"brittle" receivers

[TRX]

Gun lore has it that some '03 Springfields had case hardened receivers that were brittle, and those rifles should be avoided if possible. I've also seen the same warning for the Eddystone-made P17 Enfields.

Some of the warnings I've seen about the Springfields said things like "it will shatter like glass." Almost every general rifle book I have contains something similar.

I'd never much thought about this before, but both of those rifles use front-lug actions. The barrel is threaded into the front of the receiver and there's about a half inch of clearance for the bolt lugs to their ramps on the receiver.

On firing, there's hoop stress on the barrel, which is contained by the fat military-style barrel and front ring, and thrust load across the bolt to the ramps on the receiver. Basically, the entire load is across the half inch gap where the bolt turns; the rest of the receiver is along for the ride. That's a short load path and plenty of metal to take it; I'm having a hard time imagining a heat treat that would make the metal brittle enough to fail.

None of the books have any pictures or further details. Here in the 21st century, they read more like internet scare stories than real gunsmithing, and they were repeating warnings that were already 40 or 50 years old when those books were printed.

So, were there *really* any exploding Springfields and Eddystones out there, or what?

[NuJudge]

Hatcher's Notebook has a lengthy discussion on it, as well as a list of what caused failures. My recollection is that more of them were caused by firing an 8x57 cartridge in a .30-'06 chamber than anything else.

See page 212.

CDD

[10-x]

+ 1 for Hatchers notebook.
'The American Rifleman" also had an article about 03's a few months back and this was mentioned. The late Mr. Harrison's book on Collectable 03's also covers it pretty well.
Have never heard the enbrittlement problem with M-1917's.
What is the source?
Many, many 1917's have been used for "wildcat" cartridges as well as magnum cartridges and are known for their strength.:-D

[13Echo]

There is some truth to these stories. Early '03s and some Eddystone 1917s were hardend through and through. It made for a very slick working action but left the steel brittle, that is unable to streatch and subject to cracking. There were examples of receiver ring railure of early Springfields using service loads. When heat treatment was changed to "double heat treatment" to give a hard surface with a core of tough, but softer steel (like Mausers) the problem went away. Reading DeHass' book on Bolt Action Rifles in the 1917 Enfield section he notes, "Not a design fault, but rather a construction fault, is that some of the 1917 actions develop hair-line cracks. By no means a common occurrance, it is common enough to be of some concern to owners of these actions. The cracks usually appear some place around the receiver ring, often starting at the front edge of the receiver and extending rearward in an erratic pattern. ----- It is believed that many of these receivers, perhaps, were given a faulty heat treatment, the metal thereby becoming too hard and brittle."

The suspect actions aren't going to shatter from a hard blow with a hammer but they can crack and they will crack in the receiver ring at the thinnest point which is the recess for the locking lugs. If they are subject to a bad overload to failure they won't streatch they will snap. Now having said that every one of them survived a substantial proof load at the arsenal before being issued. Would I use a low number Springfield action to build a rifle? No. While it will likely be just fine it just isn't worth the risk, however small.

Jerry Liles

[10-x]

Thanks for the reference on the 1917's. I would never consider firing a low number 03, they should be considered "safe queens" as most in good orginal condition are $1,000.00 and up.
My 09 dated 03 is going to the next gun show "to find a new home."[smilie=1:

[Bret4207]

Read Hatcher, Crossman, Ackley, Dunlop, any of the older gun or gunsmithing books. The problem is laid out in a variety of ways. What the realities are I can't say for 100% sure. Some of those same early books call the Arisaka action weak and dangerous and yet we've found it to be among the strongest of the WW2 rifles. Carcanos are supposed to be dangerous and Krags are supposed to all have cracked bolt lugs and Ross rifles are supposed to be able to assembled wrong, yet I recently read an article saying it can't be done! I just don't believe much of it anymore. When dealing with guns 50-150 years old common sense says check it over really well, use caution and a good dose of common sense when working loads up and keep an eye out for anything strange or unusual. I don't think too many guns found today are going to "shatter like glass" using mild cast loads.

