifle I guess, but wouldn't it be a lesser risk starting out with one that's known to have a proper heat treating done to it ?? Comes down to personal risk management, and after 40 years of building parts that have failed due to stress failures, I'd choose not to shoot a low # rifle. Don't give my 03A3 a second thought, but the low #'s have a known possible defect, that should be enough.
Chris

[oldred]

the low #'s have a known possible defect, that should be enough.


Considering the possible consequences that should be more than enough.

[Larry Gibson]

You keep referring to these irrelevant reasons for failures, irrelevant because it was determined the LSN rifles also failed for other reasons -improper heat treating leading to weak and brittle metal. The LSN receivers are known to be sub-standard because of being brittle and weak due to improper heat treating and that has NOTHING to do with "normal" receivers failing because of bore obstructions, SEE, etc. In the case of the receivers in question they have been reported to fail when none of those other conditions exist so why keep pointing to that as if it is somehow proof that a brittle receiver is going to be safe to shoot? Certainly not all of the LSN receivers were bad (betting on which ones however might be costly indeed, the stakes are high!) but it was determined by the military inspectors that the metal had been over heated by as much as 300 deg F causing internal crystallization that could not be corrected by re-heat treating. Like I said it was only an eye lost in most cases so the owner can decide for himself.

Because if you read your Hatcher's Notebook (the most quoted "authority" on the topic) you will find there were 68 instances of "burst receivers" of which only 57 were documented LSN (33 SA and 24 RI). Hatcher lists several reasons that all 68 receivers "burst";

Firing of the Guard Cartridge; (2 cases) Hatcher makes an assumption here that it was "the nature of the powder" but does discuss the possibility of a double or triple charge of powder.

Blow backs from failed cartridge heads (23 cases). Hatcher describes what occurs from such cases if the receiver only bulges (2 reported instances with DHT receivers). The damage described is quite severe (destroys the action) and Hatcher states the principal danger to the shooter is powder grains or particles of brass in the eyes.

Burst barrels. There were 21 cases of the barrel bursing from "an obstruction in the bore". There were 13 cases of the barrel steel being "burnt" at the butt end.

Firing the 7.92 German cartridge in the '03. At least 4 cases.

Let's do the math; 21+13+21+4=59

That leaves 7 instances unexplained and noted with slight damage and no injuries.

So with 57 documented cases of LSN'd '03s used the above reasons were listed. Not one....let me say that again......not one single documented case of a LSN'd '03 "burst"ing on its own with the poor heat treatment listed as the "cause". There was always another reason listed as the "cause" not the "improper heat treating leading to weak and brittle metal" claim which you make as the reason.

The above listed reasons for the burst receiver are the ones listed by Hatcher, are they "irrelevant" because you say so? I think not and that is why I keep referring to them because they are the factual "reasons for failures".

BTW; Hatcher also states; "If shooting glasses had always been worn, it is reasonable to assume that many of these injuries (none fatal, 3 lost an eye) would have been prevented or reduced in severity." Absolutely no mention of all the banal personal injuries mentioned here.

Thus I suggest all who chose to shoot their LSN'd '03s wear shooting glasses if they probably don't already. I wear them regardless of the firearm I'm shooting.

Larry Gibson

[oldred]

No matter how it gets sugar coated these receivers have a KNOWN heat treating defect but wearing safety glasses should negate the danger we have been warned about, ok.

[timspawn]

I'm going to list it for sale tomorrow and let its new owner decide what to do with it.

[bob208]

so all the nay sayers better read the whole story. the 800,000 number is only a approximation. so you are saying number 799,999 is unsafe and should be destroyed. but 800,001 is ok and fine to use ? I have never read of low number rifles letting go on civilians in large numbers. remember bannerman sold a lot of them. some put together with krag parts.

[Scharfschuetze]

I'm going to list it for sale tomorrow and let its new owner decide what to do with it.

Not to be flip, but no doubt you'll let the new owner know of the controversy surrounding its "low number" heritage.

I took advantage of a similar situation some 30 years ago when I bought a 1915 manufactured 1903 in excellent condition (a true WWI specimen with original bolt and barrel) from a fellow who was pretty sure that it was going to blow up right there on the table. Bought it for less than a worn out .22 RF.

[JHeath]

Sales associate at the LGS recently tried to get me interested in a Springfield sporter. When I noticed the low-number receiver he acted dumb. He it back on the rack. He'll try the same thing with customers until somebody buys it.

Gun dealers have been doing this with low-number Springfields for years. If gun dealers believed these rifles were at high risk for Kb with factory ammo, most probably would not sell them. Businesses avoid liability. I notice an early 1903 on the Cabela's site that they "recommend" not be fired, but they are still selling it and my guess is if the buyer wants ammo they'll sell it to him.

I'm with Larry Gibson (thanks for doing the homework), I think the concern is exaggerated with little reference to the data. Another recent thread about last-ditch Arisakas had the same ring of third-hand information and passed-down stories that become "common knowledge." I asked for bona-fide examples and nobody spoke up. Which doesn't prove a Kb never happened, but indicates the stories are not verified.

[Blanket]

I read the interesting links supplied by M-tecs. Good read. The reason those potentially suicidal 03's were put in reserve was imply politics and cost. Politically and financially they could not destroy them without a huge scandal and some serious explaining . And like good politicos it was basically swept under the rug as usual.
I have personally had two different 03's ( high numbers ) that experianced peirced primers on surplus US made ball where the gas that entered the bolt caused the rickety two peice firing pin to snap and send the cocking knob half out the bolt with considerable velocity. One hit my youngest brother in the cheek right below his eye and dang near chipped some bone. He would not ever again shoot an 03. Next was one I was bolting and shooting from the hip and the cockknob peice went through my sleeve luckily not hitting my forearm. The pierced primers on 03's can have some consequences with that two peice pin arrangement. I still do shoot a 1942 remington for ****s and giggles but use only mild reloads with it and a sportered 03 I inherited from my father. I just don't have the faith in them like I do a quality solid 98 action. Sorry I have to throw the BS flag on your cousins friend being killed by a low number, would like to know just when and where as well as the 2 firing pins being blown back. If you are not comfortable shooting low numbers or 1903's in general then don't but having personal experience with 3 failures puts the odds up there with getting hit by a meteor while riding a camel. By the way when a striker does break it causes the pin to stick out of the boltface not blow the striker rod out. As I said in an earlier post based on the information posted here it is not safe to shoot anything made before 1919 by the Gov't arsenals

[Dutchman]

Well it's up to the owner to choose what to do and if they want to shoot one of these things for whatever the reason, what the hey, it was only an eye in most of those accidents and most people have two of them so the loss of one wouldn't be so bad would it???? All those warnings over the years I suppose have all just been overblown, and likely they have actually to some extent, but honestly considering the consequences of choosing to ignore the warnings and being wrong is it REALLY worth the risk?

I'm with you 100% on this issue.

Hatcher is the authority on this issue, not de Haas.

And low numbered 03 are still coming apart when the threshold of safety is exceeded. What's the distance between safe and exceeded? I never heard of one blowing up on a wednesday so I'm only going to shoot mine on a wednesday so I'll be safe. The logic of Darwin candidates is heavy in this forum on this subject.

http://m1903.com/03rcvrfail/

The response to the above by a friend or mine:

"His article is a perfect example of making statistics tell the story you
want them to tell. While I'm not a statistician, I am a mechanical
engineer [NASA] who helps run a hazardous research and development test
operation. I not only have to know statistics but the limitations of
statistics. Often, it's my *** that's going to perforated by high speed
metal chunks if I get it wrong.

In his article, the good doctor shows that he has a good grasp of
statistics, but a poor understanding of the limitations of statistics.

In the article, he takes the known historical data and shows that based
on this data, firing a low-number M1903 is safer than a lot of common
activities. Absolutely true, based on the data at hand.

But here's the limitation - While his conclusion is true for the whole,
his conclusion is faulty for a particular single rifle.

Here's the problem - we don't have enough statistical data to determine
the distribution of M1903 low-number receiver strength. Looking at a
particular specimen, you cannot tell if it's better or worse than
average. Nor can you tell how much better or worse than it is from that
average.

Given the poor process control that Hatcher documented (heat treatment
by eye), I'd say that process variability is quite high, meaning that
there will be many guns that are much better than average. Conversely,
there will be many guns that are much worse than average.

Even if we knew the distribution, we don't know any fatigue behavior: we
don't know the relationship between heat-treatment-related-strength and
how many rounds of a known pressure that receiver design will take
before catastrophic failure at that strength. Could be one. Could be
one thousand. Could be infinite.

So it boils down to this - while on average, firing an M1903 is safer
than some average daily activities, firing a specific M1903 may be far
safer or far less safe. NO ONE CAN TELL!

While the doctor says I may have a 1 in 100,000 chance of one blowing
up, if that one in 100,000 happens to be the one in front of my face, I
have a 1 in 1 chance of getting hurt or killed.

Here's the other little tidbit I'll toss in there that the doctor
doesn't address. Back in Hatcher's time, the Government's assessment of
the worth of a soldier's life was pretty low. I'd bet that back then, a
soldier's life was viewed to be less than that of a rifle. (see note
below) So any sort of judgment of past cost versus benefit (IE:
scrapping rifles versus potential soldier death) must be looked at
through period assessment of soldier life. Or, better said, it's NOT
that the Marine powers that be thought that the chances of failure were
low, it's that they didn't see the *consequences* (cost of soldier
death) of failure being high, so overall, the risk was acceptably low.
Keep the rifles. Replace the dead soldier as they fail."
by B.H. 1-11-09

[gew98]

Sorry I have to throw the BS flag on your cousins friend being killed by a low number, would like to know just when and where as well as the 2 firing pins being blown back. If you are not comfortable shooting low numbers or 1903's in general then don't but having personal experience with 3 failures puts the odds up there with getting hit by a meteor while riding a camel. By the way when a striker does break it causes the pin to stick out of the boltface not blow the striker rod out. As I said in an earlier post based on the information posted here it is not safe to shoot anything made before 1919 by the Gov't arsenals
Here's your BS flag . Both 03's that failed me on firing pins weere using a a quantity of 1940 dated ball in chargers in bandoliers. One rifle had a rusted pockmarked firing pin tip and the other did not. One was a 1918 dated Rock Island with USMC sites and hatcher hole. Other was a 1911 date springyfield. My friend trevor Lewis ...I was shown the obit and it was NY state back in the early 80's. Kids rifles went kaboom and it was a low number springyfield. Obit did not state that but trevor did from first hand knowledge. The 1903 is/was an ersatz rifle . It's akin to loading smokeless loads in a trapdoor and wondering why things went south. I've had a couple 96 & 98 long krags and a 99 carbine. They were fun and great shooters...just tiny target oriented sights . But WE all knew krags were not meant for uber hot loads and surplus ammo for them was collectable . And knowing krags had problems with craked bolt lugs common sense dictated cast boolits and or low end loads. So when you get hit by a meteor while riding a camel I told you so. Been there done that with them and I have a healthy respect to treat 03's like a potential trip to the morgue.

[gew98]

I'm with you 100% on this issue.

Hatcher is the authority on this issue, not de Haas.

And low numbered 03 are still coming apart when the threshold of safety is exceeded. What's the distance between safe and exceeded? I never heard of one blowing up on a wednesday so I'm only going to shoot mine on a wednesday so I'll be safe. The logic of Darwin candidates is heavy in this forum on this subject.

http://m1903.com/03rcvrfail/

The response to the above by a friend or mine:

"His article is a perfect example of making statistics tell the story you
want them to tell. While I'm not a statistician, I am a mechanical
engineer [NASA] who helps run a hazardous research and development test
operation. I not only have to know statistics but the limitations of
statistics. Often, it's my *** that's going to perforated by high speed
metal chunks if I get it wrong.

In his article, the good doctor shows that he has a good grasp of
statistics, but a poor understanding of the limitations of statistics.

In the article, he takes the known historical data and shows that based
on this data, firing a low-number M1903 is safer than a lot of common
activities. Absolutely true, based on the data at hand.

But here's the limitation - While his conclusion is true for the whole,
his conclusion is faulty for a particular single rifle.

Here's the problem - we don't have enough statistical data to determine
the distribution of M1903 low-number receiver strength. Looking at a
particular specimen, you cannot tell if it's better or worse than
average. Nor can you tell how much better or worse than it is from that
average.

Given the poor process control that Hatcher documented (heat treatment
by eye), I'd say that process variability is quite high, meaning that
there will be many guns that are much better than average. Conversely,
there will be many guns that are much worse than average.

Even if we knew the distribution, we don't know any fatigue behavior: we
don't know the relationship between heat-treatment-related-strength and
how many rounds of a known pressure that receiver design will take
before catastrophic failure at that strength. Could be one. Could be
one thousand. Could be infinite.

So it boils down to this - while on average, firing an M1903 is safer
than some average daily activities, firing a specific M1903 may be far
safer or far less safe. NO ONE CAN TELL!

While the doctor says I may have a 1 in 100,000 chance of one blowing
up, if that one in 100,000 happens to be the one in front of my face, I
have a 1 in 1 chance of getting hurt or killed.

Here's the other little tidbit I'll toss in there that the doctor
doesn't address. Back in Hatcher's time, the Government's assessment of
the worth of a soldier's life was pretty low. I'd bet that back then, a
soldier's life was viewed to be less than that of a rifle. (see note
below) So any sort of judgment of past cost versus benefit (IE:
scrapping rifles versus potential soldier death) must be looked at
through period assessment of soldier life. Or, better said, it's NOT
that the Marine powers that be thought that the chances of failure were
low, it's that they didn't see the *consequences* (cost of soldier
death) of failure being high, so overall, the risk was acceptably low.
Keep the rifles. Replace the dead soldier as they fail."
by B.H. 1-11-09
I agree... just let the banner waving fanboy types blow one up at this late date...just one.....thats all it takes. I collected japanese rifles at one time but NEVER would shoot the last ditch variants....same thing with VK & VG98's when I was into WW2 german rifles..... why take the chance to blow you or a friends head off ... why ?.

[JHeath]

Spare us the "banner waving fanboy types" rhetoric, it's not helpful. Dutchman's opinion carries a lot of weight with me, but his engineer friend must understand how scientific skepticism works.

I rig aerialists for performance and gauging risk is part of my work.

Say I heard there's a vampire in the graveyard that will drink your blood at night. Why take a chance going there? Only a Darwin-award candidate would take a needless risk, right?

The question is, which way does the presumption cut? Should we assume the story is true? Assuming the story is false is taking a needless risk.

But some people want to know if there really is a vampire in the graveyard. That's skepticism, and it's healthy.

I heard that Glocks Kb, a lot of them. Should we throw away all Glocks, or get to the bottom of the story? On one hand, why take the risk of shooting any Glock? On the other hand, why throw a way a good gun?

I heard that last-ditch Arisakas are iffy. I also heard this might be a misperception, confusion of actual Kbs of "school rifles" which are not the same as last-ditch Arisakas. Is it stupid for me to look into it? After all, why take a chance? Well why take a chance on shooting a Glock, or on meeting a vampire? Maybe the story is bunk, or true, or something in between.

What if the situation were that we didn't have the serial number range on the Springfields? Suppose all we know is that some Springfields are known to be brittle. So the cautious people would say don't shoot ANY Springfield, they are all wall hangers. But some daredevil did some research and he says it should only apply to certain low-number Springfields. He's got one in the 1.2 million range and he shoots it. Is he a Darwin-award candidate? Well it depends on the facts. And the slogan, "why take a chance?" doesn't always answer the question. If it did we'd all be wearing tinfoil hats.

The engineer is right about the possibility of meeting a 1:1 risk. But a 1:1 risk of what? Apparently the worst Springfield discovered by proof load Kb'd at 80,000lbs, and others Kb'd at "over 75,000lbs" due to 8x57 cartridges. The SAAMI limit for .30-06 is 50,000lbs.

From that, it appears the LNS's present an unknown statistical chance of encountering a rifle that won't survive a 50% overload.

[Hamish]

http://www.jouster.com/forums/showthread.php?14045-Blown-03-Receiver-From-GB/page7

Not presented as fuel or support for or against either side of the discussion, I simply found it interesting in context with this thread.

[lefty o]

lets look at things from another perspective. we all know some 03's have had catastrophic failures, and we all know people win the lottery. now you just have to ask yourself, how lucky do you feel. if you feel lucky, at least shoot it when no one else is around, so you dont have collateral damage, if by chance you got the winning #.
what i know of them is they were heated so hot during heat treatment, that the carbon was cooked out of the steel, making them brittle. i also understand that all metals have a limited fatigue life, and everytime you fire a rifle you impart stresses to the steel. so, rolling the dice if you happen to have one of them thats is a touch on the brittle side, its possible you could fire 5,000 rounds through it without a problem, its also possible that you might fire 5rnds before failure. now i imagine brittle steel, and i know when it fails, it doesnt require anywhere near 30,000 or 40,000PSI to explode. so do you have a ticking time bomb, or did you win the lottery? your gun, your face, your life, just dont shoot it near me!

[lefty o]

http://www.jouster.com/forums/showthread.php?14045-Blown-03-Receiver-From-GB/page7

Not presented as fuel or support for or against either side of the discussion, I simply found it interesting in context with this thread.

the pics on page 8 of that thread on jouster tell a heck of a lot.

[JHeath]

lets look at things from another perspective. we all know some 03's have had catastrophic failures, and we all know people win the lottery. . . now i imagine brittle steel, and i know when it fails, it doesnt require anywhere near 30,000 or 40,000PSI to explode. so do you have a ticking time bomb, or did you win the lottery? your gun, your face, your life, just dont shoot it near me!

