Air Service Rifle....kinda

[Cecil]

I know they didn't have sling swivels but I don't own airplane. The rifle is a 600k rifle with a 6-16 barrel. The only modification I made was to a rear sight, not the original. Plus I finally found a use for a piece of modified fire wood. Were these low number rifles heat treated again? It has that nice WWII green color.

[Fred]

Pretty Neat Cecil!

[Rick the Librarian]

Except for some experiments done in the 1920s, no low-numbered M1903 was "reheat-treated". WWII was considered a "war emergency" and they were used. When they were overhauled like yours, they were proof-fired.

[Cecil]

Which begs the question, shoot, don't shoot?

[mhb]

any low-numbered 1903 has to be made by the individual shooter. Ordnance determined by extensive testing that some of them are inherently unsafe because of burnt forgings and/or improper heattreatment. They also determined that there is no non-destructive way to determine which ones those are, and so condemned ALL of them. They weren't destroyed, it is true, but that has more to do with the poverty of the military structure during the period between the wars and the lack of rebuild activity. Then came WW2, and the emergency required that any available arms be issued.
None of that changes the facts about the rifles. There is no one who can tell you that any specific rifle is safe to fire, and the fact that it still exists is no indicator, either, since the recorded failures were often due to problems with ammunition - problems which the rifles were intended to survive intact, but sometimes didn't.
I've seen cartridge case failures with military, commercial and handloaded ammunition, some of which would certainly prove catastrophic in one of the affected 1903s.
So, it comes down to a cost/benefit analysis: is it worth the risk?
And I freely admit I've fired low-numbered 1903 rifles (in fact, I don't know anyone who has shot a lower number than I have - #217), but I'm under no illusion that it is perfectly safe to do so.
And those who belong to the 'Aw, shucks, I've done that a thousand times and nothin' happened' group are just angling for a spot in the next Darwin Awards.

mhb - Mike

[PhillipM]

any low-numbered 1903 has to be made by the individual shooter. Ordnance determined by extensive testing that some of them are inherently unsafe because of burnt forgings and/or improper heattreatment. They also determined that there is no non-destructive way to determine which ones those are, and so condemned ALL of them. They weren't destroyed, it is true, but that has more to do with the poverty of the military structure during the period between the wars and the lack of rebuild activity. Then came WW2, and the emergency required that any available arms be issued.
None of that changes the facts about the rifles. There is no one who can tell you that any specific rifle is safe to fire, and the fact that it still exists is no indicator, either, since the recorded failures were often due to problems with ammunition - problems which the rifles were intended to survive intact, but sometimes didn't.
I've seen cartridge case failures with military, commercial and handloaded ammunition, some of which would certainly prove catastrophic in one of the affected 1903s.
So, it comes down to a cost/benefit analysis: is it worth the risk?
And I freely admit I've fired low-numbered 1903 rifles (in fact, I don't know anyone who has shot a lower number than I have - #217), but I'm under no illusion that it is perfectly safe to do so.
And those who belong to the 'Aw, shucks, I've done that a thousand times and nothin' happened' group are just angling for a spot in the next Darwin Awards.

mhb - Mike

Some have argued that the poverty of the military structure was the chief reason they were condemned. Idle hands at SA needed something to do, if they could get the national arsenal condemned that would put a lot of people back to work. The Navy and Marines never condemned theirs.

I don't shoot 36018, it has a like new 4-22 RIA barrel that gauges a perfect 0. I figure it shoots just like any of my high numbers so I leave it be, however I'm not scared to shoot it.

[chuckindenver]

nice...however...Air service was in hot air balloons. not air planes...and i dont recommend anyone fire a SHT 1903.

[Cecil]

nice...however...Air service was in hot air balloons. not air planes...and i dont recommend anyone fire a SHT 1903.

Sad to say I don't have a balloon either....