[EMC45]

I have read an older article that echos what Bret said. About the Arisaka and the various other receiver strengths. The article I read actually said the Arisaka was the only rifle left at the end of the test. They stiff loaded and over loaded the rifles and fired them remotely. They all blew up except the Arisaka. And if I'm not mistaken they were breaking 03 receivers with the blow of a screwdriver.

[Pepe Ray]

Addressing this only;
Whereas exceptions can always be found, Generally the problem with 1917's was that the gunsmith employed to rebarrel it didn't know that he needed methods other than commonly used.
Invariably, he'd try to "muscle" it out and "Whoops!!" alovasuden discover a crack in the receiver ring. Sorry Mr. customer, yer rifles NDG. Broke, ya no.
Yes, cracks have been found before attempts to remove the bbl. but that is unusual and a good GS can find them.
When rebarreling an "Eddy", never depend on salvaging the original bbl in it's entirety. It will, invariably, need to be cut in some way to relieve the stresses imparted during installation.

EVERY RIFLEMAN SHOULD HAVE A COPY OF HATCHER'S NOTEBOOK.
Pepe Ray

[floodgate]

Bret:

There WAS one model of the Ross (I don't have a good reference handy) that could be assembled with the locking system not properly engaged. The factory "fixed" the problem by a small extension to (IIRC) the extractor, but these could fracture or wear and the problem would return. A buddy has three Rosses and a great book on them; I will have to check with him. A major problem with the Ross in WW I was that they were chambered rather tightly, and British wartime specs on .303 ammo were very loose (as were the wartime SMLE chambers), so jams were common in the Ross under battlefield conditions; the remedy was to set the rifle upright on its butt and stomp the straight-pull bolt handle with your boot - which probably did nothing for the integrity of the action. In the hands of a trained sniper, with carefully selected ammo, the Ross did perform pretty well. Read McBride's "A Rifleman Went to War"; he was an American shooter who joined up in Canada and fought through the War with them.

Floodgate

[Echo]

Re the Arisaka action - IIRC, the ones that failed in early tests were 'show' rifles w/cast receivers that were never designed to be actually fired.

[Bent Ramrod]

Dave LeGate had an article in one of the old Rifle magazines on the ease with which low-number Springfields would shatter with side forces, like raps with a plastic hammer. The same thing did not seem to happen with the forces generated on firing a cartridge, unless bolts were switched, chambers were greased or the actions were rebarreled for hot-rod wildcats. Even then, it was a rare occurrence.

A friend of mine has a Ross in .303 British and he complained to me that it was hard to get the bolt open after firing. We repaired to the railroad cut for a few shots to check it out. The extraction was indeed stiff, and the shell looked like somebody had "improved" the chamber with a round rasp. We drilled out the primer pockets of one of the shells, mounted it on a rod, coated it with abrasive, and polished the chamber with it a little bit. Extraction went from very hard to much too easy--that bolt was unlocked and would slide 1/2"-1" back along its track after the gun was fired. Not exactly a confidence builder.

[missionary5155]

Back to the 03... Mine is #5002xx. When I purchased it I knew the stories and decicded to just shoot cast at 1800 fps or less. So far no problems and I cannot see a low power cast load doing any thing... May be I am wrong but I cannot see regulating my 03 to a dark, unseen realm...

[dominicfortune00]

IIRC, in the '60's somebody sent in a "30'06" Arisaka that 'shot too hard" for American Rifleman's Dopebag to test.

Turns out somebody rechambered a 6.5 Jap Arisaka for 30'06.

AR was shooting 30'06 match ammo with the 173 grain FMJ in it and it didn't blow up!!

That 30 cal. bullet was fire resized to 6.5 cal and ended up about a half inch longer than when it started.

IIRC the Arisaka action was so strong due to the fact that the bolt locking lugs lock into the barrel, rather than the receiver.

If anybody has a copy of this and can send it to me I'd appreciate it.