I know some Glocks have had catastrophic failures. I know some N-frame Smiths have had catastrophic failures. Name every model that's had a Kb and you won't shoot anything.

Ross Rifle, anybody? Again, it's fact dependent. Assemble it correctly and it's fine. But they've killed people, so why take the chance? Maybe we should weld them all shut and wall-hang them. "Don't shoot them next to me!"

Do we know that the metallurgy of LNS's creates a risk of a low-pressure Kb? Or are we imagining that? Maybe you're right, I don't know. Or maybe this brittle steel degrading is on the level of being afraid of vampires.

I know, I know, "why take a risk?" I'm not talking about taking a risk. I am talking about having a conversation about what the risks really are, without somebody calling somebody else reckless for even asking the question.

[Multigunner]

Both 03's that failed me on firing pins weere using a a quantity of 1940 dated ball in chargers in bandoliers. One rifle had a rusted pockmarked firing pin tip and the other did not.
Using a rifle that had a "rusty pock marked" firing pin? That sounds like user error to me.
I expect that ammo may have been a contributing factor as well.
Milsurp ammo once its out of the can might degrade in many ways not obvious to the eye.
The most dangerously degraded ammo I've run across was 7.62 ammo not more than 10-15 years old at the time.

A .303 Enfield sent its firing pin shaft and cocking piece into the shooter's face awhile back, pierced primer blew the firing pin back hard enough to break off the collar despite the vent hole in the bolt head. Stuff happens when the shooter doesn't examine a used and abused rifle closely and replace any parts that should be replaced.

One piece firing pin conversions have been available for the Springfield 1903 since the 60's at least and probably before that.

As for the young man who died thats tragic, and points up something I've tried to impress on those who think any particular rifle has a perfect safety record. They demand "Documented evidence" then ignore it when its finally dug up and presented, much like the Wolf Huggers and with the same sort of sliding scale to increase the birden of proof.
Same goes for some STEN Gun fanboys who shall remain nameless. You can post cause of death "accidental discharge of STEN Gun" from news stories and official lists of casualties and first hand accounts by veteran British officers by the dozens to no avail.

PS
I'm still waiting to see some evidence that "the Sten Gun walks away with all the trophies" at submachine gun competitions.

[lefty o]

I know some Glocks have had catastrophic failures. I know some N-frame Smiths have had catastrophic failures. Name every model that's had a Kb and you won't shoot anything.

Ross Rifle, anybody? Again, it's fact dependent. Assemble it correctly and it's fine. But they've killed people, so why take the chance? Maybe we should weld them all shut and wall-hang them. "Don't shoot them next to me!"

Do we know that the metallurgy of LNS's creates a risk of a low-pressure Kb? Or are we imagining that? Maybe you're right, I don't know. Or maybe this brittle steel degrading is on the level of being afraid of vampires.

I know, I know, "why take a risk?" I'm not talking about taking a risk. I am talking about having a conversation about what the risks really are, without somebody calling somebody else reckless for even asking the question.

while glocks,smiths, even the old 1911 have all had KB's, they havent had catastrophic failure. much less failure due to metallurgy. in almost any other instance outside of the world of -03's, all the other firearm failures ive ever seen, or heard of can be directly related to bad ammunition(factory or handloads), plugged bores, or even wrong cartridge fired in the gun. so bringing up a glock in an -03 discussion, aint exactly apples to apples. virtually every model of firearm ever made has had failures, but only one i know of has ever been attributed to bad mettalurgy (the 1903 springfield). when comparing risks (everytime you pull a trigger, you take some risk), you do have to be realistic. if you know of mettalurgical failures of a glock, or smith&wesson, im all ears, but as of yet ive never heard of a single one. the risks realistically are, even if you have a low number 1903 that had all the carbon cooked out of it (not all of them are bad, just some)during heat treatment, there is a very realistic chance that it may never experience a failure, but at the same time the 1 in a million chance exists that it may fail catastrophically causing untold harm or death to the shooter, or innocent bystanders. this is why my take is hang it up, but if you choose to shoot it, dont do it near me. no one can force anyone to shoot or not shoot a low number 03, but at least think about it, and if you choose to do so be smart about it and dont endanger nearby people. of course i no longer shoot anyone else's reloads either, i learn after 1 mistake. roll your dice, take your chances.

[nhrifle]

I have a 1903 made by Springfield, SN in the high 200K (it's in the other room and I'm comfy or I would verify the actual number) that I have had for years. Shot countless numbers of rounds of military surplus and civilian ammo through it before I became an active rifle competition shooter, whereupon it became a dedicated shooter of cast boolits. The Lyman 311299 over 10 grains of Red Dot became my standard load, and with that load and that rifle I can clean an NRA 200 yard target on any given day. I think I was in my second year as a competitor when one of the guys looked at my rifle and told me I shouldn't shoot it. So I did the research and, lo and behold, my rifle was deemed to be unsafe to shoot.

I love that rifle. Yes, I know the risks, but I continue to shoot it to this day. It is my choice, and if the receiver lets go I will have no one to blame but myself. I feel confident that the rearward bolt thrust produced by my load is not significant enough to put any real stress on the bolt or receiver. I will not, however, fire any full house loads through it. That's why I also have a Remington 1903A3.

[JHeath]

"Metallurgical failure" depends on what you expected the metal to do. Stuff a Redhawk full of Bullseye and plug the barrel and it will suffer "metallurgical failure." But it will happen at maybe 250% of the design load.

It sounds like the worst of the LNS's will suffer metallurgical failure at 150% of the design load. From what I see, it took an abnormal load to Kb them, and the failure mode is cracking where bending would be preferable.

How does that compare to a lot of other guns we take for granted? That guy next to you at the range shooting the Iver-Johnson top break -- what's his margin of safety? Probably no better than a LNS but we don't freak out about it. The guy on the other side with the MAS 36, is his margin any better than 150%? I never bothered to check.

If an LNS can Kb with a normal load I share the concern. But it sounds like that's not the problem. It sounds like the problem is relative -- it blows at 150% when it's supposed to blow at 250%. IF that's correct, then maybe it's a manageable problem, just like a Redhawk is a manageable problem but with a greater margin.

Not that I'd bother to buy a LNS just to save a few bucks. But I am interested in how people over-perceive certain risks and never think about others. Like people afraid of flying but cheerfully riding in cars.

[Larry Gibson]

"while glocks,smiths, even the old 1911 have all had KB's, they havent had catastrophic failure. much less failure due to metallurgy. in almost any other instance outside of the world of -03's, all the other firearm failures ive ever seen, or heard of can be directly related to bad ammunition(factory or handloads), plugged bores, or even wrong cartridge fired in the gun. so bringing up a glock in an -03 discussion, aint exactly apples to apples. virtually every model of firearm ever made has had failures, but only one i know of has ever been attributed to bad mettalurgy (the 1903 springfield). when comparing risks (everytime you pull a trigger, you take some risk), you do have to be realistic. if you know of mettalurgical failures of a glock, or smith&wesson, im all ears, but as of yet ive never heard of a single one. the risks realistically are, even if you have a low number 1903 that had all the carbon cooked out of it (not all of them are bad, just some)during heat treatment, there is a very realistic chance that it may never experience a failure, but at the same time the 1 in a million chance exists that it may fail catastrophically causing untold harm or death to the shooter, or innocent bystanders. this is why my take is hang it up, but if you choose to shoot it, dont do it near me."

And that is the exact problem here; there is no proof any LSN'd '03 ever had a catastrophic failure due to "attributed to bad mettalurgy". Like all the others mentioned the cause was "directly related to bad ammunition(factory or handloads), plugged bores, or even wrong cartridge fired in the gun". That is exactly the same as you point out with all other firearms. It was also the exact point of my previous post.

As to the injuries of the LSN '03 failures compare all the injuries from "all the other firearm failures ive ever seen, or heard of". You will find them almost identical. The real "problem" if there actually is one, if from the fear mongering statements such as "but at the same time the 1 in a million chance exists that it may fail catastrophically causing untold harm or death to the shooter, or innocent bystanders. this is why my take is hang it up, but if you choose to shoot it, dont do it near me. no one can force anyone to shoot or not shoot a low number 03, but at least think about it, and if you choose to do so be smart about it and dont endanger nearby people."

Again, no dog in this fight as I don't own a LSN '03 (but would if the OP wants to give me his?) but I have shot a lot of service loads in a few and lots of cast bullet loads also (mostly the 311299 or 311284 over 4895 w/a Dacron filler of with surplus 4831). I choose to consider facts. The fact is shooting is inherently risky with any firearm. The actual accidents, firearm failures and injuries tell us that. Yet we all assume that risk. I do not make my decision based on emotional sentiments not based on facts. That is my decision, everyone is free to make their own w/o all the "whoa is me, the sky is falling, the world will end and you will kill everyone on the firing line by even thinking about shooting a LSN '03 talk".

If it so dangerous firing LSN '03s without using bad ammunition (I don't use that in any firearm), w/o having a bore obstruction (I go to great lengths to avoid that in every firearm) and w/o shooting the wrong ammunition in the '03 (I also go to great lengths to avoid that) Then show us the facts (not the emotions). Show us the documented failures of '03s w/o any of the above causes that just "failed" due to the metallurgy. Show us the documented fatalities of shooters and bystanders of such failures. Show us facts, not emotion. But again, your choice to shoot or not is yours, I could just do w/o the other is all.

Larry Gibson

[gnoahhh]

I'll side with Larry on this one. I have been shooting low # '03's for over 40 years with never an exciting moment, albeit with mostly low pressure cast loads- but that's pretty much 80-90% of my shooting with everything. If the failure rate of LN '03's is provably higher (from simple metal failure vs. "stupid human tricks") than any other rifle made in the millions, I'll jump off the bandwagon right quick. The only low number rifles I would automatically cast a wary eye upon would be those built after we got into WWI and before the heat treating was changed. The problem never raised its ugly head until they started running the heat treat department 24/7 and hired on a bunch of newbie heat treaters- leading to the infamous "shifting light phenomenon" blamed on the inaccuracy of the heat treating. I would actually be wary of any vintage Springfield fitted with an early straight handle bolt made with simple carburizing more so than the very early receiver it may be riding in, too. Statistically, any rifles made in quantities of hundreds of thousands or millions are sure to have failures- documented or not.

Edit: As for the unfortunate instances quoted above by our erstwhile forum member, my heartfelt sympathies go out to the lad who was killed when a LN rifle let go. But, how do we know for a fact 30+ years later that a hot-rodded handload or some other dumb trick that would have laid-low any rifle wasn't the cause of the blowup? Even eye witness accounts of the incident could easily be fudged in the interest of belaying blame away from some human being? I don't know, and neither can anybody else. Primers/cases in a batch of vintage ball ammo can be compromised to a fare-thee-well by improper storage or storage adjacent to nefarious chemicals the fumes of which could do un-noticeable harm to ammo components. Case in point: I stashed a couple bandoleers of nice clean 1950's British arsenal .303 MKVII ammo in a "junk" drawer along with a couple partial used bottles of Sweets 7.62 Bore Solvent. After lying neglected for the best part of a decade, when I went shoot up the ammo it was spotted with green verdigris (or something of that nature) that pretty much wiped clean with towels and steel wool. I had misfires, hangfires, and cases that cracked upon firing. It had to have been the ammonia vapors from the Sweets that caused it, since another couple bandoliers out of the same sealed case that were stored in a drawer across the room all by itself was perfectly fine and exhibited none of the squirrely behavior that the "contaminated" stuff did. I could've taken that spurious but nice looking ammo to a show and foisted it off on some poor unsuspecting schmuck and no one but me would have been the wiser. Instead, the remainder of the unfired ammo now lies under five years worth of garbage in a landfill somewhere.

[oldred]

Pointing to the "statistics" as proof is no more reliable here than anecdotal evidence simply because we don't have all the numbers, not even close! Does anyone honestly think that every incidence of every, if any, failure is documented? Gew98 points out a serious incident and gets BS called on him because someone else has never heard of it or can't find documented record of it, come on now! It's highly likely that there could have been many failures in the civilian sector that were never reported as such, especially from 50-60 years or so ago. It's a known fact these things were improperly built and they have a known defect, it was enough to cause serious concern to the military at the time. A military that had every reason to want to keep these rifles in service so they would have all kinds of incentive to find another reason for these failures, sure they were pressed into service but battlefield injuries from blown up rifles (if indeed there were any, who knows?) would likely have been just listed as causalities of the battle, would any of the brass been willing to admit substandard rifles were pressed into service?


The bottom line is most of the rifles are probably ok but some are not and if you have one of those that is not all the statistics anyone can dredge up is not going to protect the shooter, it's a guessing game as to which ones are safe but the potential results of guessing wrong could be catastrophic! This is a known defect and it's irresponsible for someone to downplay the hazards to others just because they don't want to believe it themselves!

[lefty o]

seems no one wanted to look at the link put up to the jouster page, one look at page 8 of that will tell you a complete different story to compare against other guns blowing up. guns with good steel in them dont shatter into pieces like that. good steel bends to failure, it doesnt shatter like that. if something can shatter like that, you are sitting on a grenade. if your all brave enough, hey its your eye's/life, not mine, but dont shoot it around me.

[oldred]

Sure some of us looked at it and it's well worth checking out but those who don't want to admit there's a problem will find a way to dismiss that evidence just like all the rest, as for the rest of us it was just more evidence of what we were already aware of. In any case thanks for posting that as it's a real eye opener (or permanent eye closer as the case may be!) and I am sure lots of folks saw it. That very well may have been one of those undocumented cases I firmly believe are out there and if so how many more are there? When one of these things blows up, and it apparently does happen as evidenced by that link, and no one is seriously injured would it be logical to think it would become part of the documented statistics either way? Obviously these things are not blowing up everyday in mass numbers but if a person owns one and decides to shoot it how many times and just how often would it need to blow up, really? Obviously it has happened in the past and apparently fairly recently so I ask again is it not being quite irresponsible to downplay this very real hazard and recommend to others they ignore the warnings?

[oldred]

Hatcher also made an observation on the 1903 receivers:

"It is almost startling to note how sharply the failures stop about the numbers marking the change in heat treatment, that is, at approximately No. 800,000 for Springfield and No. 285,507 for Rock Island, in spite of the fact that the record continued for twelve years after this change in heat treatment went into effect."


If I am reading this right Hatcher is pointing out that it is "startling" how sharply the failure rate dropped during the next twelve years after the heat treating method was changed, and that does not mean anything at all?

[oldred]

Try to laugh it down if you like but Hatcher's note "it's startling to note how sharply the failures stop about the numbers marking the change in heat treatment," (the higher numbered rifles) pretty much tells the story.

[Larry Gibson]

seems no one wanted to look at the link put up to the jouster page, one look at page 8 of that will tell you a complete different story to compare against other guns blowing up. guns with good steel in them dont shatter into pieces like that. good steel bends to failure, it doesnt shatter like that. if something can shatter like that, you are sitting on a grenade. if your all brave enough, hey its your eye's/life, not mine, but dont shoot it around me.

I did bother to look at that thread as I've looked at it before. On page 8 I believe you are referring to the blown LSN '03 in post #73(?). Here's the photo of the blown case that caused the damage. Note it was that round that caused the damage not the poor heat treatment of the receiver. Given the apparent very high pressure that round generated I am amazed that LSN '03 held together as well as it did. Note on the photo below (same one as in that thread/post) the indication of extremely high pressure in the expanded primer pocket, the expanded case head and the rupture at the case head. Also note that even though the claim is "normal load" the case to the right is not the same head stamp as the ruptured case and probably was "normal". It should be blatantly obvious the ruptured case was because of an SEE, extreme overload or a bore obstruction. It was the ruptured case that destroyed the gun. The heat treatment of the receiver did not cause the destruction.

"Good steels" do shatter and cause very similar destruction of newly made and newly designed firearms when the cause is the same as we see in this case. There was a site that showed numerous such destroyed modern firearms with quality steel and heat treatment. The injuries to the shooters in those were similar as with the reported LSN '03 shown. I will look for it and post it if I find it. If anyone else has that site please post. It will be very enlightening to the unenlightened.

Larry Gibson

110617

[Larry Gibson]

Try to laugh it down if you like but Hatcher's note "it's startling to note how sharply the failures stop about the numbers marking the change in heat treatment," (the higher numbered rifles) pretty much tells the story.

It's also "startling to note" how the failures stopped once that bad lot of ammunition was used up. Coincidentily that occurred just about the time the DHT receivers started to be really used. Also note Hatcher lists several similar failures with DHT receivers. Point is the "failure" was not of the receiver but of the ammunition used or from bore obstructions (still a common problem in the services). The Ordnance department goes to great lengths to ensure quality of ammunition these day, unlike they did back then. Any defect shown to be ammunition caused which can cause damage to weapons or personal and the entire lot is recalled and destroyed period.

Larry Gibson

[oldred]

Hatcher specifically pointed out the sharp drop in failures in rifles SO MARKED under the numbers when the change in heat treatment occurred, ["startling to note how sharply the FAILURES STOP ABOUT THE NUMBERS MARKING CHANGE IN HEAT TREATMENT"], clearly he was referring to receivers with low numbers and not about the time the change was made in ammunition. You then state definitively that the failure was of the ammunition and not the receiver when you have no way of knowing that! You might, or might not, be correct but your OPINION is not a definitive fact, Hatcher was clearly referring to the LSN receivers when he made that statement so it would seem his opinion is somewhat different than yours.

[Larry Gibson]

Oldred

I grow weary of this thread. Look at the ruptured case.....would the rifle have been destroyed had that case not ruptured? I'm done.....tired of [smilie=b:. Simply don't shoot any then...........

Larry Gibson

[timspawn]

Oldred

I grow weary of this thread. Look at the ruptured case.....would the rifle have been destroyed had that case not ruptured? I'm done.....tired of [smilie=b:. Simply don't shoot any then...........

