Hatcher Hole in low number 03

[Larry Gibson]

SlamFire1

I did not miss the point at all. A blown up rifle caused by a bore obstruction will be just as bad with any action. Note the split barrel and the actual obstruction in those photos. That means the action was not the cause and the rifle would have self destructed regardless of what action it was. Simple as that.

If you would bother to research the Ordnance Departments records you will find many such incidents involving SHT, DHT and the later nickeled '03 and '03A3 receivers, Krag rifles, M1917 rifles, M1s, M1919s, M1s, M14s, M16s and machine guns of all kinds in service up to and including the M2. The level of destruction with any of them is similar when a bore obstruction is involved.

You want "data" from me but I really see none from you other than 3 erroneous assumptions based on the posted photo's. My statement is no "broader" than yours but my statement addresses the facts based on those photo's. Perhaps a simple search of this forum, by you, and you would see numerous threads on numerous "modern " actioned rifles that have blown up with similar destruction. A search of many gun related sites on the internet will also reveal many such incidents with "modern" actions. The information is there. Go do your own research.

Once again I have no dog in this fight as I don't have a low numbered '03 (my 2 shooters are both DHT'd) and I am not saying to shoot a low numbered '03 or not to. My only point is if your are going to present examples to back up your argument that the low numbered '03s are dangerous to shoot then it might be best that the examples of blown receivers you use are really the fault of the receiver and not the fault of a bore obstruction as "modern" actions are susceptible to the very same damage from such bore obstructions. In other words your examples do not back up your argument. However, if you actually do research the Springfield Armory records (a more complete record will be found in Ordnance Department reports) you will find examples of failed receivers. Might be more convincing if you used those.

Larry Gibson

[Dutchman]

There are a number of other aspects, which I won't go into, why the Doctor's risk analysis is bogus, more than the incomplete list of blowups from Hatcher's Notebook.

I appreciate the effort you've taken to present this information. I'm with you 100%. I hate seeing that doctor's "analysis" used as justification for the continued use of low number 1903 rifles. He simply isn't qualified to have an opinion on the subject.

A few years ago a friend of mine, who is a NASA engineer, looked at the statistical analysis by that medical doctor with a calculator who solved the mystery of the low number 1903 and he had this to say:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

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 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.

Clearly today, the Government's assessment of the worth of a soldier's
life is far, far higher. If you care to see, do a Google search for
"Risk Management Guide for DoD Acquisition."

Note: Proof of the escalating value of soldier life can be seen
historically in the public's reduction in tolerance of military deaths
over time. In WWII, we lost about 500,000 soldiers, and I daresay we'd
have tolerated more. In Viet Nam, we lost about 50,000 before we'd had
enough. In the current OIF/OEF, we've lost about 5,000 soldiers and I
daresay that the average American has had enough.

by Ben H.

[fatnhappy]

Don't misunderstand, I'm not trying to convince, or encourage, anybody to do the same but I understand the "brittle receiver" issue of low numbered 03's, read extensively on it, and have made the personal decision to assume the "risk". Besides, WWI was fought with low-numbered 03's and if they're good enough for a "Teufel Hunden", they're good enough for me!
Semper Fi..

I fall into the same camp as Avogunner. There are only 11,231 springfield 03s with lower serial numbers than mine. The danger is real, however, assessing your relative danger with a low number springfield is intangible. I elect not to advise others but I choose to believe innumerable rounds fired through it as a .30-03 and rearsenaled to .30-06 have proofed it as safe for reduced CB loads. I didn't buy it as a wall hanger.

I shy away from pistol powders and they're sharper pressure curves. I load with reduced rifle powder, mostly H4895 or scots 4065 (which I strangely have a bunch of).

LONG story short: it's a known risk which I willfully accept.

[WineMan]

I remember as a youngster, I overfilled one of my bike tires at the local gas station (when free air, maps and full service was the norm). It was kind of eery, to see a bubble form at the rim, tire interface and then expand a finally pop. I still have a small scar from a piece of rubber that nicked my neck. That was probably 80-100 psig and I was two feet away. I am sure if that same situation was a weak/brittle rifle receiver and a "safe" 15,000 psig cast bullet load, I would not be here today. No matter how you put it, any cartridge, even the 22 LR has enough power to injure, maim or kill. I had a chance at a LNR from RIA a while back for less than $100 (it was a real beater). The shop owner replied to my passing it up with the statement that he would re-barrel it and turn it into a sporter. If I injure myself, so be it. If I injure someone else because I had a rifle I knew could fail, that would be a tragedy.