[Bret4207]

Bret:

There WAS one model of the Ross (I don't have a good reference handy) that could be assembled with the locking system not properly engaged. The factory "fixed" the problem by a small extension to (IIRC) the extractor, but these could fracture or wear and the problem would return. A buddy has three Rosses and a great book on them; I will have to check with him. A major problem with the Ross in WW I was that they were chambered rather tightly, and British wartime specs on .303 ammo were very loose (as were the wartime SMLE chambers), so jams were common in the Ross under battlefield conditions; the remedy was to set the rifle upright on its butt and stomp the straight-pull bolt handle with your boot - which probably did nothing for the integrity of the action. In the hands of a trained sniper, with carefully selected ammo, the Ross did perform pretty well. Read McBride's "A Rifleman Went to War"; he was an American shooter who joined up in Canada and fought through the War with them.

Floodgate

Flood, the idea was that the bolt could be assembled wrong and the thing would "fly out into your forehead"!!! I've only seen 2 Ross rifles in my short life and never had one apart. One I should have bought, it was a sweet sporter. Anyways, the article I read was by a guy who had all the different models and he said it couldn't be done. Got me. I think every other gunny smithing book printed since Ching Foo Fong invented gun powder has said a Ross is patently unsafe. Maybe all of youse guys can get together and buy me 15 or 20 and I'll gladly run the definitive test!

I'd love to get a copy of McBrides book, but every one I see starts around $60.00. Ouch!

[TRX]

Thank you, gentlemen. I appreciate your commentary!

[jonk]

It is my understanding that some were overheated, causing all the carbon to be cooked out- or too much. Reason: heat treating was done visually and depending on the machinist and ambient light, varying results were had.

Now, most of these rifles went through 2 world wars and many a lend lease program, often being rebarreled. I suspect all the duds were long ago weeded out and would not hesitate to shoot one with light loads. Personally. Not recommending it for others.

[Buckshot]

..............Not ALL early Springfield actions are brittle, however quite a few were. The employees at Springfield in the heat treat shop were old hands at it and proud of their ability to gage hardening temps by the color of the steel in the furnaces. However, as was very common in those days, the majority of lighting for their work area was via skylights.

Peering into an oil fired heat treat furnace through a small circular window to see how the batch was coming along had it's negatives. Different people see colors differently so the intensities of the "oranges" could vary. It was also found out that heat treating results varied greatly between bright clear days, and overcast or cloudy days (light transmission through the skylights).

After the problem was indentified, and the reason for it discovered the arsenal installed pyrometers. The through hardened Springfield actions had tremendous strength through their hardness. However they had no toughness or any ability to withstand a suddenly applied shock load. Think of a file, as the most easily recognized or commonly known object having almost the same properties. Lock 1" of a 10" file in the bench vise and then begin pulling on the 9" sticking out.

It will not bend except over it's entire length, and then to no great extent. That 1" clamped in the vise will withstand it all until it reaches it's limit, and then it breaks all of a sudden without warning, and on ocassion sending off small spalled bits from the outside portion of the fracture line. In the example of the file, since it is happening so slowly you will see the file bend to some degree.

You will not see anything happening in one of the brittle rifle actions until it fails, because any bowing or flexing takes place over a comparatively short and complicated surface. Plus it happens much faster then the eye could ever hope to capture. However, on the other hand these through hardened recievers won't show the signs of distress casehardened actions will, such as lugs setting back into the shoulders.

A correctly casehardened action (modern alloys allow safe through hardening) will give a bit. The casehardened surface can be pounded and hammered on, but most of this is absorbed (for lack of a better term) by the softer more resiliant core. You will see fracturing of the hardened surface, but it's depth is usually measured only in a few to several thousandths of an inch.

http://www.fototime.com/BE8264D8DE6B845/standard.jpghttp://www.fototime.com/B800A1117B523A0/standard.jpg

http://www.fototime.com/2FC3C32627AA38A/standard.jpghttp://www.fototime.com/88A840C9F95788A/standard.jpg

This is the remains of a nice NRA Springfield Sporter that belonged to my great grandfather. All it took was a double charge of IMR4227 and a case rupture. The action basically shattered in place. Had the case not ruptured, I have no doubt the action would have easily survived. Due to the coned breech and the amount of exposed brass, the brass let go. The yellow you see in the photo's was vaporized casehead. It was much more pronounced in person then visible in these photo's.