Larry Gibson

Larry,
I'd lock this thread if I could. I've never opened a can of worms this big.

[45 2.1]

I've shot the earliest CF cartridge guns on up. You have to have some clue they are OLD and have had a lot of time to have more problems than they were made with..... Yes, metallurgy was in it's infancy back then up somewhere well past WWII. You also have to realize some people use current commercial ammo to shoot in these firearms.... some bad juju can happen since some of these things weren't meant for the updated pressure levels some of these cartridges have not withstanding the clueless shooters we see making some of the simplest of errors these days. I have shot and will continue to shoot all these rifles with ammo appropriate for their age, condition and metallurgical inadequacies that they have........................... all it takes is knowledge of what to do and what not to do.

[Dutchman]

And that is the exact problem here; there is no proof any LSN'd '03 ever had a catastrophic failure due to "attributed to bad mettalurgy". Like all the others mentioned the cause was "directly related to bad ammunition(factory or handloads), plugged bores, or even wrong cartridge fired in the gun".

Do you know how time consuming it is to correct your incorrect statements?

Since heat treatment changes the physical characteristics of metal we have to accept that as part and parcel of metallurgy.

Please excuse my very abbreviated annotations below. If I was billing you @ $35/hour I'd include the whole of the text but you're cheap and won't pay so make do:-)

656701: not properly case hardened.....materal used appears unrefined...

312249: same as 656701

486640: defective heat treatment

108448: defective material composing the barrel. (signed by metallurgist)

217794: not been properly heat treated...

658742: material used in manufacture of this rifle barrel was very undesireable... slag inclusions..

666263, 662284: not been given proper heat treatment... phosphorus and sulpher content too high...

177232: ..inconclusion, it may be stated that the opinion of this armory is that regardless of what causes such as defective cartridge cases may have contributed to the failure, the ultimate responsibility for the accident is due to the poor receiver, as with a good receiver the accident would not have happened.

326222: improper heat treatment.....lacked shock resisting qualities....improper assembly.

608498: slag streaks in barrel.

146184: receiver not properly heat treated, was too brittle to be suitable for this component. It cannot be said that any receiver would have held, although no broken receivers of Springfield Armory's late manufacture have been returned to this establishment.

759943: barrel contained burnt steel... excessive heating in the upsetting operation...internal oxidation... (signed by metallurgist)

971779: seam in barrel

The above notes and the rest of Hatcher's Notebook are hereby presented as evidence to refute your erroneous statement: "there is no proof any LSN'd '03 ever had a catastrophic failure due to "attributed to bad mettalurgy"...


Read down to "heat treatment"....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metallurgy

Please, Larry, for the sake of all mankind.... [smilie=s:

http://images61.fotki.com/v666/photos/4/28344/12582412/1132719_f496-vi.jpg

[DeanWinchester]

If I had it, I would pull the barrel and get me a green mountain .452 barrel and fit it to the action with a .45 acp chamber. Knock out the magazine floor plate and fab me up a block to accept 1911 magazines. Inlet the stock and hand guard to fit the new barrel and party on. You'll never hurt the thing with standard .45 acp loads.

I did this very same thing once with a Spanish FR-8 that had been in a house fire. Totally unsafe for .308. It was a really sweet shooter in .45 acp.

[oldred]

Oldred

I grow weary of this thread. Look at the ruptured case.....would the rifle have been destroyed had that case not ruptured? I'm done.....tired of [smilie=b:. Simply don't shoot any then...........

Larry Gibson


There is no point in taking offense, this is a situation where there are rifles out there that someone may be debating on whether or not to shoot but the results of making the wrong decision could easily be catastrophic so it does merit discussion of both points of view. What we know is we have been warned for many years from credible sources that these rifles are not safe to shoot, it is a known fact they were improperly heat treated and/or damaged from overheating during the forging process, that fact can not be disputed, so the defect is well known and not just a myth! The debate is whether it is worth the risk to assume that these poorly heat treated rifles are safe to shoot IN SPITE of this known defect, much evidence indicates that while some may be others are not. Trying to "second guess" the people who have warned us for years, indeed even people who were involved in analyzing what was wrong, and stating definitively the warnings are without merit and that the failures are due to another cause could possibly result in a serious accident.

It would seem it is up to the owner to "spin the wheel" and place his bet on whether or not he has one of the bad ones and whether or not it's next round could be the one that rings it's bell!

[DeanWinchester]

Smart, and would work just be a bit long of a action
It needs a long ejector to work perfectly but you'd be surprised how well the FR8 worked.
The length needed to accommodate the 1911 magazine will eat up a lot that long action.

[Multigunner]

If I had it, I would pull the barrel and get me a green mountain .452 barrel and fit it to the action with a .45 acp chamber.

A few .45 ACP carbines were built on the 1903 actions for test purposes. They used a target type re4ceiver mounted rear sight. Don't know what they did about the magazine, I don't think they fitted a pistol mag.

[oldred]

If I had it, I would pull the barrel and get me a green mountain .452 barrel and fit it to the action with a .45 acp chamber. Knock out the magazine floor plate and fab me up a block to accept 1911 magazines. Inlet the stock and hand guard to fit the new barrel and party on. You'll never hurt the thing with standard .45 acp loads.

I did this very same thing once with a Spanish FR-8 that had been in a house fire. Totally unsafe for .308. It was a really sweet shooter in .45 acp.



That certainly would solve the problem nicely because it would preclude anyone from firing high pressure ammunition in it, full pressure loads would always remain a possibility if it is left in it's original cambering for use with reduced loads. The fact is the rifles were here before any of us were even born and barring any political stupidity they will still be here long after we are all gone so who's to say what someone would eventually load it with. While it may, or may not (probably would), be safe with a current owner using it for reduced loads full power loads could eventually find their way into it.

[DeanWinchester]

That certainly would solve the problem nicely because it would preclude anyone from firing high pressure ammunition in it, full pressure loads would always remain a possibility if it is left in it's original cambering for use with reduced loads. The fact is the rifles were here before any of us were even born and barring any political stupidity they will still be here long after we are all gone so who's to say what someone would eventually load it with. While it may, or may not (probably would), be safe with a current owner using it for reduced loads full power loads could eventually find their way into it.


Yep and if'n you use some vintage magazines and ammo, you couldn't call it a blaspheming bastardized rifle like some people consider sporterized rifles.

[gew98]

Do you know how time consuming it is to correct your incorrect statements?

Since heat treatment changes the physical characteristics of metal we have to accept that as part and parcel of metallurgy.

Please excuse my very abbreviated annotations below. If I was billing you @ $35/hour I'd include the whole of the text but you're cheap and won't pay so make do:-)

656701: not properly case hardened.....materal used appears unrefined...

312249: same as 656701

486640: defective heat treatment

108448: defective material composing the barrel. (signed by metallurgist)

217794: not been properly heat treated...

658742: material used in manufacture of this rifle barrel was very undesireable... slag inclusions..

666263, 662284: not been given proper heat treatment... phosphorus and sulpher content too high...

177232: ..inconclusion, it may be stated that the opinion of this armory is that regardless of what causes such as defective cartridge cases may have contributed to the failure, the ultimate responsibility for the accident is due to the poor receiver, as with a good receiver the accident would not have happened.

326222: improper heat treatment.....lacked shock resisting qualities....improper assembly.

608498: slag streaks in barrel.

146184: receiver not properly heat treated, was too brittle to be suitable for this component. It cannot be said that any receiver would have held, although no broken receivers of Springfield Armory's late manufacture have been returned to this establishment.

759943: barrel contained burnt steel... excessive heating in the upsetting operation...internal oxidation... (signed by metallurgist)

971779: seam in barrel

The above notes and the rest of Hatcher's Notebook are hereby presented as evidence to refute your erroneous statement: "there is no proof any LSN'd '03 ever had a catastrophic failure due to "attributed to bad mettalurgy"...


Read down to "heat treatment"....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metallurgy

Please, Larry, for the sake of all mankind.... [smilie=s:

http://images61.fotki.com/v666/photos/4/28344/12582412/1132719_f496-vi.jpg

Man what a post...I coughed my beer out my nose when I got to the "stickpeople" !.

[JHeath]

It pains me to see Larry Gibson and Dutchman, both of whom I like and respect from afar, at odds. I cannot see where they disagree. If an LNS with slag inclusions blew up at 150% pressure using 8x57 ammo, and a high-number Springfield would have survived, then bad metallurgy contributed decisively to the Kb. But the rifle might have been fired with the proper ammunition in relative safety. Both can be true.

It's indisputable that an indeterminate number of LNS's might have burnt steel, and cannot be identified.


The facts appear to be that this might result in failure at 150% of normal load, when they were supposed to fail at 250% of normal load.


Everything beyond that appears unproven and maybe hype. I resist hype, and I think Larry does too. Aging steel, risk of failure at 40k lbs, etc. people seem to be repeating these ideas from other people who, as far I can tell, pulled it from their hats. It sounds to me like a mix of fact and imagination. It's not clear to me that the worst LNS is any more dangerous than a lot of old guns that we never question because nobody documented whether they were forged at the correct temperature in the Remington factory or the Iver-Johnson factory a century ago.

Sometimes it's a fine line between heeding warnings from experienced people, and being cowed by people who never questioned orthodoxy. "Why take the risk?" Because if you don't decide for yourself, you'll live your life boxed in by other people's fears. And that's not what shooting is about.

[45 2.1]

Aging steel, risk of failure at 40k lbs, etc. people seem to be repeating these ideas from other people who, as far I can tell, pulled it from their hats. It sounds to me like a mix of fact and imagination.

Sometimes it's a fine line between heeding warnings from experienced people, and being cowed by people who never questioned orthodoxy. "Why take the risk?" Because if you don't decide for yourself, you'll live your life boxed in by other people's fears. And that's not what shooting is about.

People repeat what they heard or read without finding out what the real story is. That happens a whole lot.... here and many other places. If you look in the Lyman manuals, the 30-06 is a very well documented cartridge with cast and jacketed. There are a bunch of starting loads in the 25K pressure range if you're a nervous type person.

[lefty o]

the problem is, if you've got a brittle one, it may not handle the next 25,000psi put through it. 25K isnt exactly low pressure when its let loose.

[John 242]

110641
Not my picture. It was taken by Blastit37:
http://castboolits.gunloads.com/showthread.php?181256-Channeling-P-O-Mauser-blow-up-project/page3

This was a former 1903A3 drill rifle, that had been welded at one time or another, although the heat affected zone was said to have been restricted to the recoil lug area.
Apparently, cause of death was due to an overcharge of AA5744 (60 grains).

What I find interesting is how the receiver fragmented in a similar way to the low serial number rifles.

... a little post script.
Here's a picture of a A bolt that had a .308 Win fired in its .25-06 chamber. This one also looks like it shattered.
110644

[nhrifle]

Just a passing thought and a question for those more knowledgeable on the subject than I am. If a low number receiver is determined to be too hard and thus brittle, would it be possible and safe to fully anneal the receiver to soften and stress-relieve it, then properly heat treat with modern equipment and techniques?

[Larry Gibson]

Dutch

Nice play on words with the last sentence of mine you quoted. Problem is you've taken it out of context as you've deleted the quotation marks from my original sentence. I was quoting someone else. Nice play on words and twisting meanings though as you've listed M1093 "rifles" mentioned in "Hatchers Notebook", some with defective barrels. However, the content of this thread centers on the receivers being defective. Nice try though.

However, I've taken the time (you want to pay me $35/hour?) to add to your descriptions with quotes from Hatcher's Notebook which you so thoughtfully neglected to put in. From the complete descriptions we see that Hatcher was correct in his assessment on the direct causes of the damaged rifles; defective cartridges (excessive pressure or case head failure), burst barrels, use of wrong ammunition and bore obstructions.

656701: not properly case hardened.....materal used appearsunrefined...

Rifle had been fired “252 rounds” and “Note; Rifle burst while in use for proof of .30 caliber ball cartridges.”.......”It is the opinion of this Armory that the bursts reported are primarily due to the causes indicated in this paragraph (cartridge cases not up to standard).....”

312249: same as 656701

Same as for 656701

486640: defective heat treatment

No record of rifle being fired when it “broke”. No mention of this rifle “bursting” during firing.
108448: defective material composing the barrel. (signed by metallurgist)

You betcha, a burst barrel. Absolutely nothing to do with the heat treatment of the receiver.

217794: not been properly heat treated...

Uh, not quite; “the reason for rifle 217794 bursting at the receiver is in all probability in accordance with the facts as stated in report attached hereto. The firing pin rod was evidently broken and allowed the striker point to project thru the firing pinhole of the bolt. Therefore, when the bolt was thrown smartly forward, thus allowing the striker point to come in contact with the cartridge primer before the cartridge reached its position in the chamber, a premature explosion occurred, causing the rupture of the receiver.”

Thus a cartridge fired out of battery was the cause. Are you postulating a modern, well heat treated action is safe to fire out of battery and would survive in better condition? Lots of slam fired M1s, AKs, SKSs, M1As and AR15s that would disagree……..

658742: material used in manufacture of this rifle barrel was very undesireable...slag inclusions..

This rifle had fired 10,890 rounds. “Rifle burst about 2” from the muzzle.” “It is the conclusion of the laboratory that the metal used in the manufacture of this rifle barrel……The metal contained numerous long slag inclusions.”

Obviously it was the barrel that burst on this rifle not the receiver.

666263, 662284: not been given proper heat treatment... phosphorus and sulphercontent too high...

“Bolt head broken on face and one lug knocked off.” Rifle failed during accuracy tests of Armor piercing cartridges.”

Obviously testing ammunition that had high pressure problems at Lindsay Arsenal, Canada. Had the receiver just burst on its own the bolts would not have sustained such damage.

177232: ..in conclusion, it may be stated that the opinion of this armory is that regardless of what causes such as defective cartridge cases may have contributed to the failure, the ultimate responsibility for the accident is due to the poor receiver, as with a good receiver the accident would not have happened.

“Hand loaded ammunition using 48.9 grains of powder, service bullet.”
“Probable cause: 1. (a.) Excessive pressure.
(b.) Failure of the cartridge head, possibly due to lamination or other defect.”
2. The chances are that a somewhat excessive pressure, combined with a defective cartridge, allowed the gas to escape into the receiver well and disrupt the receiver.”

326222: improper heat treatment.....lacked shock resisting qualities....improper assembly.

That is “Second (cause), improper assembly of the receiver, bolt and barrel.” This is one with the “GuardCartridge”. We do not know the actual cause of destruction as the report does not state whether the cartridge ruptured or not. If it was not the cartridge we would have to say if the rifle had been assembled correctly the receiver may not have “shattered”. With this one we just don’t know as sufficient information is lacking.

608498: slag streaks in barrel.

Another burst barrel with nothing happening to the receiver.

146184: receiver not properly heat treated, was too brittle to be suitable for this component. It cannot be said that any receiver would have held, although no broken receivers of Springfield Armory's late manufacture have been returned to this establishment.

“Ammunition; Pyro blank cartridge s and combination rifle andhand grenade “white phosphorous.”

“Probable Cause; Excessive pressure …….It cannot be said that any receiver would have held……..”

759943: barrel contained burnt steel... excessive heating in the upsetting operation...internal oxidation... (signed by metallurgist)

“Nature of failure; Barrel burst…..”

Another burst barrel. Nothing noted on the receiver bursting.

971779: seam in barrel

“Nature of failure; Barrel failed.”

Another burst barrel and again no mention of the receiver shattering.

I was trying to back out of this thread before you entered. Seems is you who are beating the dead horse, eh? Those who are going to shoot LSN'd M1903s will do so regardless of what you or I say. Can we stop this now[smilie=b:?

BTW; I find the "cheap" as quite humorous, how on earth did you come up with that?

So in closing; how about okay, I agree with all of the doomdayers. Bad juju to shoot a LSN'd M1903. I won't do it (probably because I don't have one:sad:) so why should anyone else? By golly if anyone shows up at a range I'm on I'll just head for the hills screaming death and destruction is about to happen and watch for the mushroom cloud in my rear view mirror. By golly you guys sure got it figured out as I must have been stepping over so many bloody bodies before with disintegrated LSN'd '03 in their hands (or what was left of their hands) and am lucky to have survived being in the same state let alone the same county when a LSN'd M1903 was shot. Thanks to you guys I will probably now live much longer and be around here a whole lot more with you guys......what a good time, eh?

Larry Gibson

[JHeath]

the problem is, if you've got a brittle one, it may not handle the next 25,000psi put through it. 25K isnt exactly low pressure when its let loose.

Where did you get the 25K figure? Because if you just pulled it out of the air, stop doing that.

[Bullshop]

This now seems rather silly that some that wont shoot one want to convince some that will not to and some that will shoot one want to convince some that wont to do so.
I think everyone that has commented knows the history so why is it not OK for everyone to decide for themselves either to shoot them or not to.
All the red in the face ranting seems well rather silly since I doubt there has been even one convert made on either side of the issue. Since all have the same information why would anyone feel that they have to convince someone with an opposite opinion that "" you are wrong and I am wright"". Some of you guy need to get away from the keyboard and go shooting more often. Maybe cut some wood that works for me.

[lefty o]

Where did you get the 25K figure? Because if you just pulled it out of the air, stop doing that.

why? 25k is as good a number as any, and i dont see what it matters as the vast majority of whats being said here is purely arbitrary!it is just merely to point out that even a low pressure cast load may have the potential to be the final round when the reciever finally has fatigued enough and fails. oh , well this is almost as bad as arguing religion, now im getting told what i can and cant write. some of you guys are too much. lol

[gnoahhh]

This now seems rather silly that some that wont shoot one want to convince some that will not to and some that will shoot one want to convince some that wont to do so.
I think everyone that has commented knows the history so why is it not OK for everyone to decide for themselves either to shoot them or not to.
All the red in the face ranting seems well rather silly since I doubt there has been even one convert made on either side of the issue. Since all have the same information why would anyone feel that they have to convince someone with an opposite opinion that "" you are wrong and I am wright"". Some of you guy need to get away from the keyboard and go shooting more often. Maybe cut some wood that works for me.

