"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.

[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."

[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.





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.