In the upper left photo that bit in the bottom left corner is a piece of the casehead. In the upper right photo you can see that the locking lug had setback. The safety lug also was able to leave a definate indentation in the right bridge wall.In the bottom right photo, directly in front of the bolt is that bit of casehead. I will also mention that the bolt was still lying there. I can't say it was still locked in the reciever because it wasn't, it was in fact just lying there in the shattered remains. Had I tilted the rifle sideways it would have fallen out of it's own weight, along with the lose pieces that remained of the action.

The only reason I can think of how the bolt remained in place was that the pressure was on and off so fast that inertia held it there, as the action had shattered around it.

As a youth I'd fired several hundred rounds of old (ancient?) ammo of unknown make and vintage that had been lying around my grandparents for God only knows how long. Many a box of Remington factory, in addition to 10-12 years worth of my own cast and jacketed reloads had gone down the bore. So just remember, those double charges of 4227 will getcha.

BTW, the Lyman 311284 tripped the chronograph at 3059 fps about the same time the action blew.

.................Buckshot

[missionary5155]

Thanks for the post Buckshot...
Double charges !!! I wonder what the pressures were ?

[Ricochet]

The original Springfield actions were both case and through-hardened. They were heated in pots of charred leather, then quenched. They were all brittle in the sense that they can be easily broken by clamping in a vise and tapping with a hammer, but the overheated "burned steel" ones dangerously so. They didn't all blow up from things like overcharges, stuck bullets in cases surrounded by grease, or such. One was recorded as failing after firing a "Guard cartridge" loaded with 9.1 grains of Bullseye under the standard 150 grain jacketed bullet. It didn't burst, it just shattered and fell apart after the shot. Hatcher addresses the low-numbered Springfield problems in several places in his book, one chapter giving the history of how the problem was identified and the heat treatment changed, and there's an appendix in the back listing details of ALL the known Springfield failures up to the time of publication.

[TAWILDCATT]

I have one in the 500, range and shoot it with my pet load of 311291 and 13 gr red dot.the date is 1914.this came from the arsenal thru the back door or front I am not sure but it was in the 1960s.the barrel is perfect and I have a WW2 bolt in it would I shoot full loads in it no because I want the barrel to shoot lead.:coffee:[smilie=1:

[MtGun44]

Buckshot,

Wow :shock:

A shame to lose a fine rifle, good news that there was no injury. You can
see that the surface is hard where it cracked, but the interior is tougher and
less brittle and stopped the crack in some areas. It looks like the third
lug was a really good thing when needed!

I always wondered if the small projection behind the bolt handle on the
M95 Chilean DWM would help any, I guess this answers that in the
affirmative.

Metallurgy was a fairly new science at that time and seat of the pants
heat treating is not a very precise process, to say the least.

Bill

[NickSS]

I have read Hatchers notebook and he has a lengthly discussion in it on the problem. He also has the serial numbers of the rifles affected. As I recall anything made by Springfield below 800,000 and Rock Island below 200,000 are single heat treated and may be brittle He documents about 20 rifles that blew up before they changed the heat treating. The army did not recall the million of so springfields in question and continued using them for many years. They did change the heat treating proces to what is known as double heat treated guns once the problem was identified. My fealings on the low number springfields is this. They have been around for over 80 years and a lot of them rebuilt several times and used throught two wars. With standard GI loads they are probably safe to use unless something like a double charge goes off in them then they will probably turn to shrapnel. I certainly would not use one to build a magnum rifle out of nor shoot modern hot loads from the rifle but with Ball 2 equivalent loads or cast loads you are probably safe enough.

[Bret4207]

I ventured the same opinion here once Nick and got the reaming over it. I'm too much of a cyninc to believe much of anything anymore. Until I see it myself I'll take everything with a grain of salt. My '03 will be a cast boolit rifle, not out of fear, but because I prefer cast and low pressure loads. Same for my Krag.