Best advice yet. Me, I'll continue shooting both my pre-war sporters built on LSN receivers, as well as my pretty little pre-WWI Rock Island M1903. It's too bloody hot/humid here today to do that though (or cut firewood).

Personally, I welcome debates like this. They usually scare people into parting with their LSN death traps at discount rates. Yum yum!

[JHeath]

Can anybody point to documentation of LSN's failing lower than 80k, or at a rate higher than other rifles of the era?

See this thread:
http://castboolits.gunloads.com/showthread.php?106437-Catastrophic-Failure-Swedish-Mauser-m-1896

If Bill et al. are correct, "metal fatigue" just means "crack spreading under repeated cycling." If there's no crack, there's no metal fatigue.

It sounds like shooting an LNS that passes a dye penetrant test for cracks is probably safer than shooting a Swede Mauser that hasn't been tested for cracks, which a lot of us would do.

The more I learn about it, the LNS sounds like a manageable risk, comparable to a lot of other risks we consider reasonable.

Next time a friend offers to let you fire a few rounds from his Swede/Krag/Rolling Block, will you refuse if he hasn't dye-tested it?

[45 2.1]

If Bill et al. are correct, "metal fatigue" just means "crack spreading under repeated cycling." If there's no crack, there's no metal fatigue.

That would be wrong...........................

[lefty o]

anyone who thinks if metal has no crack=it has not fatigued, your crazy!

[MtGun44]

Metal fatigue is a failure caused by cyclic loading. After a number of cycles,
a crack forms at the highest stress point, and after that, the crack increases in
depth in small incriments with each cycle. The crack begins to accelerate the
process because the crack tip concentrates the stresses greatly.

It would seem that these failures are all catastrophic failures of intact guns, not
the end stage failures of a fatigue situation where the small area of remaining
metal fails. BUT without examining the fracture surface for the obvious signs
of fatigue, this is unknown for sure.

IMO, there are so few documented cases of failures of LSN 1903s WITHOUT SOME
SERIOUS OVERPRESSURE CAUSED BY SOME PREVENTABLE CAUSE that it would seem
that AT MINIMUM they would be fine for cast boolit loads, and PROBABLY with normal
handloads at 50,000 psi. If I had one, I'd confidently shoot low pressure cast loads.

If a person isn't comfortable with this, SELL IT and move on.

Bill

[M-Tecs]

anyone who thinks if metal has no crack=it has not fatigued, your crazy!

Guess I am crazy. JHeath & MtGunn 44 have it correct. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatigue_(material)

In materials science (http://castboolits.gunloads.com/wiki/Materials_science), fatigue is the weakening of a material caused by repeatedly applied loads. It is the progressive and localized structural damage that occurs when a material is subjected to cyclic loading. The nominal maximum stress (http://castboolits.gunloads.com/wiki/Stress_(physics)) values that cause such damage may be much less than the strength of the material typically quoted as the ultimate tensile stress limit (http://castboolits.gunloads.com/wiki/Tensile_strength), or the yield stress limit (http://castboolits.gunloads.com/wiki/Tensile_strength).
Fatigue occurs when a material is subjected to repeated loading and unloading. If the loads are above a certain threshold, microscopic cracks will begin to form at the stress concentrators such as the surface, persistent slip bands (PSBs), and grain interfaces.[1] (http://castboolits.gunloads.com/#cite_note-Laird-1) Eventually a crack will reach a critical size, the crack will propagate suddenly, and the structure will fracture. The shape of the structure will significantly affect the fatigue life; square holes or sharp corners will lead to elevated local stresses where fatigue cracks can initiate. Round holes and smooth transitions or fillets will therefore increase the fatigue strength of the structure.

http://www.materialsengineer.com/CA-fatigue.htm


Metal fatigue is caused by repeated cycling of of the load. It is a progressive localized damage due to fluctuating stresses and strains on the material. Metal fatigue cracks initiate and propagate in regions where the strain is most severe. The process of fatigue consists of three stages:


Initial crack initiation
Progressive crack growth across the part
Final sudden fracture of the remaining cross section


http://www.burgoynes.com/content/what-metal-fatigue



Metal fatigue is the relatively slow growth of cracks through metal structures or objects. For it to occur the object must be subjected to a tensile, cyclic load. In other words, there must be some force tending to pull the object apart and the force must vary over time. These conditions occur with rotating or vibrating machinery and when sea-going vessels are worked in the seaways.



Fatigue cracks are very slow to develop initially but their rate of growth increases dramatically as the crack grows. In essence, this acceleration results from a localised increase in the stress at the top of the expanding crack, which comes about quite naturally because the forces on the object are supported by an ever-diminishing cross-sectional area.

[lefty o]

where cracks develope, its has already been fatigued, hence you do not have to have cracks for the metal to have been fatigued.

[M-Tecs]

Please site your engineering or scientific source that Metal fatigue is something other than the relatively slow growth of cracks through metal structures or objects.

[Larry Gibson]

Please site your engineering or scientific source that Metal fatigue is something other than the relatively slow growth of cracks through metal structures or objects.

No sense trying to confuse some with facts; some make up there own definitions and even make up terms to go with the made up definitions. Yes, JHeath & MtGunn 44 have it correct as do you.

Larry Gibson

[gew98]

anyone who thinks if metal has no crack=it has not fatigued, your crazy!

I agree . I have done alot of hoisting and rigging over the years and have had equipment fail that hod no cracks...SH#T happens when under load(s) over time. And starting with a known inferior product..why would any sane person push that envelope ?.

[M-Tecs]

I have done alot of hoisting and rigging over the years and have had equipment fail that hod no cracks....

How current were the Non-destructive testing (NDT)/Nondestructive inspection (NDI) certifications? For lifting devices the most common NDT methods are:

• Magnetic Particle Inspection
• Dye or Liquid Penetrant Inspection
• Ultrasonic Testing
• Radiographic testing (x-ray)

Which methods were used for the certification and what were the defect limits? If not NDT’ed they should have been load tested at a minimum.

On lifting devices normally visual cracks take it out of service but you may be allowed some microscopic cracking that shows on the NDT inspections.

Most people probably would not fly if they knew how many cracks aircaft are allowed to fly with.

[lefty o]

you guys have never bent a piece of steel, and straightened it? im sure you have, no cracks (in good steel- at least the first few times you bend it), but it has been fatigued. achieving a crack, is just showing something has reached the point of failure. a crack is just visible evidence of mettalurgical failure, something can still be fatigued in absense of a crack. which brings us all the way back to, just because a low# 03 reciever doesnt have a crack, does not make it safe, or unsafe. there is no 100% way to be certain short of a reciever failing during use, or destructive testing.

[JHeath]

And starting with a known inferior product..why would any sane person push that envelope ?.

HA! (that's a friendly laugh). Inferior to what? What is the strongest bolt rifle ever made? Maybe the Arisaka. Why shoot the second strongest, or the third? Gew98 of all people wants to shelve every rifle that's not an Arisaka, because why would any sane person push that envelope?

[insert mischievous icon holding a sign that says I'll buy you beer later for all this teasing]

Daredevils continue to shoot their pre-war Model 70s, or Weatherbys, or A-Squares, when they could be shooting a nice, safe Arisaka.

You're talking to a bunch of guys who like to shoot Rolling Blocks and Danish Krags etc. but can hardly keep the models straight, and don't magnaflux them between each round. Who knows what the metallurgical spec was for most of these rifles, let alone the conformance rate.

The Springfield is controversial because somebody bothered to tell us the spec, and shared the fact that they didn't all meet it.

The controversy does not seem to have originated in blow-ups. From what I see the Swedish Mauser may have a worse record of unexplained blowups with injuries, which surprises me.

[M-Tecs]

something can still be fatigued in absense of a crack.

Again please site your engineering or scientific source that Metal fatigue is something other than the relatively slow growth of cracks through metal structures or objects.

[lefty o]

Again please site your engineering or scientific source that Metal fatigue is something other than the relatively slow growth of cracks through metal structures or objects.the very word fatigue, means to have lost strength. a crack is a failure. at the point something cracks, its has gone past fatigue.

[Mooseman]

SO here we have almost a million serial numbers of 03's and and less than 1/10 of 1% failures.
I think of all the 03's that were shot daily on battlefields in WW1 and WW2 and they still survived.
The report I read years ago recommended using only M2 Ball ammo in the low serial number guns or low pressure reloads.
I can tell you from years of Gunsmithing/ Machine shop work that metal can fatigue or fail without warning and showing no prior signs that are visible to the eye or even high power magnification. Some steels depend on elasticity while others depend on the microcrystaline structure / heat treat strength to perform to the specifications needed for the application to withstand stress and loads placed on them.

[Multigunner]

Not a metallurgists but I have read that the advantages of some alloying agents is that they create a condition where micro fractures will come to a dead end rather than continue to propagate. I think Vanadium may be one of these.
I have looked into the use of Vanadium in steels and its an interesting story.
Swedish Iron ores contained Vanadium as a contaminant bonded to a number of other contaminents.
Studies of ancient Viking swords revealed that the best quality blades contained vanadium, and these could be bent nearly double without cracking.
The steel of early Swedish Mausers contained some residual Vanadium but by 1915 or so steel makers were separating out the contaminants and purifying the vanadium then re introducing it to create a true Vanadium Steel.
Oodly enough the first widespread use of Vanadium Steel was by the Ford Motor company to make the frame and suspensions of the Model T Ford automobile.

Near as I can tell no WW1 era rifles other than the Swedish Mauser had any Vanadium in their make up. So it would appear that all these are more subject to metal fatigue than more modern fire arms.

Other alloying agents such as Molybdenum have similar qualities. Trace amounts of copper have some beneficial effects as well.

The manner in which the alloying agents are introduced also makes a difference to how effective these are.

I also found that exposure to nitrogen compounds under pressure embrittles iron plating and results in failures of pipes and vessels.
Perhaps this effects steels as well. Nitriding of rifle and machinegun bores cuts down on erosion. All rifle propellants produce nitrious compounds.

[fouronesix]

Interesting thread. Good points from many angles. Multigunner, good insight there. In gross, lay terms I guess it's something like brittleness vs elasticity. I knew about the "Ulfberht" Viking blades which were likely fashioned from a type of "Eastern" steel acquired via trade routes. Interesting about the Vanadium in the source Swedish steel ore and may explain why that steel acts the way it does under extreme stress.

I've always avoided the low serialed 03s, so have never worried about it one way or the other. I do shoot a high number 03 and a couple of 03A3s and don't worry about it but shoot primarily cast in them and never hot rod anyway.

[UBER7MM]

Secrets of the Viking Sword (2012) full Documentary
(ulfberht) 54 minutes

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nXbLyVpWsVM

[gnoahhh]

Henry Ford found through trial-and-error (that he personally took part in) that the very best steel for the "wishbone" that was the key to making the flimsy Model-T chassis work was best made from a high vanadium alloy. An added expense that he insisted upon bearing, that contributed to the overall success of the Model-T.

I have a Mill's belt filled with cast loads (18gr. SR-4759/180 gr. bullet) that will be fed through my LN Rock Island '03 this afternoon. If y'all don't hear from me tomorrow, you know what happened!

[Bullshop]

Exactly my feelings as well!

[MtGun44]

Fatigue is a metallurgical term that has a precise meaning. It DOES NOT "set in" due to 100 years. Fatigue is caused
be repeated cycling of reversing stresses, and depending on alloy, stress level and things like local stress concentrations
like notches, gouges, stamped letters in critical locations, will cause a crack to form after a number of cycles. In some
extremely poor designs, cracking can occur in a few hundred cycles. For good designs, where the maximum stresses
are below 50% of yield strength for steel - a part can have an INFINITE fatigue life - meaning it will NEVER crack from a larger
number of cycles.

Words mean things and metal fatigue is a term which should be used properly, just like cylinder throat, barrel throat,
sprue plate and many other terms used on this forum. Making up your own definitions based on what you think might
make some kind of sense is not helpful to communication.

Bill

[Larry Gibson]

For good designs, where the maximum stresses are below 50% of yield strength for steel - a part can have an INFINITE fatigue life - meaning it will NEVER crack from a larger number of cycles.

That is correct. Question; are receivers heat treated (hardened) to better hold in the pressure of the cartridge firing or to harden the surface for smoother operation, less wear and to prevent galling of one part moving against the other?

A follow on question; if you say to better hold in the pressure of the cartridge firing then why isn't the barrel heat treated as such?

Larry Gibson

[MBTcustom]

Just my 2 cents here. It's the barrel that contains the lions share of the stress produced by firing the cartridge. The action is only used to hold the bolt to the barrel and keep the two from separating. In other words, bolt thrust is the only thing the action is taking care of. If the action is ruptured through the reciever ring, I would humbly submit that the barrel had to go first, so you were screwed anyway.
That said, shooting a rifle bolt through the RH side of your face is no way to end your shooting season.
Different cartridges produce different percentages of bolt thrust based on the body, shoulder, and neck design of the brass, and the trick with any of these cartridges is to just make sure you brought enough gun to handle it.

Now, in all honesty, the early 03's probably would be just hunky dory for 99.99999% of cast shooting, or shooting factory ammo. As has been pointed out, "if they were going to blow up, they probably would have done so years ago".

The thing is, you're all experienced reloaders right? Got any kids or generations that look up to you? How about a neighbors kid? A nephew? Do any of them know what you know about exactly how to use your firearms and load for them?
What if you get killed in a car wreck? Don't you think that one of these folks would cherish your personal 03-A3?
I know mine would.
Now, couple that with a young person who is trying to follow in your footsteps without your expert guidance, and does like I did when I was 19, and puts a double charge of unique under a cast lead boolit on accident. When I pulled this stunt, I was using a PF Winchester model 70. I had to beat the bolt open with a mallet to get the brass out, and when I did, the letters on the bottom of the case had been stamped flat, and the primer fell out. The rifle was chambered in 30-06.
I really am thankful that I was using good quality equipment that day, because it saved me from my own foolishness, and I got to learn a valuable lesson for cheap.

That's why, I am dead set against allowing questionable firearms to remain in service. I have condemned several so far as being unsafe to shoot, much to the dismay of the owners, but not one single person thought the next 100-200 rounds were so valuable as to be worth reconstructive surgery to their arms and face, (or that of their children who would be next in line to make the gamble).
Nope. This here is America, and we are swimming in good quality rifles that will take just about anything you can throw at them. There is no reason to hold onto junk that is well documented as being unsafe, and I submit to you that if your were really all that serious about the collectors value, you
A. wouldn't be shooting it in the first place.
B. wouldn't have chosen that rifle anyways
and
C. Do I really need a "C" here fellers?

You do realize that junk is junk, but the junk they sell at wal-mart is a safer bet than the best Mauser, 03A3, or Arisaka that was ever produced right?
It's called quality control.
It's not an option these days.
It used to be.

Yeah, I know, I didn't answer a thing. Just a few of my personal thoughts on this subject.
I don't personally care to shoot them, but if you do, then more power to ya.

[Eutectic]

What if you get killed in a car wreck? Don't you think that one of these folks would cherish your personal 03-A3?
I know mine would.

You do realize that junk is junk, but the junk they sell at wal-mart is a safer bet than the best Mauser, 03A3, or Arisaka that was ever produced right?
It's called quality control.
It's not an option these days.
It used to be.


​
Tim,

Are you referring to an early number 1903 Springfield as an 03-A3?

Are you sure you want to be saying 03-A3 here???????

I thought the 03-A3 was a much later Springfield that had an alloy receiver...... Nickel steel if I remember right.

Eutectic

[shooterg]

I think I'll quit shooting any firearm older than me !

Guessing it would cost more than getting another receiver, but with all current high-tech, still no non-destructive way to check/measure these old receivers ?

[Pb2au]

I think I'll quit shooting any firearm older than me !

Guessing it would cost more than getting another receiver, but with all current high-tech, still no non-destructive way to check/measure these old receivers ?

That is kinda the crux of one of the debates here. One of the positions is that the suspect receiver would not present a precipitating mode of failure, it would simply fail. One cycle good, the next kablooey.
Another position is the opposite. In that view, yes, the event of failure would be preceded by cracks, stretching, etc, etc, that could be observed and measured.

Goodsteel brings up an excellent point as well. How much of the pressure generated during a firing cycle is contained by the integrity of the barrel? It would be interesting to know how much pressure is commented in the direction of bolt thrust.

[btroj]

A simple test really. Who wants to have their rifle action annealed? The action and bolt both annealed to as soft as when they were before heat treating.

How long before lug set back starts? How long til the lugs show galling?

I'm no engineer but I can easily see that the action and bolt do far more than "just" contain the pressure of firing. Where does that bolt thrust go? How long can soft steel lugs in a soft steel action last before they set back?

I am certain that if the early breech loader smiths felt heat treating the action wasn't needed it wouldn't be done. Modern manufacturers surely would eliminate that step as a cost saving measure if it could be done away with. The fact it hasn't gone the way of the carrier pigeon tells me all I need to know.

[JHeath]

. . . and a third, Pb2au, is that the low-number receiver would fail "without warning" when you tried to shoot an 8x57 cartridge in it, whereas a "good" receiver might hold, and vent gas.

