What to do with a low number 1903?

[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 ?

[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 ?

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.

[EDG]

Yes an Krags are known to crack locking lugs easily. I would say a Krag is a pretty sorry example of anything.
There are no contemporary horror stories of Krags because most people have retired them and moved on to something better.
You do not see either ammo or brass for them anymore. They are not set up for scopes or receiver sights. They are just not considered that usable by most folks.

Here is one of the wonderful low number Springfields - brittle failure and all.

The 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

[EDG]

Well perhaps you missed the thread where a poor old Carcano in 7.35 was tested.
The tests included chambering the original barrel to 30-06. It was also fired with 8x57 and 35 Remington ammo.
The receiver never failed. A low number Springfield receiver would have disintegrated.

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.

[Der Gebirgsjager]

I posted my opinion way back in post #46 of this thread, and it hasn't changed at all. But I am lured back in to say a few words in defense of the Krag, with which I have been known to dabble a bit. At the time of it's adoption it was "state of the art". The small bore high velocity cartridge was new to the gun scene, and the Krag was selected for service in careful trials over many competitors. The same ("The Krag is a pretty sorry example of anything") can probably be said about any firearm that once was the "latest" but became obsolete by advances in design, metallurgy, and ammunition development. A Colt 1860 cap-n-ball revolver doesn't stack up well against a Colt Trooper Mk. III for strength or rapidity of reload, nor does a Win. 1894 compare well to an M1-A. But in their time they were on the cutting edge, and will still perform as intended and give a lot of pleasure today. I feel confident that any firearm can be ruined or destroyed through gross misuse. Despite the oft quoted information about the Krag's single locking lug cracking, and I'm sure there is some truth to it, I have only ever encountered one such bolt and it was an e-bay purchase that I returned. These actions and bolts were meant to withstand the ammo and chamber pressures of the day (1894-1903), which they did successfully for thousands and thousands of rounds, and not hot handloads developed by basement ballistics experts and 500 yard hunters. Not only did the military fire them for untold thousands of rounds, but then they were sold off to civilians who shot out the barrels and rebarelled them, often with surplus Springfield 1903 barrels, and continued to use them. Those who have "retired them and moved on to something better" for the most part just selected a different tool for a different job. There are still plenty of them to be found in the woods every fall. As for the photo of the failed, brittle low number 1903 receiver, what are the details of the failure? Super hot ammo? Barrel obstruction? Purposely broken with a hammer to see if Gen. Hatcher was right? There has to be a story to go with the picture.

[EDG]

Look up brittle failure.
If you look at the Springfield photo the receiver ring in still intact. With a reciever that brittle you could drop the rifle and break it.
Compare your Krag or Springfield to a quality made Mauser. There have been many times the number of Mausers made and you do not see photos of brittle failures with them. Maybe you missed the thread where the Carcano was tortured.
Yes people pick a different tools when they can. They will pick better tools. Most Krags started out as military surplus and people only bought them because they were cheap.
Here is another brittle failure Springfield.

I posted my opinion way back in post #46 of this thread, and it hasn't changed at all. But I am lured back in to say a few words in defense of the Krag, with which I have been known to dabble a bit. At the time of it's adoption it was "state of the art". The small bore high velocity cartridge was new to the gun scene, and the Krag was selected for service in careful trials over many competitors. The same ("The Krag is a pretty sorry example of anything") can probably be said about any firearm that once was the "latest" but became obsolete by advances in design, metallurgy, and ammunition development. A Colt 1860 cap-n-ball revolver doesn't stack up well against a Colt Trooper Mk. III for strength or rapidity of reload, nor does a Win. 1894 compare well to an M1-A. But in their time they were on the cutting edge, and will still perform as intended and give a lot of pleasure today. I feel confident that any firearm can be ruined or destroyed through gross misuse. Despite the oft quoted information about the Krag's single locking lug cracking, and I'm sure there is some truth to it, I have only ever encountered one such bolt and it was an e-bay purchase that I returned. These actions and bolts were meant to withstand the ammo and chamber pressures of the day (1894-1903), which they did successfully for thousands and thousands of rounds, and not hot handloads developed by basement ballistics experts and 500 yard hunters. Not only did the military fire them for untold thousands of rounds, but then they were sold off to civilians who shot out the barrels and rebarelled them, often with surplus Springfield 1903 barrels, and continued to use them. Those who have "retired them and moved on to something better" for the most part just selected a different tool for a different job. There are still plenty of them to be found in the woods every fall. As for the photo of the failed, brittle low number 1903 receiver, what are the details of the failure? Super hot ammo? Barrel obstruction? Purposely broken with a hammer to see if Gen. Hatcher was right? There has to be a story to go with the picture.

[Der Gebirgsjager]

Most Krags started out as US Military service rifles.

Do you have photos or documented instances of Krag failures due to brittle receivers?

Do you have stories to go with the two photos of destroyed Springfield 1903 receivers you have posted?

I see that the pieces of the receiver rings are present in both photos. Can you show us the serial numbers?

This thread was never about Mausers or Carcanos, was it?

[Mr Humble]

Just for the record. Both those so called blown up 03s were not blown up at all. You will note that the poster had NO backup for the photos at all. The photos shown resemble those of condemned actions WITH THE BOLT REMOVED that were hit with a large, large hammer to destroy them. Of course whatever happened to those actions, it had nothing to do with a properly headspaced rifle shooting good ammo. As I said in an earlier post, one of the failure causes was soft headed ammo which will make a mess of any cone breech action be it an 03 or a Model 70. Funny how these blow up photos are always fuzzy focus, don't show the whole action, nor any photos of the receiver ring to verify the serial #.

Some of the photos peddled by the low # haters are actually photos of action condemned upon final inspection and destroyed by crushing. Some of those condemned actions were used to make the first 03 rimfire trainer, the Hoffer Thompson. (hint)

Reminds me off all the "experts" who condemned the Jap actions as junk ..... until P.O. tested them and found they were stronger than any military action.... in fact stronger than a M70.

If you're shaking too much to shoot your's, sell it to me.

[Mr Humble]

BTW, the 03' with the Winchester 5a scope (on a Belding and Mull mount that turns into the rear sight mount) is a condemned 03' action made into a Hoffer-Thompson the first military in 22 rimfire (short only) In spite of a long bullet jump due to the adapter cartridge and a less than perfect bore (most Hoffers are black holes), it will hold 3" @50 yards.

Now the good news, just bought another LOW NUMBER 03' sporter that screams very early RF Sedgley as it's fitted with a Sedgley "safety firing pin" (one piece, note big striker knob).

145,xxx, made in 1906, super slick original action and bolt. All (of course) milled parts and better workmanship than anything coming out of the big 3 today. Price to my door was <$400, the stock is worth more than that !

A field gauge is too big, a go gauge just closes. Obviously yet to detonate (chuckle)

[Der Gebirgsjager]

Elegant, classy looking rifle. Congrats.

[ammohead]

I shoot a springfield serial #62XXX with cast and will continue to do so.

[Mr Humble]

Still waiting to receive that "unsafe" 100% original 03 to arrive so I can send the lucky ex-owner a brand new Ruger American. Somehow I think hell will freeze over first.