[Kragman71]

The last word in the strength of military actions is PO Ackley.
The strongest bolt action that he tested,was the early Arisaka.These are all 6.5 caliber. The ones made late in the war,were not the same.These are 7.7 caliber.
Julian Hatcher is the last word on 1903 Springfield and 1917 Enfield.
The low number 800,000,are definately weaker then the ones that were double heat treated,in 1919,and later,nickle steel.However,any low numbered rifle that has survived this long,is probably safe to shoot with moderate loads.Be aware that a light,"gallerie load"actually destroyed one of them.
The 1917 Eddystone Enfields dveloped cracked receivers when they had the barrels removed.There were no failures when fireing the gun.
Frank

[hydraulic]

The 1903 site on the Culver Shooting Page has information that recent research indicates that several thousand more serial numbers should be added to the 800,000 Springfield numbers used previously. They do not recommend shooting early '03's regardless of the ammunition used.

[OeldeWolf]

I once corresponded with a lady, but when I mentioned to her that I belonged to the NRA, she became totally unglued. It seems that her father had been killed by one of the early 03's, the rifle having been purchased surplus through the NRA. She blamed the NRA for her father's death, and repeatedly asked me if the problem had been known before the sale of her father's rifle. I replied that I was not an expert, but that I believed it had been the after-sale deaths that turned up the problem.

So yes, some of them did fail, and take their shooters with them. I believe she said that it had been commercial ammunition, as well.
This being the reason they had known the problem was the rifle itself, not the ammo.

[bcp477]

Just a thought, but I have always been intrigued as to the problem with certain Springfields. The question comes to mind - why weren't the "brittle" ones simply RE-heat treated to eliminate the problem, even if years or decades after they were produced ?? Why not do that NOW, if one happens to have one of the suspect rifles ? It certainly IS technically feasible....not a big problem at all.

[skeet1]

I believe that retreating the suspect rifles was tried but did not help. As I remember the first heat treatment had "burned" the steel. This had someting to do with heat treating by the color of the metal durring the treatment and was judged by sight by the person conducting the operation.

Skeet1

[floodgate]

The R. F. Sedgley company (custom gun rebuilders, makers of the little folding trigger .22 "Baby Hammerless" - a knock-off of the European Velo-Dog - WWII flare pistols, etc.) did try re-heat treating low-number Springfields in the '40s, but the results were generally not considered to be satisfactory or safe.

Floodgate

[TAWILDCATT]

it alwas intreged me as the 98 mauser never had the problem.why the americans.
we always seemed to be behind in our guns.just look at what was available and what we got.
BRET: try LEE 312-160-tl with 13 gr red dot.I had been using 311291.1" group at 100yds in my 1914 spring.1680 fps crony:coffee:[smilie=1:

[Bret4207]

Thx TA- Gotta love that 13.0 RD load. I keep a Lyman 55 permanently set up for it!

[uscra112]

it alwas intreged me as the 98 mauser never had the problem.why the americans.
we always seemed to be behind in our guns.just look at what was available and what we got. [smilie=1:

Germans have been the world's foremost metalworkers since the middle ages. Must be something in the genes. The only reason we're any good at it at all is that so many Germans emigrated here. The famed "Kentucky Rifle" was mainly invented by Germans, for example. Think of Krupp. Back in the early '70s I remember being in one of the shops that built our first rocket engines (for the Vanguard) and listening to the machinists discussing a problem with their supervisor. In German.

Col. Julian Hatcher was THE authority on the low-number Springfield problem. He was the guy assigned to do the failure analysis when the problems cropped up.

I just re-read an NRA article that mentions this. He found that SOME of the failures were caused by bad brass, but that in the end the heat treat process control was the main culprit.

What that means is that there's a significant, (though not necessarily large), fraction of the low-number actions that will fail, and the rest are safe. How to tell the difference? You can't, short of firing a box of blue pills through one. From a safe distance!

I have access to an X-ray tomography machine at work, so if I had one, I'd have it x-rayed, too. I've done it with a couple of my antique actions, just to see what we could see. Thanks be, we found no problems.

[Ricochet]

Hatcher also gave info that 98 Mauser receivers and bolts were made of something like SAE 1035, which is lower carbon than the US ordnance steels. Probably less susceptible to embrittlement from improper heat treatment. You do hear of too-soft old Mausers. They don't blow up catastropically, the lugs set back in the receiver rings.