In the last week or so in this forum I've seen discussion of '03s, 1916 Mausers, and "last-ditch" Arisakas. In each case, the "nay" group subscribes to the idea that the receivers might fail without warning under normal loads, due to undetectable flaws and too-close margins. And in each case they seem to be filling in certain blanks in the data with imagination, calling it caution, and passing it along as received wisdom.

Near as I have been able to sort out:

* Low-number '03s have a record of failing under overloads like obstructed barrels and 8x57 ammmo. They are documented to fail as low as 80,000 lbs. They do not appear to be documented as failing under normal loads, but have a lower margin of safety than a "good" '03. Since they pressure limit for .30-06 is 50k, it does not seem to be necessary to retire these rifles, but would be prudent to test them with dye penetrant. This assumes for safety's sake that any given low-number '03 receiver is a "bad" one. There's also the statistical issue of encountering a bad vs. good one. Dutchman's engineer is correct that if you have a bad one, the risk is 1:1 of having a bad one. But that's like saying that if out of a million planes I buy a ticket for one that will crash, my risk of being in that crash is 1:1, so I should act as if every plane will crash.

* I've learned that '96 Swede Mausers occasionally blow up w/o warning, though probably dye-penetrant would have revealed a crack beforehand, so it sounds like Swede Mausers are at least as big a crapshoot as low-number '03s. This is not a dig at Dutchman or Swedes, just something I was surprised to hear about.

* Nobody seems to be dye-testing their Krags or Rolling Blocks, nor are they panicking about them despite a history of cracks and Kbs.

* 1916 Mausers when imported were tested by EH White labs at 98,000lbs (thank Wilco for the link). This is less than some other rifle receivers but is strong enough to handle 7.62 NATO ammo. Again, the widespread perception, which appears false, is that these rifles could "blow at any moment" under normal loads, based again on filling in the blanks with imagination and passing it along as received wisdom.

* Warnings against "Last ditch" Arisakas appear to confuse them with "school rifles" which were never intended to be fired with live ammo. "School rifles" have undoubtedly failed. Near as I can tell, the so-called "last ditch" Arisakas have mid-war detail changes to simplify production, but the receivers are as safe to shoot as early Arisakas. The warnings against shooting late-war Arisakas that are genuine rifles (not trainers) appear misplaced. Again, people filling in blanks with imagination, in the direction of nay-saying, and passing it along as received wisdom.

I'm no thrill seeker, but want to make choices based on facts, and not be cowed by fearful supposition passed off as facts.

[Hamish]

While the discussion has come close to blowing up a couple of times, I am pleased to see that it is still being discussed. The fact of the matter is the question what to do with them is 100% a question of an opinion, and not to be completely answered to the point of making a lasting universal decision to start with. No one side of the issue will prevail over the other, period.

What this thread has done however is to revisit an issue that needs to brought to the fore periodically, and I would estimate more emphatically now, in that casting being more popular than ever for a very, very long time, these rifles are reaching new owners as the previous generation passes them along, and this thread (it is my hope) will continue to bring knowledge to the shooting community as long as this forum exists.

Debate away gentlemen!

[MBTcustom]

​
Tim,

Are you referring to an early number 1903 Springfield as an 03-A3?

Are you sure you want to be saying 03-A3 here???????

I thought the 03-A3 was a much later Springfield that had an alloy receiver...... Nickel steel if I remember right.

Eutectic

Yes, you are right. Had a bad case of the dum dum earlier.

[MBTcustom]

. . . and a third, Pb2au, is that the low-number receiver would fail "without warning" when you tried to shoot an 8x57 cartridge in it, whereas a "good" receiver might hold, and vent gas.

In the last week or so in this forum I've seen discussion of '03s, 1916 Mausers, and "last-ditch" Arisakas. In each case, the "nay" group subscribes to the idea that the receivers might fail without warning under normal loads, due to undetectable flaws and too-close margins. And in each case they seem to be filling in certain blanks in the data with imagination, calling it caution, and passing it along as received wisdom.

Near as I have been able to sort out:

* Low-number '03s have a record of failing under overloads like obstructed barrels and 8x57 ammmo. They are documented to fail as low as 80,000 lbs. They do not appear to be documented as failing under normal loads, but have a lower margin of safety than a "good" '03. Since they pressure limit for .30-06 is 50k, it does not seem to be necessary to retire these rifles, but would be prudent to test them with dye penetrant. This assumes for safety's sake that any given low-number '03 receiver is a "bad" one. There's also the statistical issue of encountering a bad vs. good one. Dutchman's engineer is correct that if you have a bad one, the risk is 1:1 of having a bad one. But that's like saying that if out of a million planes I buy a ticket for one that will crash, my risk of being in that crash is 1:1, so I should act as if every plane will crash.

* I've learned that '96 Swede Mausers occasionally blow up w/o warning, though probably dye-penetrant would have revealed a crack beforehand, so it sounds like Swede Mausers are at least as big a crapshoot as low-number '03s. This is not a dig at Dutchman or Swedes, just something I was surprised to hear about.

* Nobody seems to be dye-testing their Krags or Rolling Blocks, nor are they panicking about them despite a history of cracks and Kbs.

* 1916 Mausers when imported were tested by EH White labs at 98,000lbs (thank Wilco for the link). This is less than some other rifle receivers but is strong enough to handle 7.62 NATO ammo. Again, the widespread perception, which appears false, is that these rifles could "blow at any moment" under normal loads, based again on filling in the blanks with imagination and passing it along as received wisdom.

* Warnings against "Last ditch" Arisakas appear to confuse them with "school rifles" which were never intended to be fired with live ammo. "School rifles" have undoubtedly failed. Near as I can tell, the so-called "last ditch" Arisakas have mid-war detail changes to simplify production, but the receivers are as safe to shoot as early Arisakas. The warnings against shooting late-war Arisakas that are genuine rifles (not trainers) appear misplaced. Again, people filling in blanks with imagination, in the direction of nay-saying, and passing it along as received wisdom.

I'm no thrill seeker, but want to make choices based on facts, and not be cowed by fearful supposition passed off as facts.

Honestly, I have to agree with you here.
However, as a person who could potentially be held liable for any mistake that might be made by a client in his choice of rifle, I find myself being more and more biased against anything that sounds shady (warranted or not), so you'll just have to take what I say with a grain of salt. As an individual, you are perfectly free to take whatever chances you want to, and more power to ya.
In contrast, anything I give my blessing to had better be able to stand up to extremely close scrutiny by industry professionals, most of whom believe the early 1903's are unsafe, along with LD Arisaka's.
That said, I have a rifle right here made from a LD Arisaka and I love it to pieces. Would I ever sell it? Not no, but heck no! I'd sooner run a chop saw through it myself.
There's a slight difference in opinion here.

[Pb2au]

I'm no engineer but I can easily see that the action and bolt do far more than "just" contain the pressure of firing. Where does that bolt thrust go? How long can soft steel lugs in a soft steel action last before they set back?

Point made for sure. I think in the grand picture, obviously all three components ( barrel, receiver, and bolt)work together to do the job. My curiosity lies in how much of the force is being commuted to the bolt face. Again, this is just my curiosity.

As to the question of how much support the receiver ring gives to the barrel during the pressure cycle of the firing of the cartridge, i suppose a person could take a chambered barrel, tie it to a tire, put a cartridge in it and figure out a way to slingshot a nail into it to set it off. Then just sit back and see what happens. And yes, this would be entirely unscientific. Goodsteel, you got a nail, chambered barrel and tire laying around?

[Eutectic]

As the early '03 receivers had a case hardened surface not unlike the Krag action and writings forever it seems say the steel was (or could be) burnt.... But let's say overheated during the heat treatment process as a higher vote in # of writings. My suggestion would be not to trust a dye-penetrant test as a holy grail of some sort of OK..... You could get false readings because of the above.

As far as the late war Japs (sorry.... last ditch Arisakas is a new one for me as it's been years)
But I can tell you from my personal witnessed experience in 1949 about one my father had.... Yes they talked about these 'last ditchers' (by other names) even back then. I watched my father tie this 7.7mm in an old tire..... off the side of the bank.... He loaded the 'last ditch' 7.7 with a 'blue pill' he had loaded... He pulled the trigger with a 50' cord. It sounded like an explosion off down the bank.... But it was still there when we walked down. I watched my father 'beat' the bolt open with a rawhide mallet. He repeated this three times! Today I wonder how the extractor lived through it all! 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!!!!!

Many years later in the 60's he re-barreled this very same action to a .308 and made a maple stock for it. I still have the old thing....

Am I going to check it with dye-penetrant before I shoot it? HECK NO!!

Those three; (100,000 psi rounds) this is a rough psi guess.... and several thousand full power 'J' words target shooting has been test enough for this ol' girl!!!

Eutectic

[MBTcustom]

As the early '03 receivers had a case hardened surface not unlike the Krag action and writings forever it seems say the steel was (or could be) burnt.... But let's say overheated during the heat treatment process as a higher vote in # of writings. My suggestion would be not to trust a dye-penetrant test as a holy grail of some sort of OK..... You could get false readings because of the above.

As far as the late war Japs (sorry.... last ditch Arisakas is a new one for me as it's been years)
But I can tell you from my personal witnessed experience in 1949 about one my father had.... Yes they talked about these 'last ditchers' (by other names) even back then. I watched my father tie this 7.7mm in an old tire..... off the side of the bank.... He loaded the 'last ditch' 7.7 with a 'blue pill' he had loaded... He pulled the trigger with a 50' cord. It sounded like an explosion off down the bank.... But it was still there when we walked down. I watched my father 'beat' the bolt open with a rawhide mallet. He repeated this three times! Today I wonder how the extractor lived through it all! 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!!!!!

Many years later in the 60's he re-barreled this very same action to a .308 and made a maple stock for it. I still have the old thing....

Am I going to check it with dye-penetrant before I shoot it? HECK NO!!

Those three; (100,000 psi rounds) this is a rough psi guess.... and several thousand full power 'J' words target shooting has been test enough for this ol' girl!!!

Eutectic

You're probably pretty close and a little on the conservative side there Eutectic. I punched that load into quickload and got an estimated pressure of 172,212 PSI. You have to figure that some of that probably didn't burn and got blown out the barrel, so 100,000-120,000 PSI sounds like a good guesstimate.

The point I was making is that the barrel is what takes most of the pressure. The action takes only the rearward pressure (bolt thrust) of the cartridge.
The action does nothing to add to the strength of the barrel. In fact, if anything, the barrel is reduced from a 1.2 diameter to usually less than 1" with a real nice helical fracture point set up at 10-20 TPI.
All the action does is hold the case in the barrel and pop the primer.
However, if the bolt lugs give way, and the pressure decides that the path of least resistance is towards the rear of the rifle instead of behind the projectile going in the forward direction, then you are going to get a compounding error that is going to make you rethink your load data.
The good news is that most decent bolt action war rifles had safeguards, and extra lugs built in (1903 is no exception) so that if the main lugs gave way, there was a backup in the rear, as well as a pressure relief hole so that it went no further.
Therefore, if the receiver ring is cracked, the problem is not that the radial pressure containment has been compromised, but that the cracked receiver allows the bolt to ride further away from the barrel (read increased headspace) than is safe, thus setting up a potential chain reaction that could lead to a Kaboom.
What is much more likely is that you experience lug setback on the receiver, the bolt, or both (usually manifests itself as a hard bolt lift).
Lug setback can happen one of two ways:
1. The receiver, the bolt, or both were not hard enough, so the mating surfaces get swaged and deformed before they let go completely.
2. The receiver, the bolt, or both were hardened too much, so the mating surfaces develop cracks in their junction points which will give way very quickly once compromised.

The second is definitely the more scary of the two scenarios, because when trouble happens it happens suddenly, and that is what the worry is with these actions. Others, like the Spanish Mausers, are of the first category, and they can show many warning signs before the big event (Hard bolt lift, soft surfaces that are easy to scratch, etc etc etc)

Contrary to common belief, there is no way to tell if a receiver was case hardened too much, or too deep. Usually if the surface of the metal is hard, it is considered a good action, but hard is hard, and without destroying it, there is no way to be sure if it was hardened too much and made brittle instead of malleable. You just have to make your best guess and hope it was right.

That said, doing a proof load (proof loads are available for many calibers if you care to search for them) should tell the tale (like Eutectic's dad did). If an action will take 80,000 PSI, then it's save to assume that it's good for half of that for many many years.

[JHeath]

A dye penetrant test allows you to detect an already-cracked receiver. So you can disqualify that receiver without question, no matter the model number or serial number.

The resistance to dye penetrant tests seems to come from people who think that even an uncracked 03 receiver wil suddenly burst without warning. Apparently from this assumption they conclude that there is no point in knowing whether a receiver is cracked because they would declare it unsafe based wholly on the serial number, or model, etc. They imagine that even if uncracked it might fail with any given shot.

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

There appear to be Swedes failing at normal pressures, but possibly they developed cracks which with cycling reached critical length. If so a dye test might have prevented the Kb.

[frnkeore]

I'm a retired aerospace, machine shop owner. The crack test for ALL magnetic steel parts that go on a aircraft is, MPI (Magnetic Particle Inspection) or Magnaflux. Penatrating die would not be aproved for crack testing on steel but, it is used on aluminum parts.

Tim (GoodSteel) is right about the role of the action and barrel. A receiver ring, it's self, can not fail until the barrel exceeds it's yeild strength. If that happens, not even a A3 will hold together.

To give a better understanding about the above statement, P.O. Ackley, in his destructive testing, actually blew the barrels out of the Arisaka he tested, w/o hurting the threads and had to go to smooth bore, tool steel barrels to try to complete his test, he never did blow it up. I don't remember the last powder charge but, it was a duplex, using lots of B'eye. He had the metal tested and as near as they could tell, the Arisaka's were made of a steel simular to our medium carbon steel.

I have and have read Hatchers book. In one part of it, he talks about striking the rail on the receiver with a hammer and it shattering. That should have been a non destructive test, right?

Maybe I missed it in this long, long, long thread but, was there any modern day, document failures of the LN '03's? I do realize that the 03 has a rather infamous, unsuppoted chamber and I'd (if I had one) would be more worried about that, than any of the receivers.

Now, I'm not recommending shooting high pressure loads in old milsurps but, many of them get a bad rap, because the steel is "old" and this thread has brought out a lot of good info on "old" steel and objective opinions can be drawn with that info. Krags get a bad rap, based on there single locking lug but, Savage used a single locking lug on their 340 and it was chambered for the 225 Winchester (52,000 CUP). I collect GEW 88's that have two locking lugs and were used, in WWI & II with the JS ammo. People say that it's unsafe to shoot them, also.

I do think that rifles w/o good gas venting should be modified to help/fix that as, almost everyone could mistakenly put a load together that might pierce a primer.

Let objective "common since" rule.

Frank

[MtGun44]

MTBF has nothing to do with fatigue or fatigue life. This is a statistical
method of using Green's function to describe a statistical probability of
failure in a complex machine. Not very applicable to what we are
talking about.

YES, there is an infinite fatigue life limit, as described, it is a hard, cold
scientific fact.

No, AGE alone has ZERO to do with fatigue in metals. And NO, "everything
wears out" is not true, as far as cracking from metal fatigue. Parts may
rub against one another and wear until they have too loose a fit to be safe,
but this is not metal fatigue, which is a specific, clear metalugical phenomenon
of progressive crack growth from reversing stress cycles.

If mean something else, don't use the term "metal fatigue".

To Larry's question way back - surface hardening increases the surface yield
strength, so can substantially protect against both abrasive wear and metal
fatigue. Many aircraft crankshafts are hardened on the surface by a
process called 'nitriding' which involves submersion in an ammonia gas
atmosphere at very high temperatures. This produces an ultra-hard surface
layer, but only a few thousandths thick and brittle as glass. However, it is
very wear resistant and substantially increases the fatigue resistance of
these extremely expensive crankshafts.

Bill

[M-Tecs]

I'm a retired aerospace, machine shop owner. The crack test for ALL magnetic steel parts that go on a aircraft is, MPI (Magnetic Particle Inspection) or Magnaflux. Penatrating die would not be aproved for crack testing on steel but, it is used on aluminum parts.


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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dye_penetrant_inspection (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dye_penetrant_inspection)

http://www.contech.com/Dye_Penetrant.htm (http://www.contech.com/Dye_Penetrant.htm)

http://www.penetrant.org/dye_penetrant.html (http://www.penetrant.org/dye_penetrant.html)


http://atrona.com/liquid-dye-testing.html

Liquid Penetrant Testing is extensively used for the evaluation of wrought and cast products of both ferrous and nonferrous metals, power metallurgy parts, ceramics, plastics, and glass objects. Because of the vast differences among applications for penetrant inspection. Liquid dye penetrant is a perfect method for examining for stress-corrosion and fatigue cracks that are insidious, usually there is very little or no warning of their presence. This is why it is very important to provide early detection on such structures as cranes, bridges, vessels, piping, where there is risk of possible hard economic consequences, injury or loss of life.

[JHeath]

Honestly, I have to agree with you here.
However, as a person who could potentially be held liable for any mistake that might be made by a client in his choice of rifle, I find myself being more and more biased against anything that sounds shady (warranted or not), so you'll just have to take what I say with a grain of salt. As an individual, you are perfectly free to take whatever chances you want to, and more power to ya.
In contrast, anything I give my blessing to had better be able to stand up to extremely close scrutiny by industry professionals, most of whom believe the early 1903's are unsafe, along with LD Arisaka's.
That said, I have a rifle right here made from a LD Arisaka and I love it to pieces. Would I ever sell it? Not no, but heck no! I'd sooner run a chop saw through it myself.
There's a slight difference in opinion here.