[mhb]

that the earth is flat.
The evidence is that it isn't.
If you have read Hatcher's Notebook, you will be aware that Ordnance took the problem seriously - they really, really wanted to find a way to repair over a million rifles that had been rendered suspect by failures in service, under conditions the rifles were designed and intended to withstand intact.
They put their best men on it - senior Ordnance officers, metallurgists, representatives of other services. Many of them had been involved with the 1903 rifles since before adoption - they knew what the rifles were supposed to be and do - and found that they couldn't be relied on for it.
They couldn't find a way to assure that the early rifles could be made safe (any of them), and did the proper thing: they condemned all of them.
You may be sure that this didn't win them any friends in the upper echelons, especially when they stopped production for 6 months at one of the only 2 facilities manufacturing 1903 rifles (Rock Island), and didn't resume production until the problems had been resolved; first by improving the controls over forging and heattreatment (DHT receivers and bolts), and finally changing the basic material to 3 1/2% nickel steel. If you don't believe those men thought long and hard about stopping production in the middle of the war, you've never been a military Project Officer. That function can, if carried to successful completion, lead the Project Officer to stars - if the program is killed, that officer needs to start considering alternate career options.
I've many a time raised a glass to Hatcher and his fellows: they took the duty seriously, and did what they knew was right. Hatcher went on to 2 stars, and was Chief of Field Ordnance in Round 2 of the World Military Games. And the destroy order stood with regard to any low-numbered rifles sent in to depot or higher-level maintenance until it was rescinded in 1932, by the then - Chief of Ordnance. His reasoning appears in Hatcher's book, too, and had nothing to do with keeping the hands busy.
Springfield kept manufacturing rifles, but introduced the improved processes at the same time: conventionally assumed to be at around #800,000 = which figure is not ironclad, either. Hatcher wrote a technical discussion of the problem in the 1920's, and illustrated a rifle in the 750,000 range, IIRC, which he described as having received the new heattreatment. That rifle was subjected to the most strenuous tests AND DID NOT FAIL.
Put bluntly, if you haven't read (and understood) what Hatcher wrote on the issue and its resolution, I strongly suggest you do so. It's a fine book, full of useful historical and technical information - facts - he was THERE.
If you still have doubts after reading the book, let's discuss where you think Ordnance went wrong in their work.
Uninformed opinion is background noise, and many an uneducated or uninformed potential 1903 shooter has been led down the garden path: that bothers me a lot, and I never miss an opportunity to spread facts over, well, fertilizer.
Your decision to shoot your low-number rifle is entirely proper - for you - no one can decide for you - neither should you be in doubt as to what the actual risk is.
I've tried to make sure that you and others contemplating the same decision have the facts at hand, when they do.
FWIW, you did not say that your rifle is actually an SA with the serial number you give: if it's actually a Rock Island of that number, the point is moot, since RI changed to DHT with #285,507 (there is no real doubt about it, as that was the first number they recorded when production commenced with the new heattreatment. And RI was also instrumental in the introduction of Nickel Steel, commencing with #319921, and neither of the post-interruption RI rifles are suspect of being unsafe: quite the contrary, they are some of the best actions and to be preferred over any low-number by either manufacturer.

PRD1 - mhb - Mike


Some have argued that the poverty of the military structure was the chief reason they were condemned. Idle hands at SA needed something to do, if they could get the national arsenal condemned that would put a lot of people back to work. The Navy and Marines never condemned theirs.

I don't shoot 36018, it has a like new 4-22 RIA barrel that gauges a perfect 0. I figure it shoots just like any of my high numbers so I leave it be, however I'm not scared to shoot it.

[Rick the Librarian]

They didn't actually condemn all of them, although many wanted to. The low numbered receivers were scrapped when sent in for major overhauls to one of the arsenals. A large number of them soldier on through World War II. The policy of scrapping low numbered receivers ended in 1941, when it was decided that the shortage of rifles, even those not considered 100% safe, made it necessary to keep them in service.

[mhb]

of terms.

The rifles were to be destroyed (all of them) when turned-in from the field for repair or overhaul - that is a blanket condemnation. There was no effort to round them all up for destruction.