[45-70marlin]

I shoot my 1903 springfield made in 1913 with ball ammo with no problems. here is a site i think you all might like to read on the subject. http://m1903.com/03rcvrfail/

[madsenshooter]

IIRC, in the '60's somebody sent in a "30'06" Arisaka that 'shot too hard" for American Rifleman's Dopebag to test.

Turns out somebody rechambered a 6.5 Jap Arisaka for 30'06.

AR was shooting 30'06 match ammo with the 173 grain FMJ in it and it didn't blow up!!

That 30 cal. bullet was fire resized to 6.5 cal and ended up about a half inch longer than when it started.

IIRC the Arisaka action was so strong due to the fact that the bolt locking lugs lock into the barrel, rather than the receiver.

If anybody has a copy of this and can send it to me I'd appreciate it.

Do not lock into the barrel, the locking lugs are in the receiver. The 30/06 in the 6.5 story is in Bolt Action Rifles by Frank de Haas, and I recall seeing it while reading old back issues of American Rifleman while in college too.

[45 2.1]

Do not lock into the barrel, the locking lugs are in the receiver. The 30/06 in the 6.5 story is in Bolt Action Rifles by Frank de Haas, and I recall seeing it while reading old back issues of American Rifleman while in college too.

One version of the Arisaka does lock into lugs in the barrel. This one has a cast receiver and the barrel extension goes farther back so the bolt lugs can lock into the barrel recesses. A good friend had an extensive Jap rifle collection with a couple of these in it.

[NoDakJak]

I have owned and shot a lot of Springfields including including low numbers, double heat treated ones and the later nickel steel versions. I certainly had no problems with any of them. My last one was a low number with the original barrel. The barrel was not corroded but had been shot so extensively that the rifling was almost completely gone. I couldn't get it to stabilize 150 or 165 grain slugs and sold it to my hunting partner. He found that the 125 grain slug ahead of a healthy dose of IMR 4350 shot into less than inch. Ah well!
I read in the Rifleman many years ago and maybe in Hatchers Notebook that part of the problem with blowups was the problem with the massive fouling problem caused by the early material used for bullet jackets. Many shooters tried to alleviate the problem by greasing the bullets. This inevitably led to grease in the chamber which increased bolt thrust. This along with the increased chamber pressures caused by the fouling probably caused some of the blowups. There was a otice in the Rifleman many years ago stating that most of the low numbered actions had the bolts replaced with a later, stronger version but some of them had slipped through the net and still had the old bolt. They gave information on how to tell the difference.
Ricochet was right about there being many soft Mauser actions. BUT!!!! The 98 Mauser has been manufactured for 110 years by dozens of different companies and in a couple dozen different countries. Heat treat on them diffeers enormously, varying from butter soft to glass hard. I have a 98 Mauser reciever in my junk box. The barreled action was accidently dropped on the floor and the reciever shattered into several pieces through the side rails. The only solace to that was that I didn't have to try to drill and tap for scope. I also have a 91 Mauser reciever in the box that has the side rails twisted about 30 degrees when someone tried to remove the barrel.
In my experience the Eddystone Enfield seem to be the main offender with cracked reciever rings. Whover wis cinching those barrels in must have been as strong as an ox and half as smart. A few of those barrels were turned in so tight that the recievers have been found cracked from the stress. Chuck the rifle in the lathe and simply turn the barrel metal away where it butts up against the reciever ring and then it will usually turn out fairly easy. I believe one of the problems is that Eddystone actions are so darned hard. I try to avoid drilling and tapping them whenever possible.
I own and shoot the 1905 Ross. Good rifle and the most accurat 303 that I have ever owned. They make a fine sporting rifle but there tolerances are machined to closely to use in the mud and blood of warfare. Plus the they lack vital initial extraction power. Neil

[Ricochet]

Hatcher was the one who discussed the problem with the greased ammo. Problem was that excessive grease would build up between the case necks and chamber walls. It couldn't compress or quickly move out of the way to allow the case neck to expand and release the bullet. That became a big problem when the Army tried tin plating the copper-nickel jacketed bullets to prevent metal fouling. When the cartridges had been loaded for several months, the tin plating on the bullets bonded to the brass case necks, something like a solder joint. When the case necks could expand with gas pressure, the seal was broken and the bullet released OK. But if the neck was surrounded by incompressible grease, the neck couldn't release the bullet and went along with it, causing dangerously high pressures. There were several "blowbacks" (case head ruptures) that resulted in destroyed rifles. Hatcher picked up a bullet downrange that had the intact case neck attched to it, engraved with the rifling.