Oh I get that. It's like being an SR-71 technician at a gathering of aircraft mechanics, and not wanting to be smeared by conventional experts for mentioning that you routinely sign off on a plane that is dripping fuel from every seam. So when they talk about the sanctity of fuel systems and show horror photos of fires, you don't say this:

"The component parts of the Blackbird fit very loosely together to allow for expansion at high temperatures. At rest on the ground, fuel leaks out constantly, since the tanks in the fuselage and wings only seal at operating temperatures. There is little danger of fire since the JP-7 fuel is very stable with an extremely high flash point."

. . . because the facts would not help your situation at that point.

[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/fpi/Tech%20Papers/specification%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

[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.... [smilie=s:"

[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]

111517111518

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

111540
111542

[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 (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 (http://castboolits.gunloads.com/wiki/Cartouche?action=edit&redlink=1) stamped with the initials "OGEK" in a rectangular box, on the buttstock. Rifles stamped OGEK without a rectangular box were inspected by Ed Klouser (http://castboolits.gunloads.com/wiki/Ed_Klouser?action=edit&redlink=1) 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
111613

[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.

[gew98]

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."


Your preaching to the choir !. Also note some of the quoted like Dunlap for example loathed the issue 03's - very poor fit & finish overall especially in the stocking. He went on about this at length in his book ( Ordnance went up front ) .

[13Echo]

Well I now have Tim's rifle. It is a nice example of an arsenal rebuild of a 1903. The receiver was made in early 1916, the bolt is a double heat treat , the barrel is a 4 groove from 1942, and the stock a field replacement. The old soldier has cleaned up rather nicely and the action is almost as slick and smooth as my 1898 Krag. It is obvious this rifle has seen use and is old enough to have been in the Great War and has had at least one rebuild and reissue. The stock has its share of dents and dings, sling marks, and other evidence of actual field use so it was not just a depot queen. It is also apparent that it has not blown up. Since there is some brass color on the bolt face and copper in the bore it has been shot with full power loads probably fairly recently. I think she deserves a working retirement and will continue to shoot her with cast bullet loads only.

Jerry Liles

[13Echo]

Before I forget. Dealing with Tim has been an example of how these deals should go. He has been scrupulously honest in his descriptions of the rifle and in warning about its potential problems. He also went beyond what I expected for a fair deal and shipped the rifle in a very nice, high quality soft case and packed so well my FFL kept the box to use again. My thanks to Tim for being a gentleman and I hope we can do business again.

Jerry Liles

[Bob Busetti]

I will continue to fire my low number 03. Arsenal rebuilt and fitted with 1943 barrel and A1 stock. Passed proof tests. Good enough for me. Just saying.

[merlin101]

I had passed on reading this till today because I didn't have an 03 Till TODAY!! I found the ole girl at a yard sale for (ya sitting down?) $50! (I had to get $20 from my wife:groner:) I knew something about LSN and HSN's but didn't know where the cutoff was. I risked the $50 and now have a S.A 1903 Mark1 ser#10525XX with a barrel date of 12-18. I figured it would look good on the wall but now I'm all fired up to take her to the range. I'm gonna do a complete cleaning (she really needs it) and a chamber cast. It came with a leather claw type sling with very faint writing looks like 56 or maybe 5/6?? Over all I'd say it's about 8 out of 10 , can ya tell I'm all cranked up [smilie=w:

[madsenshooter]

I really need a find like that Merlin. The CMP now has a trophy for high Springfield/Garand/Vintage combined score. I got the vintage and Garand covered, gotta find me a deal.

[Larry Gibson]

Merlin101

You scored big time! That is SA Mark I is not a LSN'd '03. It is a very, very good DHT M1903. Shoot it.

Larry Gibson

[merlin101]

Merlin101

You scored big time! That is SA Mark I is not a LSN'd '03. It is a very, very good DHT M1903. Shoot it.

Larry Gibson


YEAH!! I was just looking around doing a little research on it. Such a deal makes me wonder what that old .22 pump action he mentioned selling was and what he sold it for! I guess he never heard of the internet :)

[Southron]

Back around 1961, when I was 15, a good friend of mine gave me a Rock Island made '03 his late Uncle had brought back from France at the end of World War I. When he gave me the rifle he said: "Well, it is an old army rifle and I am sure you can't get ammunition for it."

Well, back in 1961 you could get World War II surplus 30-06 dirt cheap at any army surplus store or gun shop.

Around 1970, after shooting probably a thousand or so rounds out of it, I learned all about "Low Number" '03's and was dismayed to learn I HAD ONE! After that, I just didn't feel safe shooting that rifle.

So, the Rock Island '03 was retired to the gun rack and I purchased a "mint" condition Smith Corona 03A3 for around $50.00. I shot that Smith Corona for years, but somehow an 03A3 simply does not have the "class and elegance" of an '03.

As for all of the receiver failures over the years with the LN Springfields, true, some of them might have been caused by people attempting to shoot German 7.92 cartridges in them, a stopped up muzzle, etc., but I have also read instances of where people have hit LN receiver with a hammer, and the receiver shatters like glass.

My point? Well, I won't shoot a LN '03 ever again.

Caution and Luck have allowed me to become an Old Geezer.

Like Mark Twain said: "Old Age is a Privilege denied to many."

[youngda9]

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.

This is the conclusion that I came to last year about my 1914 570K 1903. I read Hatcher's Notebook, and most of the links posted in this thread.

My conclusion: The risk is miniscule, and those statistics are very artificially inflated by all of the lube, bad ammo, over-pressure loads, incorrect ammunition, barrel obstructions, 150% pressure loads, blah blah blah, that they were WAY overstressing these rifles with. As stated early on in this thread, the failures were caused by knows anomalies. And the rate is tiny. And the failures completely stopped the year they removed all of the brittle brass junk ammo from inventory. This is all much to do about nothing IMO...so much hand wringing. It's more dangerous for me to drive to the supermarket...It truly is. And I just got back from the supermarket. I'll have to work up the courage to go next week.

I shoot mine (a 358 Winchester), with mid range loads (36gr H4895 behind a 358009). I only neck size the brass, so I have a tight fit in the chamber and no headspace or bolt thrust issues. So much fun, what a rifle ! She turns 100 years old this year and will be my hunting companion in the deer woods. If I don't see deer, at least I'll have a beautiful rifle that is full of history to admire.

[Ricochet]

Regarding Hatcher's report of receivers shattering with the "Guard Cartridge," he said that they used the standard FMJ military bullet with a small charge of Bullseye. Something like 8 grains off the top of my head. We normally use cast boolits for light loads like that. I wonder if those jacketed bullets weren't more likely to stick in the bore in the event of something like a lighter than normal charge or poor ignition, and if it wasn't more likely that a bore obstructing squib load would go unnoticed with such a light recoiling load?

[Ricochet]

Also, it's easy for multiple loads to go undetected with a load like that. Additionally, I recall years ago a member of this board (I don't recall who it was) claimed to be able to great SEE-type massive overpressure spikes. If I recall correctly, he eventually said that it involved loading a large case with a small amount of fast burning powder and firing it muzzle down. I wonder if either of these factors could have been involved with the Springfield & Guards Cartridge receiver failures?

[Ricochet]

ARRGH! I think I've been Autocorrected and the board won't let me edit again. "great" should be "create."

[MtGun44]

The possibility of a double or triple charge of BE in a .30-06 case is very real. I think that "sensible"
use of these rifles is a reasonable risk. That would include moderate handloads if one finds it
necessary, but I think avoiding modern full pressure factory ammo might be prudent. A modern powder
can make 2600 fps with a 150 gr jbullet with a whole lot less pressure than with the powders of
1906, so handloads at this velocity with recent very slow powders should give added margins.

If the rifle were mine, it would live it's time in my care with a steady diet of something like 10 gr
of Unique or 16 gr of 2400 over whichever cast boolit it favored.

[Mr Humble]

The endless stupidity about low number 03s. As a 50+ year 03 collector (pre WW I only) I have yet to see a documented case of a low number gun, with proper headspace and using modern correct ammo blow up. For years we had a $5000 offer out on the net to anyone who could produce such an event ...... nobody collected. IF you actually read Hatcher's book and do a spreadsheet analysis of all the "blowups", the number that can not be explained by human error is in the single digits. Take your new 30-06 model 70 and shoot a full power military 8x57 in it and see what happens. Take 220 grain cupronickel bullets, smear Mobil chassis grease on them (thought to reduce fouling) and run a dozen through any 30-06 you want. The list goes on ..... as Gump said you can't fix stupid.
Hatcher is an NRA "God" so they continue to spout this BS. It helped me buy a lot of mint 30-03s and 30-06s made before WW I. A bit odd that our wonderful government sold tons of "unsafe" 03 actions to firms like G&H, Sedgley and Jaeger who made them into wonderful sporting rifles that have yet to blow up.
Then in WW II they pulled 1000s out of storage and used the actions to make a rifle with an 03 action and 03A3 parts. Sent our boys off to fight with them, guess the "brass" didn't care if they blew up.
Just more hokum like fine twist steel shotgun barrels are a bomb waiting to go off. Amazing how many of them can still be found, reproofed for Nitro and still working as well as they did in the 19th century. Not bored yet ? We could get into the Ross rifle myth next ?:popcorn:

[gew98]

The endless stupidity about low number 03s. As a 50+ year 03 collector (pre WW I only) I have yet to see a documented case of a low number gun, with proper headspace and using modern correct ammo blow up. For years we had a $5000 offer out on the net to anyone who could produce such an event ...... nobody collected. IF you actually read Hatcher's book and do a spreadsheet analysis of all the "blowups", the number that can not be explained by human error is in the single digits. Take your new 30-06 model 70 and shoot a full power military 8x57 in it and see what happens. Take 220 grain cupronickel bullets, smear Mobil chassis grease on them (thought to reduce fouling) and run a dozen through any 30-06 you want. The list goes on ..... as Gump said you can't fix stupid.
Hatcher is an NRA "God" so they continue to spout this BS. It helped me buy a lot of mint 30-03s and 30-06s made before WW I. A bit odd that our wonderful government sold tons of "unsafe" 03 actions to firms like G&H, Sedgley and Jaeger who made them into wonderful sporting rifles that have yet to blow up.
Then in WW II they pulled 1000s out of storage and used the actions to make a rifle with an 03 action and 03A3 parts. Sent our boys off to fight with them, guess the "brass" didn't care if they blew up.
Just more hokum like fine twist steel shotgun barrels are a bomb waiting to go off. Amazing how many of them can still be found, reproofed for Nitro and still working as well as they did in the 19th century. Not bored yet ? We could get into the Ross rifle myth next ?:popcorn:

Why if you put it out on the net...that covers the world so ergo you must be so awesomely correct I can't bow down fast enough to your internet kung fu. You keep buying up low number 03's , I'm happy you like to buy low and sell high...if it works for you it's fine by me. I'll sleep good not owning one ever again.

[Dutchman]

Why if you put it out on the net...that covers the world so ergo you must be so awesomely correct I can't bow down fast enough to your internet kung fu. You keep buying up low number 03's , I'm happy you like to buy low and sell high...if it works for you it's fine by me. I'll sleep good not owning one ever again.

I successfully resisted the TERRIBLE urge to respond to that note. Thank you for doing it for me.

Dutch [smilie=s:

[mattw]

I own 2, 1 is a safe queen it is perfect numbers matching and the other is a converted sporter that I bought for cast shooting. I do not ever shoot full house 06 in it, but then again I do not enjoy full house 06 in a military rifle.

[Mr Humble]

I successfully resisted the TERRIBLE urge to respond to that note. Thank you for doing it for me.

Dutch [smilie=s:

Happy for you not to point out, as did GEW, a total lack of any serious knowledge of 03s as well as the endless myths blabbed out by one gun writer and endlessly repeated by those who follow but never verify.

Funny how nobody could ever produce the mythical low number rifle that had proper headspace and blew up shooting modern factory or milspec ammo.

Having owned more, than years you have walked the earth, shot them all after checking the headspace, and never blown one up, I can only speak to my experience.

Those who actually own and shoot the rifles still have all their fingers and are not wearing a bolt in the forehead.
Those who don't repeat the myths w/o question. IF either of you had a pressure transducer you would find that modern 06 loads as well as smokeless twist steel shotgun load produce less pressure than the old Hi-Vel/ cupro nickle bullet 06 loads or black powder shotgun loads.

Facts are such a pain when they destroy unproven myths.

Have a friend with a 3 digit 03 that has been through so many rebuilds most people think it's an 03A3 as everything but the receiver is Remington and it is the ghastly sandblasted green used in WW II. Still waiting for it to blow up.

I know what it is ...... how about you "experts" ?

http://i1186.photobucket.com/albums/z377/rocketcity1/tororeelmower18/157ec7c8.jpg (http://s1186.photobucket.com/user/rocketcity1/media/tororeelmower18/157ec7c8.jpg.html)

[Multigunner]

HiVel and other high Nitroglycerin content powders dai cause serious erosion that lead to stripped jackets and blown through bullets. They at one time issued a stuck jacket removal tooll to every rifleman, but once they switched to single base powder they issued only one per platoon.

Twist Steel and Damascus steel aren't the same.
The first twist steel barrels I've heard of were those used by the Confederate Cook Bros calvary carbine. To avoid split barrels when using lower grade iron or steel they heated and twisted a bar to force any stress lines to travel around the bar instead of lengthwise. They then bored and rifled the barrel.
If thats what is meant when they speak of twist steel shotgun barrels then they are stronger than damascus barrels.
When new damascus barrels were fairly strong, but rust infiltrating the welded ribbons could weaken them dangerously.
Also cut down swamped shotgun barrels are thinner at the muzzle than they were before being cut. A 32 inch swamped barrel cut to 26 inches can split.
I've run across a number of split shotgun barrels, some were by big name gunmakers, but theres no telling what caused the splits.
W W Greener wrote of defective smokeless powders causing many blown out barrels when smokeless first became available.

Back to the Springfield. During WW2 there were several incidents of defective ammunition being identified, enough to result in a Congressional sub commitee investigation. The records of that investigation are available at the Internet Archive.
Remington seems to have been the worst offender, but luckily testing and use in training revealed the bad lots of ammo before the ammo was shipped to troops in the field.
Soft case heads and blown primers were a big problem, and soured primers causing hangfires that detonated when the bolt was opened.

Had ammunition quality been up to snuff there would have been far fewer blown LN Springfields.
The improved heat treatment and metalurgy of the later Springfields meant that when a Kaboom did occur due to bad ammo or bore obstruction it wasn't so dramatic.

[Mr Humble]

Again hate to point out the obvious but Hatcher's "facts" were gathered long before WW II.

Never heard of any Remington made 30-06 failures in WW II. Perhaps you could cite the committee in question and where I can obtain a transcript of their findings to include actual ammo testing. You may be confused with the soft headed ammo produced before WW I by WCC cartridge company (no relation to winchester or remington)
Some of the blow ups were traced to this defective ammo. Soft headed ammo in any cone breeched rifle is a receipe for disaster. I think Ackley blew up a few M 70s that way.

In England a Damascus barrel is a twist steel barrel. A'int any difference. May I quote ?:

"Damascus Barrels - Barrel tubes built up by twisting alternate strips of iron and steel around a fixed rod (mandrel) and forge-welding them together in varying combinations according to the intended quality and the skill of the maker. The rod was withdrawn, the interior reamed and the exterior draw-filed until the finished tube was achieved. Damascus barrels may be recognized by any of a variety of twist or spiral patterns visible in the surface of the steel. Before the 20th century, barrels were typically built in this manner because gunmakers did not have the technology to drill a deep hole the full length of a bar of steel without coming out the side."

Many of the quality makers produced barrels that passed Nitro proof long after smokeless powder came along.

If you were a subscriber to Double Gun Journal you would know of the extensive testing done with Damascus barrels. May I quote again: ?

"However, on the opposite site of the discussion, there has been an in depth field trial done by a writer in Double Gun Journal over the last 3 or 4 issues.

He has tested a couple of dozen damascus barrelled guns starting at the high end and finishing with some true "trash" guns - Belgium Guilds, no name British, cheap imported American brands.

He shot greater than proof level test loads and had the same result up and down the line.

The stocks, frames, and operating parts gave out on several occassions - but none of the barrels ever split or were damaged more than when they came in the door."

Sure you don't want to talk about Ross Rifles ? They blew up a lot too.

BTW, still can't ID that 03 can you ?

Now here's one Grandpa Robscheit had made for his frequent trips to German Africa. It is a standard grade Sedgley in 9.3x62 that probably killed everything but an Elephant. It was worked hard and the effects of cordite and corrosive primers are noticable. It still never blew up and, as it was a "customer supplied action" Sedgley left the markings intact.
Note the serial number...... it was a rod bayonet gun..... ah that it had not been torn down to build the 9.3. Still waiting for it to come apart. All action parts are original.
The barrel (as most Sedgleys) was made by Winchester.

Relative to the earlier Dunlap comment on 03 quality, he must have been on drugs. The workmanship on the early 03s surpasses any commercial rifle made today until you get into the high 4 figures. They were hand made rifles of the highest quality and the fact that a pre WW II bone stock 03 will outshoot any contemporary mass produced rifle says it all.

http://i1186.photobucket.com/albums/z377/rocketcity1/tororeelmower18/rfs93x62.gif (http://s1186.photobucket.com/user/rocketcity1/media/tororeelmower18/rfs93x62.gif.html)


Another interesting 03'. I own the Mauser Werke original plans....

http://i1186.photobucket.com/albums/z377/rocketcity1/tororeelmower18/ebbd5101.jpg (http://s1186.photobucket.com/user/rocketcity1/media/tororeelmower18/ebbd5101.jpg.html)

I sell reproductions (full size) of them so you can build your own 1903 Springfield Mauser.