The fact is that they were not all destroyed, due to later decisions by the Chief of Ordnance, and the fact that, after the Great War, relatively few rifles were overhauled due to the much smaller military force structure in the inter-war years.

mhb - Mike

[Rick the Librarian]

Again, maybe splitting hairs, but the "rifles" weren't destroyed, just the receivers. All the parts, if still in serviceable (or repairable) condition were to be salvaged.

[chuckindenver]

telling anyone to shoot a single heat treat 1903 is irresponsible.
no SHT 1903 should be fired with live ammo...
however, if someone does make the choice to fire one with live ammo.
avoid hand loads, and military ball ammo...only fire factorty ammo.
SHT 1903s dont fail out of the blue...its how the receiver handles a case head or other failure.. all it takes its a micro second for your life to change...make sure you wear leather gloves, shooting glasses, and a long sleeve shirt or jacket when firing said rifle, and make sure nobody is standing next to you.

[PhillipM]

FWIW, you did not say that your rifle is actually an SA with the serial number you give: if it's actually a Rock Island of that number, the point is moot, since RI changed to DHT with #285,507 (there is no real doubt about it, as that was the first number they recorded when production commenced with the new heattreatment. And RI was also instrumental in the introduction of Nickel Steel, commencing with #319921, and neither of the post-interruption RI rifles are suspect of being unsafe: quite the contrary, they are some of the best actions and to be preferred over any low-number by either manufacturer.

PRD1 - mhb - Mike

I think you misread my serial number, it is 36,018 and is made by SA. I have read Hatcher cover to cover and I never have figured out why they spent so much time trying to reinvent receiver forging and heat treatment when all they had to do was copy what Winchester, Remington, and the Remington plant at Eddystone had been doing for years.

The theory is not of my own, it is very informed. Note that SA didn't even record when the new DHT receivers were made and when a batch of old ones were found they went right into production! If they are so dangerous why did they do that?

[mhb]

pretty finely split. When the receiver is destroyed, however many useable parts may remain, rifle # whatever has ceased to exist.

mhb - Mike


Again, maybe splitting hairs, but the "rifles" weren't destroyed, just the receivers. All the parts, if still in serviceable (or repairable) condition were to be salvaged.

[mhb]

It is possible that I misread the serial number, though I seem to remember there were 6 digits there, as originally posted - in any case, you definitely have a low-numbered 1903.
As to why SA and RIA didn't immediately change materials in the receiver and bolt, and go on from there, I think there are at least 2 good reasons:
1. There was nothing wrong with the low-carbon steel they were using - the problems were in the processing. The double heattreatment allowed continued use of the original material and resulted in the strongest and smoothest of the 1903s - better in both respects than Nickel Steel. Casehardening of such steels can produce excellent rifles, and it is worth noting that millions of 98 Mausers were made of essentially the same material as used in the 1903, but, because they were differentially casehardened, and apparently under better controls, they never suffered from the problems experienced with the 1903.

2. At the time the correction was made, SA was producing over a thousand rifles a day. They also had very large stocks of the materials on-hand, representing a large investment. By altering the forging controls and heattreatment, they were able to use the same materials to produce a rifle better than it had ever been, and avoid complete shutdown of both production facilities. In wartime, nickel becomes a very important strategic material, and, even had it been decided to change-over to that material during the war, there would have been unavoidable delays in obtaining the steel. Further, the nickel steels are more expensive, another factor in wartime production.

As to why SA didn't stop production, and why some SHT receivers were assembled after the decision was made to change the processing, I think the scale of production accounts for that. With over a thousand rifles being assembled every day, there were much larger numbers of receivers (and other parts) in various stages of production all over the Armory's facilities. Since they didn't stop production and destroy everything made but not yet completed, it would have been surprising, indeed, if some such intermixing had not occurred.

If, as you say, the theory is not your own, but very well informed - whose is it, and on what information is it based?

I believe that every one of the topics we've discussed here is covered by Hatcher, and I don't know of any other source document which contradicts what he had to say.

mhb - Mike

[Cecil]

Does anyone have the number of failures verses the number of SHT rifles produced? Also is there any statistics on DHT failures?

