What to do with a low number 1903?

[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.