[Multigunner]

Have to make another correction, and still can't edit.
When I posted


Back to the Springfield. During WW2 there were several incidents of defective ammunition being identified, enough to result in a Congressional sub commitee investigation. The records of that investigation are available at the Internet Archive.
I meant WW1, and I'm certain that I did type WW1. Perhaps the auto corrector someone else had a problem with is responsible.
This has happened several times in the past.
I'll be sure I typed WW1 but when I look at the post later it is displayed as WW2 instead.

[Multigunner]

If you were a subscriber to Double Gun Journal you would know of the extensive testing done with Damascus barrels. May I quote again: ?

"However, on the opposite site of the discussion, there has been an in depth field trial done by a writer in Double Gun Journal over the last 3 or 4 issues.

He has tested a couple of dozen damascus barrelled guns starting at the high end and finishing with some true "trash" guns - Belgium Guilds, no name British, cheap imported American brands.

He shot greater than proof level test loads and had the same result up and down the line.

The stocks, frames, and operating parts gave out on several occassions - but none of the barrels ever split or were damaged more than when they came in the door."

I believe I said that the Damascus barrels were strong enough unless rust infiltrated the welds between the ribbons. Obviously the man who did those tests used guns that still had good barrels.
I also repeated what W W Greener had warned of when smokeless powder first came into use for loading and reloading shotgun shells.
There were illustrations of split barrels and blown out chambers in a number of publications of the period.
I've seen plenty of split shotgun barrels over the years, so its entirely possible to split any shotgun barrel if proper care is not taken or the ammunition defective.
Some older high grade shotguns used Damascus barrels the were very thin in sections, the "Swamped" barrels I spoke of. They could make them like this because with the Black Powder in use at the time theres less pressure after the first three or four inches beyond the chamber and they left the muzzle portion thicker to make it more sturdy . You'll see similar Swamping of light field guns of the BP era.
I've seen Damascus barrels infiltrated by rust that showed both inside and out in places. When you squirt liquid wrench down the bore and it begins to seep through the barrel wall you have a wall hanger. Unless you have a smaller gauge barrel liner installed.
These Damascus barrels were just fine so long as you didn't let rust take hold and go too deep.

Many of the finest British bird guns were chambered for a 12 ga two inch shell. A size so unusual here that it would probably never cross someones mind that a modern star crimped 2 3/4 shot shell might chamber but when fired the forcing cone would be choked down by the now fully opened hull. Aguila makes a 1 3/4" 12 gauge shell, don't know what kind of pressure it generates.

With the lightest of Damascus barrels there may not be enough steel in front of the chamber to safely ream it out for a longer hull.

With a damascus barrel shotgun in very good condition I'd still be very careful about the ammunition I fed it.



Relative to the earlier Dunlap comment on 03 quality, he must have been on drugs. The workmanship on the early 03s surpasses any commercial rifle made today until you get into the high 4 figures. They were hand made rifles of the highest quality and the fact that a pre WW II bone stock 03 will outshoot any contemporary mass produced rifle says it all.


I'm sure Dunlop was speaking of some of the 1903A3 rifles not the 1903.
Anyone whos ever handled a Springfield 1903 would know these were some of the best fitted and finished of any military rifle.
Also someone here who loves to dis the Springfield at every opportunity has proven he doesn't know the difference between a STEN and a Sterling so I'd be a bit skeptical about any of his claims.

[gew98]

HiVel

Had ammunition quality been up to snuff there would have been far fewer blown LN Springfields.
.

Really ?. So all across europe they produced some pretty bad ammo during the great war just to stay in the fight...but gew98's , M95's , carcano's & SMLE's etc etc were NOT blowing up or otherwise going tits up like those fragile 03 bangsticks. We all have to admit the basic 03 action was a good thought...being pretty much a 98 mauser...but we again have to admit it was very poorly executed and made.

[Multigunner]

So all across europe they produced some pretty bad ammo during the great war just to stay in the fight...but gew98's , M95's , carcano's & SMLE's etc etc were NOT blowing up or otherwise going tits up like those fragile 03 bangsticks.
Exactly how many of the LN Springfield failures were ever stated to have happened during WW1 or WW2 combat?
Only mention of a U S rifle blowing up in France or England I could find was a journal entry where a soldier wrote that the "company Clown had stuck his rifle muzzle in the mud then tried to shoot the mud out, which cost him an eye. At that he did not identify the rifle as a Springfield and both M1917 and British SMLE rifles were in use by U S troops (the SMLE used by U S New York State National Guard troops under British command) and SMLE rifles were used by U S Troops during final training in England before being shipped to France.
The defective .30-06 ammuntion never made it to the front, it was discovered and pulled before any was shipped out, which caused some supply difficulties.
We don't have much in the way of evaluation of SMLE rifle failures or casualties caused by any such failures because WW2 bombing destroyed almost all personel records from that time and before WW1. The British MOD also destroyed almost all records on the development of the Lee Enfield in the late fifties or early 60's, a fact mentioned by Lord Cottesloe in his forward to E G B Reynolds "the Lee Enfield Rifle". Reynolds had quite a task in recovering the information.
We do have records from the Canadian house of commons listing dozens of failures of Lee Enfield actions on firing ranges in Canada and I've run across records of a Sgt being awarded funds to support his family while recovering from injuries when his Lee Enfield blew out at the breech breaking away the righthand receiver wall. His right hand was terribly mangled. That happened on a firing range under ideal conditions.
I've run across at least two fatal injuries to shooters due to blown out bolt heads, and one near fatal injury where the bolt head passed through the neck of a range officer standing to one side.
The injuries and deaths were not listed in any WW1 era documents, and with the "Slaughter" of MOD documents written of by Lord Cottesloe we have no way of knowing how many such incidents may have occurred during WW1 or WW2.
I seriously doubt German military medical records are any easier to find.
Since a study was made on LN Springfield failures these records are easy to find, but that does not equate to LN Springfield failures being the only such failures.

Dual opposed front locking lugs were adopted by most designers of military rifles, and all including Mauser copied that design feature from the 1889 Lebel rifle. The designer of the Lebel bolt was not permitted to patent his design so it was open to any one to copy without infringement.

[Mr Humble]

Well said. The uniformed (I'm being kind) babble out the same BS they've been reading in gun magazines from generations of authors who repeat what they read as callow youths without question. If, as you point out, accurate records had been kept of any group of millions of a certain military rifle, we would all be scare to shoot any of them. The poor 03 got a bad rap from Hatcher's flawed data and because he is one of the Gods of the NRA, the same BS keeps getting repeated w/o ever being TESTED. 99% condition low number 03s are so rare and valuable that no one is going to try and blow up a bunch. Thus we are left with Hatcher's outdated information vs the facts on the ground today. Still waiting to see a 100% correct, headspaced checked low number 03, shooting modern ammunition blow up. As I'm 72, bought my first low number rifle at 20, have owned a helluva a lot, shot them all (that had not been mucked with) and have yet to see a documented failure, I'll keep enjoying them as they are incredible rifles. Outside of a few interwar 98 Mausers they have no equal for fit, finish and performance. Anyone who has a bone stock 100% correct military low number 03 with a mint bore but is scared to shoot it, send it to me and I'll sent you a brand new Ruger American in your choice of caliber. You'll never have to worry about it blowing up. :goodpost:

Now when can we talk about Ross rifles blowing bolts through peoples' heads ? :popcorn:

[rmark]

Ross 1905 not a problem, changing from the two front lugs to an interrupted screw in the 1910 model. Too close of tolerances to handle dirt plus working the bolt slowly deformed bolt stop. Add the possibility of incorrect bolt assembly allowing gun to be fired with an unlocked bolt. I happily shot my 1905 in .303, never fired my 1910 sporter in .280. Couldn't afford .280 ammo at the time anyway, but the history of the guns made it a low priority. Bolt velocity should not exceed bullet velocity :)

[Multigunner]

When the GEW88 first went into service there were so many deaths and injuries it ignited a national scandal. When they revamped the design ot became a safe and reliable rifle.
The Boers regularly blew up their 1893 Mausers when using the Kort Nek 7mm cartridge.

After WW1 the Mauser 98 got a bad reputation among American sportsmen when low cost sporting rifles built on salvaged DWM actions flooded the market. The actions had been left unfinished at the factory and were bought up by low end German gunmakers who did not have the equipment for proper heat treatment.


The poor 03 got a bad rap from Hatcher's flawed data
I don't see that anything about Hatcher's data was flawed, and certainly not outdated. He was there and deeply involved, not revising history like many gun writers of today.
The LN rifles if properly forged and heat treated are strong enough, those few that were over heated during forging are accidents waiting to happen, nothing unusual about that.
The problem is there was no non destructive test available at the time for finding out which were which.
No doubt almost all the over heated rifles were trashed long ago, but a few may still be out there waiting for a bad cartridge to reveal its flaws.
The USMC LN rifles with Hatcher Hole are probably safe enough, the Marines had no problems with these.
I suspect boring the Hatcher Hole would have revealed whether the steel was brittle at the core.
As tough as it is to drill a Sprinfield receiver the machinist should have been able to judge the quality of the steel in the process and scrap any bad receivers.

[gew98]

I for one won't be a statistic by using the low number potential inferior peices. And if you know anything about the early gew88 it was burst barrels due to bullet vs bore diameter and new types of smokeless powder and bullet jacket material as they expolred uncharted ground. Not iffy heat treating like the 03 range queen. And Boer Mauers - their german allies sent them the wrong ammo. When you use the wrong ammo bad things happen.... unless you have a low number springy thingy. But if you were fighting a foreign oppressor I guess you too would use whatever you could get.
Low quality parts make low quality rifles...just like the low number 03's.

[Multigunner]

I for one won't be a statistic by using the low number potential inferior peices. And if you know anything about the early gew88 it was burst barrels due to bullet vs bore diameter
If you knew as much as you think you do you'd know the JudenBusche failures had nothing to do with bullet and bore sizes. The various changes in groove depth were not an issue, it was poor design and insufficient training of the troops that caused the accidents. Several modifications were made and better training made accidents rare.
The anti-semetics had started a ruckus claiming Ludwig Lowe had sabotaged the rifles to kill German troops. It was a real low point in Germany's reputation.

The 93 Mauser didn't hold up well to bad ammo, the LN 03 didn't hold up well to bad ammo. Neither was recruit proof so sad sacks trying to blow a stuck patch or two inches of mud out of the bore by firing a round accounted for a number of failures of these and rifles with much better reputations like the M1917 being loaded with a 7.92 cartridge.
The British Home Guard managed to wreck a few M1917 rifles, how they did so is unclear.

[Ballistics in Scotland]

The endless stupidity about low number 03s. As a 50+ year 03 collector (pre WW I only) I have yet to see a documented case of a low number gun, with proper headspace and using modern correct ammo blow up. For years we had a $5000 offer out on the net to anyone who could produce such an event ...... nobody collected. IF you actually read Hatcher's book and do a spreadsheet analysis of all the "blowups", the number that can not be explained by human error is in the single digits. Take your new 30-06 model 70 and shoot a full power military 8x57 in it and see what happens. Take 220 grain cupronickel bullets, smear Mobil chassis grease on them (thought to reduce fouling) and run a dozen through any 30-06 you want. The list goes on ..... as Gump said you can't fix stupid.
Hatcher is an NRA "God" so they continue to spout this BS. It helped me buy a lot of mint 30-03s and 30-06s made before WW I. A bit odd that our wonderful government sold tons of "unsafe" 03 actions to firms like G&H, Sedgley and Jaeger who made them into wonderful sporting rifles that have yet to blow up.
Then in WW II they pulled 1000s out of storage and used the actions to make a rifle with an 03 action and 03A3 parts. Sent our boys off to fight with them, guess the "brass" didn't care if they blew up.
Just more hokum like fine twist steel shotgun barrels are a bomb waiting to go off. Amazing how many of them can still be found, reproofed for Nitro and still working as well as they did in the 19th century. Not bored yet ? We could get into the Ross rifle myth next ?:popcorn:



I agree with most of what Mr. Humble says, although I don't think anybody is in terribly much danger of being too kind at the moment, and some other factors, including some built into rifles, aren't totally to be ignored. I wouldn't be anywhere near as venturesome in loading as with a late Springfield or non-emergency European Mausers.

I am a long way from my copy, but agree that General Hatcher documents these blowups extremely well, and comes close to eliminating those without some human contributing factor we are unlikely to repeat nowadays. Expecting to use a .30-06 cartridge is not an unreasonable expectation, and managerial toes would curl up in the ammunition industry at the idea of letting through over-annealed cases, or those he describes as drawn from blanks with a dent in one side from the last row punched out. There is always the possibility (though not on the '42 barreled rifle under discussion) of one of those barrels made from overheated steel being used, or the feed ramp being cut too far forward on the case body.

Any of these rifles is extremely likely to have been used in the First World War, and this cuts both ways. It has probably done a lot of shooting, with numerous batches of military ammunition, then a lot more with the rebarreling, and was sold to the public in a day when the government wasn't desperate to put rifles in people's hands, and wasn't irresponsible about what it sold. I mostly accept these arguments. but it is hard to believe General Hatcher got all the incidents that happened. People didn't search WW1 battlefields in case they got the death certificates wrong. Some rifle accidents probably did go unnoticed, or unreported by people who had other problems while there were rifles lying around to be picked up, or just wanted into a sympathetic hospital with light injuries, instead of the Self Inflicted Wounds one.

I haven't read all the posts, but one factor that could have been involved was Col. Townsend Whelen's tin-plated bullets, inspired by the French strips of tinfoil in their artillery charges, which did indeed reduce nickel fouling. They produced extraordinarily high bullet pull figures, and yet not greatly elevated pressures. Trouble came in the National Matches of 1921, when people were keen enough to dip their bullets in Mobilube grease. (They had been warned not to, which proved it had to be particularly good.) Very dangerous pressures then resulted - supporting my belief that bullets don't pull (or push) out of the cases, but are released by pressure, like blowing into a clinging rubber glove. Grease (or perhaps even water) in the chamber neck would prevent this expansion. Plating was replaced by powdered tin in the powder (already a Dupont patent) where it remained for many years.

I think everybody knows some Lee-Enfields did fail in use, although much more often having a soldier reporting his rifle had behaved oddly, than a dramatic blowup. I also know of one fatal and extremely destructive P14 Enfield blowup which could happen with any spring-extractor rifle, but could easily have been attributed to some other cause. It may have started with a misfire, or the user trying to empty his magazine by loading and ejecting each round in rapid succession. The extractor claw broke off (it has happened to me), and he slammed the next bullet nose into the unfired round which hadn't extracted.

I have a great admiration for the M1895 straight pull Mannlicher, in which I have a sporter-style 7.7x60R which might be a rare and valuable experimental rifle but for being totally refinished, unmarked and probably restocked. But if accidents like those of the early Springfields happened there, what are the chances of their every being documented at all, in a nation splendid in peacetime military engineering, but miserably bad at everything else connected with war?

Damascus barrels are a totally inappropriate analogy for anything physical about a rifle barrel drilled from homogeneous steel. But I think they are a first-class analogy when it comes to people's reactions, and to its suitability for use in the intended manner. I think its origin lay in the inevitability of flaws being in steel of the early nineteenth century. If an ingot was simply drawn out into a rod and bored, the flaw would be stretched out along a considerable length which mightn't matter in a ¼in. thick rifle barrel, but in a .004in. shotgun it certainly did. A damascus barrel interwove bad metal so intimately with good that no significant weakness occurred. Of course its use was prolonged far longer than it needed to be, by the extreme beauty of the best damascus, and the cheapness of the most basic twist.

Good damascus isn't as strong as homogeneous barrel steel, but strong enough to make a good nitro shotgun barrel without excessive thickness. The trouble is that dents occur quite easily, and it can be weakened if it has been dented more deeply that a gunsmith should have been willing to raise. It could be that the hundreds of tiny welds have been cracked.

I do not feel I deserve great credit for taste of judgement in resisting the blandishments of teenaged nymphettes who would lure me to my fall. The truth is that they hardly ever do. Most condemnation of damascus barrels comes from those who don't have one.

I know nothing about ultrasonic testing, but am unsure that it would work in thin sections. What I would recommend is magnaflux testing, which involves magnetizing the object and rolling it in an "ink" of very fine magnetic powder. Any discontinuity in the metal, even below the surface, becomes north and south magnetic poles, and acquires a powdery whisker. I would also do this with an early Springfield which had no recent history of firing, or had been knocked about afterwards, as drill rifles sometimes are. With that proviso I would feel happy shooting it with ammunition calculated and tested to behave the way the military round was meant to.

Another myth you don't mention is that cast bullets necessarily generate lower pressures. They may... But if the throat and first two or three inches of the bore are eroded, a hard case bullet which is bumped up to that diameter and then swaged down in the less eroded part of the bore, may actually give higher pressure than jacketed.

That guard cartridge was the one that always did puzzle me. I don't remember if it was actually being fired at anyone, but if it was, it might easily have been pointed at the ground, or at his legs - although General Hatcher, in his "Textbook of Pistols and Revolvers", advises that into the air is much safer. These cartridges, needed in small numbers, may not have been loaded by automatic machinery, and I think a multiple charge is the most likely explanation.

[Mr Humble]

Excellent post. As you point out VERY few of Hatcher's failure could not be explained by human error or bad ammo.
As far as Ross rifles go I own 2 280 Ross stalking rifles. Only a dolt would assemble them incorrectly as it takes considerable force and obvious failure to follow RTFI. After having a bullet swage made, they shoot as well as any high intensity "7" mm with a 28" skinny barrel and iron sights. Again, there are no documented cases of a properly assembled 280 Ross using correct ammo blowing out a bolt.

As with the low # 03s, impossible to find a documented example that can be attributed to a defect in the rifle.

