Krag Receiver Failures

[cwbuff]

Springfield Model 1903 rifles before SN 800,000 are reported to have had problems with receiver failures from inconsistent heat treatment of the receivers. Given that the same armory produced the Krag, are there any reported receiver failures that were similar? If not, why not?

[dave]

Very few 03's ever failed. Many of those could be traced to factors which had nothing to do with manufacture, such as firing an 8m/m Mauser cart. See 'Hatchers Notebook'. I believe the total known failures were much less then 100. Never heard of such with Krags, not saying it did not happen.

[cwbuff]

I agree with you. It seems to reason, that if the "ad hoc" heat treatment was the cause, then why wouldn't there be problems with the Krags?

[Dick Hosmer]

Perhaps because the pressure level of the standard loading was considerably less - 40/45,000psi, as opposed to 50/55,000. Also, the Krag gives full support to the base of the cartridge case - the '03 does not. I'm also thinking that there could be more (or perhaps just more advantageously located) metal in a Krag receiver.

[mhb]

and I've examined Krag bolts with cracked locking lugs (and a couple with the lug sheared completely off), though I've never seen a broken Krag receiver.
However, though the Krag receiver and bolt were made of the same materials and heattreated in the same way as the original 1903 actions, the design is enough different that the Krag is not so prone to catastrophic failure as the 1903.
The reason is that the Krag uses a rimmed case, which is entirely enclosed in the chamber, leaving none of the case exposed except the solid rim, which is supported by the bolt very closely, and operates at lower maximum pressures than the 1903. Most severe failures of the 1903 are due to the rupture of the cartridge case at the unsupported part of the case head, releasing high pressure gas into the space inside the receiver ring, which is unable to withstand the shock and fractures. As there is no such space in the Krag receiver ring, and the case head is much more closely supported, there is much less likelihood of a case head failure, and no place for escaping gas to act as it does in the 1903.
mhb - Mike

[jon_norstog]

Perhaps because the pressure level of the standard loading was considerably less - 40/45,000psi, as opposed to 50/55,000. Also, the Krag gives full support to the base of the cartridge case - the '03 does not. I'm also thinking that there could be more (or perhaps just more advantageously located) metal in a Krag receiver.

I've wondered about that issue as well and think those are the two likeliest answers. I advise people who plan to use hot loads in a krag to have the bolt magnafluxed give the receiver a sharp rap with a ball-pien hammer. What Dave was saying, there were not all that many failures of low-number '03s.

In fact, there may have been more Krag failures when the Army kicked up the pressure in the 30-40 in 1898. Those failures didn't seem to get logged, perhaps because they were not as serious, perhaps there was no Julian Hatcher on scene to take advantage of the opportunity they presented. No flying metal, no blinded soldiers, just cracks in the bolt and receiver.

So I think it is good if your Krag receiver and bolt were both heat treated on a cloudy day.

jn

[cwbuff]

So is purpose of the "Hatcher Hole" in an '03 to provide a gas vent in the rare event of a ruptured case between the bolt face and the chamber? And does the "Hatcher Hole" weaken the receiver?

[Dick Hosmer]

So is purpose of the "Hatcher Hole" in an '03 to provide a gas vent in the rare event of a ruptured case between the bolt face and the chamber? And does the "Hatcher Hole" weaken the receiver?

Yes, and no (IMHO)

[Dick Hosmer]

I've not heard of any cracked receivers re the 2200fps ammo, just a few bolts - but the issue was deemed serious enough to immediately withdraw the hotter ammo, and scrap the sights. I'd guess the bullets were pulled and some powder removed - the sights were mostly converted - ultimately - to the 1902 model. Unaltered 1898R sights are uncommon/scarce, while 1898C sights are rare, some say even more so than the legendary 1896C.

[dave]

I agree with you. It seems to reason, that if the "ad hoc" heat treatment was the cause, then why wouldn't there be problems with the Krags?

Oh, there was a problem with some low number 03 recievers. I don't know exactly what it means but it was called "burnt recievers" or "burnt steel". Sounds like overheated but I am not sure. It was done by "eye" and "feel" by the people who did them. The bad ones were brittle. Hatcher may have serials of the faliures (I will look when I get time and be back)---maybe they were done after new hires came in during the ramp up to WW1?

[madsenshooter]

I have one receiver in the 13000 serial # range that is cracked behind the locking lug recess. Can't say if it was done by the 2200fps load or somebody else's hot load. I can see that it appears to be brittle or overly hardened. In fact a bit of the threads inside the ring broke off when I took the barrel out. It won't take a file and I read that Sedgley wouldn't modify a Krag action that wouldn't. In many cases of 03 failure I believe escaping gas did most of the wrecking, and as others said above, that's less likely to happen with the head surrounded by steel.

[Bill H]

You hit the nail on the head. Most of the recorded failures were caused by excessive temperature during the forging process. There was no temperature measuring capability, color of the metal was the only indication of temperature. WWI took many of the experienced workers, so less skilled personnel, coupled with increased demand resulted in less quality control. Hatcher's book covers this in great detail.

Heat treat was not the real issue, temperature was much better controlled during the heat treat process.

Most of the "explosive" failures were initiated by bad ammo. I have fired some "WW18" head stamped ammo, and some of it was downright scary, the softest brass I have ever seen.

[coastie]

1979
From a pawnshop out in Oklahoma.
Krag receiver, complete.
Except for the part that stayed with the barrel when it blew off.
No story, no stock, barrel, any other stuff.
One day I will learn how to, and post a photo.
Paul
Houston, Texas