As for breech thrust from lubricated cases, it is higher than with dry cases. But all guns are designed to withstand the normal pressure of the ammo without relying on the tension of the brass to resist the thrust. Simply oiling or greasing a case won't make an otherwise safe load dangerous. Under some circumstances, such as a fireformed neck sized case, there is no difference in breech thrust as the case head is already against the breech face.

[NoDakJak]

Ricochet: I certainly can't disagree with anything that you said. The very severe jacket fouling did increase pressures however! How much? Que Sabe!!
I last read "Hatchers Notebook" during Gunsmith school and that has been forty years ago now. Da-m time flies! It has also been many years since I read the article in the American Rifleman about the upgrading of the bolts. Does anyone have a copy of this or have any further information? I remember very little about the report and at this point in time I am wondering just why they did replace those bolts.
Mauser 88 blowups! I have heard of them all my life but have never seen one or a picture of one. I have never seen any technical data on it either. The 88 was rather soft and it seems more likely that the action woud stretch rather than shatter. Perhaps the problem was the thin chamber walls where the barrel tube fitted over it. The Dutch, Greek and Rumanian Mannlichers had essentially the same action and I have never heard anything bad about them. Hmmm! Neil

[Ricochet]

No doubt any heavily fouled bore is going to take more force to push a bullet down it and raise the pressure.

I've never read much detail about G88 bursts, but there were some in the very early days of its service when the rifle, cartridge, and German smokeless powder were all brand new things rushed into service with minimal development time. (They were in a big hurry with the French having gotten the jump on them with the Lebel.) Some have said that a response to that problem was deepening the grooves to bring the groove diameter from .318" up to .321" (or maybe it was .321" to .323") with a .318" bullet, and I saw a purported date of the manufacturing change on one collector's site (I think it was January 1890), but last time I posted something about it an 88 collector joined the board just to say I was full of it. (I was just repeating something I'd seen online, and said so.) Googling the pejorative term "Judenflinte" will turn up some historical info about early G88 bursts. At any rate, it was a common practice for military rifles in the old days to use bores with groove diameters larger than the bullets to make them more fouling tolerant.

The Turks used many G88s with their stoutly loaded 8mm spitzer ammo and don't seem to have had a problem with it. (Same with their 1893 Mausers.) The Germans converted their 88s for the spitzer ammo by reaming out the chamber neck and leade, just as they did their early G98s.

I just shoot my 88 with cast boolits (sized .323") and loads that surely don't exceed the American factory load pressures.

[Doug Bowser]

The problem with the 1903 is, the receiver ring was made too thin. The Mauser and Enfied rifles were much thicker. When a cartridge case failed with the low numbered 1903 rifles, the top of the receiver blew off.

The 1917 rifles by Eddystone usually crack when the Johnson's Automatic barrels are fitted. They are much too large and they were forced to fit the receivers. Subsiquent firings work hardened the receiver ring, causing cracks. The cracks are usually through the recoil lug, near the front guard screw hole.

Doug Bowser

[TAWILDCATT]

I have had some of the odd jap rifles.I had one of the bolt in barrel models.I aalso had the disaster model were the receiver was cast and the barrel was a stell rod drilled from both ends and did not meet in middle to well.the chamber was a wore out 6,5 barrel stub with the rod screwed in.
you need to take some of the stories with a grain of salt.some time after WW2 the dcm called in the early springfields and exchanged the receivers.so most are gone.:coffeecom[smilie=1:

[Doug Bowser]

I have two broken bolts. The 1903 bolt was dropped 42" to a concrete floor and it broke off at the handle. The Krag came into my shop in that condition.

The 1903 bolt has no sweep backward on the bolt handle. I personally would never fire a 1903 rifle with a bolt handle that does not have a sweep to the rear.

My photo of the 1903 bolt is not very good. I am learning.