Absent that, it's just what me Dad called "tits over the back fence."

[Ballistics in Scotland]

Thank you for that kind remark.

As you say, very few are unexplained as human error by Hatcher, and those could still have been due to it.

There were plenty of briefly trained amateurs in the early days of the British Home Guard, who might have done anything with a rifle - as well as the bravest and the best who weren't allowed out of their day jobs in essential industries, and the sort of old man you do not want hunting you. But General Hatcher also documents numerous receiver failures with the M1917, caused by defective heat treatment of the basically excellent 3½% nickel steel. This seems to have centred mainly on production at the Eddystone plant, and to have taken two forms: extreme hardness and brittleness, and burnt steel which is grainy and soft.

I don't know if this specific problem happened with the British P14 contract which preceded it, but there certainly were a lot of problems, which Winchester and Remington blamed on excessively literal interpretation of specifications by the British inspectors. I don't know whether those were standards of how much you get blown up, or genuinely pettier matters. Matters were much improved by the future Lord Reith of the BBC, who qualified for the job by being shot through the head and shoulder by a sniper on the Brickstacks at Cuinchy. He wrote notes to tell family and friends he was perfectly all right, walked half a mile to the hospital with his stretcher-bearers tagging along in panic, and went to see "The Birth of a Nation" three weeks later. He was not a resistable kind of man, being 6'6", a Presbyterian fundamentalist, prone to fixed antipathies. Some said there were better places to hit him. He did reach many compromises on the specifications, but by that time the SMLE factories were meeting demand, and the SMLE was better in mud.

My P14 was an Eddystone, which saw a great deal of shooting after I converted it to a .300H&H and trusted in the primers and head measurements which suggested that heavier than manual loads were fine. Still, I had the drilling test to rely on, and its amputated ears to test as much as I liked.

Incidentally Hatcher claimed the original gas vent holes had been drilled on the wrong side, which he seems to attribute to the designer having taken refreshment. I think that as with any other rifle, these might well control where gas gets squirted after a case rupture hasn't turned into steel fracture, which is very well worth doing. But I think it would be too slow to prevent a blowup if the escape was massive enough.

The Springfield was undeniably Mauser inspired. All of these relationships are complex. But it would be the 93, 96 and similar Mausers, on which it must be considered an improvement. I don't believe any feature in it can be traced to the Mauser 98.

[wayne h]

Hang it on the wall. I never play with a stacked deck. Just my opinion. Wayne h

[Multigunner]

I have read of two blow ups of P-14 or P-13 rifles during field testing.
The cause of each incident was the soldiers that fired the rifles were short men with short arms. While firing in the prone position when armed with the SMLE each had developed the bad habit of letting the muzzle drop while reloading, the bulky muzzle cap and bayonet lug preventing to muzzle of the barrel from touching earth. When they did this with the new rifle they ended up getting sand in the muzzle.
The barrels split, which was unexpected even with bit of sand in the muzzle, so they put both rifles to extensive metalurgical testing. The verdict was "Burnt Steel".
Not sure where these rifles were made. If P13 experimentals they may have been built by Vickers. Vickers lost out on the P-14 contract because they had depended on a Yugoslavian sub contractor and events proved that unworkable.

Thats all I can remember, I read of this about 40 years ago.

[13Echo]

I possess the LN Springfield that started this thread. It has a receiver made in 1916, and 1942 barrel, and a J6 bolt with Remington guts. It has obviously seen a lot of use without becoming a grenade. It also has a punch mark on the receiver ring that seems to have been from testing for hardness. I don't think this was done when the actions were made which makes me suspect it was examined and tested much later. It seems to have passed. Has anyone else seen a hardness test punch mark on any other LN '03 receivers?

Jerry Liles

[gnoahhh]

That punch mark was put on when it was rebarreled at a gov't installation, or in the field by a battalion-level artificer (gun repairman who traveled with a combat unit, who repaired weapons in the field). I had a friend who was one of those guys, in WWII, who explained the meaning of that mark to me.

He also confirmed my long held personal feelings regarding the use of low number '03s when he described fully half of the bolt guns he serviced in Northern Ireland (pre-invasion when his unit still had yet to be issued Garands) were low numbered guns- and posed nary a problem. I would prefer a nice low-number gun over anything made later, with the exception of a 1903A1 National Match (I have one) or an NRA Sporter (wish I had one!). As has been stated earlier, once the unwarranted bad rep was splashed into the gun press, generation after generation of gun writers blindly regurgitated the drivel, and many an otherwise rational gun owner bought into it. Good, I say. That means all the more for me to pick over.

[Ballistics in Scotland]

I have read of two blow ups of P-14 or P-13 rifles during field testing.
The cause of each incident was the soldiers that fired the rifles were short men with short arms. While firing in the prone position when armed with the SMLE each had developed the bad habit of letting the muzzle drop while reloading, the bulky muzzle cap and bayonet lug preventing to muzzle of the barrel from touching earth. When they did this with the new rifle they ended up getting sand in the muzzle.
The barrels split, which was unexpected even with bit of sand in the muzzle, so they put both rifles to extensive metalurgical testing. The verdict was "Burnt Steel".
Not sure where these rifles were made. If P13 experimentals they may have been built by Vickers. Vickers lost out on the P-14 contract because they had depended on a Yugoslavian sub contractor and events proved that unworkable.

Thats all I can remember, I read of this about 40 years ago.

What a shame it would be, if someone blew up a P13 trials rifle which could have stayed together! I saw a beautifully light-walnut stocked one in near-mint condition auctioned for £480 in the UK, certainly after 1990, and I very much doubt if you would get away with an extra zero nowadays. The .276 round should be thoroughly usable with modern components, too.

I don't dispute the burnt steel, though you should probably get away with that indefinitely - if an obstruction doesn't contribute, and if it is confined to the muzzle of a rifle. Sand is very odd stuff. You would think it would be less of an obstruction than mud, but it isn't, and dry is worse than damp. I've posted just recently on an experiment of Dr. Mann in 1909, with the last 3/8in. behind the bullet in a .32-40 case filled with dry sand. It tore off the necks, to be carried down-range with the bullets. Clearly dry sand, which you could poke your finger into, locks tightly together under a close to instantaneous blow.

I'm not sure how seriously the government ever were about awarding the P14 contract to Vickers. The Army had suddenly wised up a lot about the heavy machine-gun in the course of that autumn.

[13Echo]

Another thought about the LN "03 receiver punch mark. It had to be placed with a steel punch and a hammer. If the receiver ring was truly brittle that should have shattered it rather than just leave a mark.

Jerry Liles

[Ballistics in Scotland]

Another thought about the LN "03 receiver punch mark. It had to be placed with a steel punch and a hammer. If the receiver ring was truly brittle that should have shattered it rather than just leave a mark.

Jerry Liles

Does anybody know whether that was just hit with a hammer as conventionally swung by hand, and whether any further assessment of the mark took place? It sounds a bit like the sort of hardness test which was done by applying pressure with a spring or with a specific weight falling a specific distance, and the dent then assessed with an optical micrometer and tables.

[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.

http://i1186.photobucket.com/albums/z377/rocketcity1/tororeelmower18/9ab05304.jpg (http://s1186.photobucket.com/user/rocketcity1/media/tororeelmower18/9ab05304.jpg.html)

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]

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.
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.......

http://i1186.photobucket.com/albums/z377/rocketcity1/tororeelmower18/rfs93x62.gif (http://s1186.photobucket.com/user/rocketcity1/media/tororeelmower18/rfs93x62.gif.html)

[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
http://i1186.photobucket.com/albums/z377/rocketcity1/tororeelmower18/DSCN3292.jpg (http://s1186.photobucket.com/user/rocketcity1/media/tororeelmower18/DSCN3292.jpg.html)

6.5x55 and 22-06

http://i1186.photobucket.com/albums/z377/rocketcity1/tororeelmower18/93e71081.jpg (http://s1186.photobucket.com/user/rocketcity1/media/tororeelmower18/93e71081.jpg.html)

400 Whelen

http://i1186.photobucket.com/albums/z377/rocketcity1/file-114.jpg (http://s1186.photobucket.com/user/rocketcity1/media/file-114.jpg.html)

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

http://i1186.photobucket.com/albums/z377/rocketcity1/tororeelmower18/f1b81386.jpg (http://s1186.photobucket.com/user/rocketcity1/media/tororeelmower18/f1b81386.jpg.html)

[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.

http://i1186.photobucket.com/albums/z377/rocketcity1/tororeelmower18/9ab05304.jpg (http://s1186.photobucket.com/user/rocketcity1/media/tororeelmower18/9ab05304.jpg.html)

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

http://i1186.photobucket.com/albums/z377/rocketcity1/tororeelmower18/mauserspringfield.jpg (http://s1186.photobucket.com/user/rocketcity1/media/tororeelmower18/mauserspringfield.jpg.html)

Having to do with these......

http://i1186.photobucket.com/albums/z377/rocketcity1/03planfullgif_thumbnail0_zpse3e55c54.jpg (http://s1186.photobucket.com/user/rocketcity1/media/03planfullgif_thumbnail0_zpse3e55c54.jpg.html)

http://i1186.photobucket.com/albums/z377/rocketcity1/03planmausergif_thumbnail0_zps9a96dcf3.jpg (http://s1186.photobucket.com/user/rocketcity1/media/03planmausergif_thumbnail0_zps9a96dcf3.jpg.html)

you can own a set.

[HangFireW8]

It's amazing to me that some here can take the explained Hatcher early '03 failures and write them off as having nothing to do with bad heat treating. Rifles should not fail catastrophically for an explainable failure, they should fail gracefully. Hatcher knew the difference. Anyone not acknowledging the difference is sticking their head in the sand.

On the other hand, I'm not ready to write off all early numbered Springfields. If I had one, I'd shoot it with moderate cast boolit loads, in deference to its age and possible limitations. Just like I do with my '92/'93 action Mausers. You know, the ones with all the warnings about possible tight bores and bad gas handling. I also slug the barrels, and shoot wearing long sleeves, safety goggles and a hat.

If anyone chooses not to shoot one, or goes with full power loads, that's their privilege, and I won't insult him or try to convince him otherwise, but whoever pulls the trigger has to accept responsibility for what they do.

[JHeath]

It's amazing to me that some here can take the explained Hatcher early '03 failures and write them off as having nothing to do with bad heat treating. Rifles should not fail catastrophically for an explainable failure, they should fail gracefully. Hatcher knew the difference. Anyone not acknowledging the difference is sticking their head in the sand.

On the other hand, I'm not ready to write off all early numbered Springfields. If I had one, I'd shoot it with moderate cast boolit loads, in deference to its age and possible limitations. Just like I do with my '92/'93 action Mausers. You know, the ones with all the warnings about possible tight bores and bad gas handling. I also slug the barrels, and shoot wearing long sleeves, safety goggles and a hat.

If anyone chooses not to shoot one, or goes with full power loads, that's their privilege, and I won't insult him or try to convince him otherwise, but whoever pulls the trigger has to accept responsibility for what they do.

I don't think people are writing off those failures. It's just that rifles that were supposed to fail at 120k, failed catastrophically at 80k because somebody fired them with a bullet 15 thou too big and a case too short, or a barrel full of dirt.

From what I understand of this thread, some knowledgeable people say that the lowest verified failure threshold was 80k. And that therefore firing 25k cast loads is reasonable.

That's a design factor of ~3.

The intended failure was 120k+ or so, and 60k loads. That's a design factor of 2.

Other people say that the receiver might shatter under even the slightest pressure, because it is "glass hard" and Hatcher broke some with a hammer. That isn't numbers. Near as I can tell it is either reasoning or imagination depending on who is doing the talking. But either way it is not numbers.

Near as I can tell, the minimum breaking strength that has been verified is 80k, and the problem is that it's supposed to be 120k and some don't make spec., so does not meet the intended design factor with factory ammo.

But for lots of other rifles we do not know the design factor or compliance rate. Yet we routinely shoot them without a second thought, because nobody told us to worry about them.

I go by design factors, and material strengths established by empirical testing. A design factor of 3 is safer than a design factor of 2. There's some iffy-ness around the strength of a bad 03, but from what I understand the documented number is 80k. And the iffy-ness around the 03 seems no worse than for a Krag or Roller or Swede, which have had their own not-entirely-explained failures.

[Mr Humble]

I'm still waiting for the "verified failure" in a rifle having proper headspace with modern ammo.

Th low number 03s' were heat treated by the same guys who did the Krags. Funny as to how there are no contemporary horror stories of Krags exploding although a much weaker action and shooting the same horrible 220 gr cupro nickle bullet. Quite a few Krags were wildcatted to 25 Krag, no slouch, and yet no records of failure in the literature of the day.

IMO my low number Sedgley 270 WCF pretty well proved that failures that could be identified were due to the nut behind the bolt, not the rifle.

I even once had a Sedgley low number that was a 300 H&H. Took a lot of work to fit that 3.6" oal cartridge in an 06' action, including hogging out metal behind the lower locking lug so the enlarged magazine would fit. Headspace was dead on and I shot it with 300 H&H loads, loaded to levels of the 1930s. Once saw at Holland and Holland gun room in NYC, a WW I 98 actioned Rigby bolt action in 416 Rigby ! Musta have taken a pound of metal out of that action, but it was a well worn gun that spent many years in Africa killing things.

As, I said if anyone has a low #03 and is scared of it, I'll be happy to take it off your trembling hands.

Here's another VERY low # 03 that has yet to explode in spite of having many 1000 rounds through it. Do you know why ?

http://i1186.photobucket.com/albums/z377/rocketcity1/tororeelmower18/157ec7c8.jpg (http://s1186.photobucket.com/user/rocketcity1/media/tororeelmower18/157ec7c8.jpg.html)

[lefty o]

its like the romper room in here!

[M-Tecs]

Actually I am enjoying the discussion. I always like to hear both sides so I can make my own informed decision.

[Mr Humble]

It should also be noted, contrary to Hatcher's assertions, low number 03s were NOT pulled out of service, the actions destroyed, and the parts matched up with new actions.
Many low number actions were sold off to custom gun makers who used them to build fine custom rifles. Many other complete rifles were stored away and then were rearsenaled in WW II. At a gun show many years ago I saw what I initially thought was a bright green 03A3 but no .... it was a THREE digit serial number action fitted with a 1941 03' Remington barrel and all other parts 03A3. Then it had been blasted and given the bright green parkerizing desired on real 03A3s. When there's a war to be fought, you fight with what you have. Should have bought it but did not.

[WineMan]

Most accidents are the result of several factors: bad technique; faulty materials; improper use; plain stupidity. The heat treat process that was used by Springfield and RIA was not faulty: the temperature of the receivers was not accurately measured. Some obviously were, some were not. The brass used in some FA rounds was not properly treated and due to the M1903 design, gas from ruptured cases gets into the action and has a place to expand in. Cupro-Nickle jacketed bullets, tended to leave metal fouling in the barrels and grease was found to help mitigate that, there is no good way to grease bullets and not smear some in places it should not be. I could see grabbing a clip of 7.92x57 in a trench in WWI, that was dropped by the original user, but how does one get some at a stateside military base and find a way to use it in a rifle not designed for it? Plenty of dangerous things are done by each of us on a daily basis. To me it is like driving a car with bad brakes in the mountains: take it easy and you probably do OK, push it and watch out for trouble. The issue is not if you get hurt, but if others get hurt too because you had knowledge that your equipment had issues.

Great Thread by the way!

Dave

[guicksylver]

Hi Dave !

Yes interesting thread.

So, ask yourself, if a thousand people were lined up against a wall and a shooter was blindfolded and spun around would you want to be one of those thousand people.

Or if these low numbers only fail because of operator error, wouldn't you want that extra protection from a loading error.

We all make mistakes, I would rather have the added protection........just saying.

Surprised no one has mentioned the bolts.

[guicksylver]

I'm still waiting for the "verified failure" in a rifle having proper headspace with modern ammo.

Th low number 03s' were heat treated by the same guys who did the Krags. Funny as to how there are no contemporary horror stories of Krags exploding although a much weaker action and shooting the same horrible 220 gr cupro nickle bullet. Quite a few Krags were wildcatted to 25 Krag, no slouch, and yet no records of failure in the literature of the day.

IMO my low number Sedgley 270 WCF pretty well proved that failures that could be identified were due to the nut behind the bolt, not the rifle.

I even once had a Sedgley low number that was a 300 H&H. Took a lot of work to fit that 3.6" oal cartridge in an 06' action, including hogging out metal behind the lower locking lug so the enlarged magazine would fit. Headspace was dead on and I shot it with 300 H&H loads, loaded to levels of the 1930s. Once saw at Holland and Holland gun room in NYC, a WW I 98 actioned Rigby bolt action in 416 Rigby ! Musta have taken a pound of metal out of that action, but it was a well worn gun that spent many years in Africa killing things.

As, I said if anyone has a low #03 and is scared of it, I'll be happy to take it off your trembling hands.

Here's another VERY low # 03 that has yet to explode in spite of having many 1000 rounds through it. Do you know why ?

http://i1186.photobucket.com/albums/z377/rocketcity1/tororeelmower18/157ec7c8.jpg (http://s1186.photobucket.com/user/rocketcity1/media/tororeelmower18/157ec7c8.jpg.html)


Could you enlighten me as to what scope and mount that is?

Thanks ....Dan

[Mr Humble]

Still waiting .......

It wasn't FA ammo BTW it was WCC soft headed cases.

I don't know where the dummies who put 8x57 ammo in 03's got it. Fact remains, they did.

As for the scope and mount ...... not yet. As we have sooooo many 03' experts here, I'm sure they'll come up with all the answers about that rifle.

Still waiting for that blown up low # rifle that has correct headspace and blew up with modern ammo.