Dave

[Cmm_3940]

Agree with fatnhappy. These rifles have seen a LOT of service, and a significant percentage of those that were faulty have already failed. If anything, the odds of getting a 'bad' one now are lower than it once was. Think of it as proof testing the hard way.

[SlamFire1]

I did not miss the point at all. A blown up rifle caused by a bore obstruction will be just as bad with any action. Note the split barrel and the actual obstruction in those photos. That means the action was not the cause and the rifle would have self destructed regardless of what action it was. Simple as that.

I disagree. A blown barrel and receiver does not necessarily mean a bore obstruction. Are you aware of modern day Swedish bore obstruction tests where modern rifles were tested with bore obstructions? The M700 blew its barrel, but not the receiver, and none of the other rifles blew actions or barrels. Which I think is very impressive, showing the greater safety of modern actions built out of modern materials.

If you would bother to research the Ordnance Departments records you will find many such incidents involving SHT, DHT and the later nickeled '03 and '03A3 receivers, Krag rifles, M1917 rifles, M1s, M1919s, M1s, M14s, M16s and machine guns of all kinds in service up to and including the M2. The level of destruction with any of them is similar when a bore obstruction is involved.

Now this would be useful, just where are these searchable Ordnance Department records? If you post a URL to a searchable database I will be impressed.

[SlamFire1]

Agree with fatnhappy. These rifles have seen a LOT of service, and a significant percentage of those that were faulty have already failed. If anything, the odds of getting a 'bad' one now are lower than it once was. Think of it as proof testing the hard way.

Oh yes, these rifles have seen a lot of service. Very few are in original factory condition, the vast majority have gone through several lifetimes of use, and several rebuilds. No one should expect that the previous lifetimes were stress and accident free. If this was a car, and with 300,000 miles on it, most of us would be skeptical of claims that it was just as good as new, or claims, that because of the high mileage, it was less likely to fail. But somehow, when it comes to low number receivers, the attitude is they just getting better and better. I don't accept this premise. Around December, I was talking with a contractor Engineer who was working on a Government Logistical database. The Government has lost so much of its internal technical competency and one of the evidences is that the Government expects the lifetime of rebuilds to be the same as new, and the database categories reflect this. But, as we discussed, the average rebuild won't last as long as the average new, and they have failure mechanisms that you won’t see in new equipment.

I don’t know if the period designers even had the concept of an endurance life, I have not found anything so far on this in period literature. But, even if they did, these mechanisms have exceeded any lifetime expectations designed or built into the things. One should not expect them to be as structurally sound as when they were new, and infact, should expect that they are less.

[Larry Gibson]

Slamfire1

Apparently you have the mistaken impression I am arguing with your premise. That is not the case. My point is simply that the photo's you posted are not good examples of your premise. There are much better photo's in the Ordnance reports that do support your premise. Not for me to research or present any data one way of the other because as I've told you I'm not taking issue with either side. I was trying to help you. You obviously do not want the help. Simply say so. You do not need to attempt to insult or denigrate me with you remarks. I did not talk to you that way and I don't expect to be addressed that way when I was trying to help you, not argue with you or your premise. Your own failure to understand that also undermines your argument as if you can't understand someone trying to help you what makes anyone think you understand the facts of your premise? They don't. I'm done here.

Larry Gibson

[SlamFire1]

You do not need to attempt to insult or denigrate me with you remarks. I did not talk to you that way and I don't expect to be addressed that way when I was trying to help you, not argue with you or your premise.

You acted decently and hopefully I have edited out the insulting comments. Sorry.

[Larry Gibson]

You acted decently and hopefully I have edited out the insulting comments. Sorry.

Apology accepted.



Larry Gibson

[goofyoldfart]

You know, guys, I have been through over 15 times that I should have DEAD. I am on the side of caution today. I would love to have a very nice low numver 03, as a wall hanger. fix it up to look really nice and if it stolen, then maybe the scumbag that steals it will be removed from the Gene pool. Frankly, I really don't want to push my luck at almost (few months) 70. I have enough injuries and pain from the Steel Mill and the University of South East Asia. Just my personal feelings and not a slam at any persons point of view. God Bless to all and theirs.
Goofyoldfart aka Goofy and Godfrey

[Larry Gibson]

As a point of interest take a look at this video and count the number of LSN'd '03s in it.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=cfd_1...R65siV6IamO.17

Note the damage a "bore obstruction" can cause to any action.

Larry Gibson

[garym1a2]

I am not a fan of tap, rack and bang.