[mhb]

Not really. Hatcher reported on a number of failures which were brought to Ordnance's attention up to 1929, IIRC. There are one or 2 rifles in that list which MIGHT have been high numbers. And Hatcher did not say that all known failures up to that date were listed in his book.
Unfortunately, there is no all-inclusive list of in-service failures of 1903 rifles, and certainly none covering failures after the rifles were dropped from service inventories.
It is true that Ordnance regulations require serious incidents with weapons and ammunition to be reported for investigation, and that there undoubtedly have been failures with 1903 rifles which Hatcher did not list, but I have never seen any source for such original documents.
Finally, Hatcher made it clear that Ordnance did not make any of its conclusions or recommendations based merely on the failures he does discuss, but took them as an indication that there was a serious problem with at least some of the rifles themselves.
The series of technical investigations Ordnance then undertook resulted in the changes in manufacture and the recommendation that all of the low-numbered rifles should be declared 'unfit for military service'.

mhb - Mike

[chuckindenver]

any weapon can, has and will fail, new or old, its not that it will fail. its how it handles a failure.
you would be supprised on what modern weapon has had more failures then any other.

[Cecil]

You can't stop there....surprise me.

[chuckindenver]

the AR15 variants have had more recorded failures then any other small arm ever made, and even so, nobody ever deems them unsafe, ect..when i first stated to research weapons failing a few years go, i just thought maybe it was do to the large amount of unskilled kit builders...then to find out, many have failed during combat,LE and in the hands of very experianced shooters.

[chuckindenver]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q_h6HMIwieI
id say it was Bobs handloads

[PhillipM]

Remington 700 with unsafe trigger or a pregnant guppy glock?

[Weasel]

the AR15 variants have had more recorded failures then any other small arm ever made, and even so, nobody ever deems them unsafe, ect..when i first stated to research weapons failing a few years go, i just thought maybe it was do to the large amount of unskilled kit builders...then to find out, many have failed during combat,LE and in the hands of very experianced shooters.

I agree with you on this one chuck. I just wonder how may M1 failures there were, no one wants to talk about those.

[chuckindenver]

Remington 700s trigger was really overdone..more of a lawer issue then a real failure, most were from dirty rifles or home trigger adjusters,
Glocks are close behind the AR platform.
personally i think the issue the fails the AR is th lack of gas excape, with a case head failure, it usually blows the magazine out, and blows the barrel off,
iv seen lowers survive a failure.
i have seen a couple M1 Garands that have failed personally, and countless pictures and a couple you tube videos of Garands with failures as well.
my point of this was that any and all weapons have had failures...its how they handle a failure. the SHT 1903s didnt handle failures very well,
one of the reasons i tell people to NOT shoot a SHT 1903, and if they do , to use only factory ammo,
modern factory 30-06 is loaded pretty tame, basicly geared at the biggest POS that a person would shoot, so the lawers have made sure that Remington, Federal ect, keep those loaded pretty tame.
too many unknowns with surplus and handloads, we would all like to think were careful reloaders..but all of us have made a mistake, and id bet a great number including myself have had a case head or primer fail..
for years iv been curious about weapons failures, why, how, and how the weapon survived ect...every single type of small arm made has had failure at some point, some more then others, and some handle a failure better then others, granted the AR platform failures in number are more likely do to the amount of said weapons, but facts are facts..the M16, AR platform has had more failures then any other small arm built, the reasons why and how can likely be argued for days...
the only issues i have here, is others posting the argument that SHT 1903s can be fired.. with small posts from Hatchers notebook. keep in mind these statements can and are seen by thousands of people world wide, and telling someone else to fire a weapon withknown issues, is not a good idea.
personally, i fire my SHT 1903s and take alot of safety in order, and wont do so with other people at the range, however.. i would never recommend anyone ever fire a Single Heat Treated 1903 ever... if they make the choice to do so...then so be it.
some lessons in life really dont need to learned.

[chuckindenver]

i have many pictures of failures.. some are handload issues, some are case head, bore obstructions, and some from bad steel

[Marine A5 Sniper Rifle]

Wow! We get to argue about this issue again? Just how many of you have analyzed Hatcher's work? In some ways, it is a testimonial to the strength of the LN 03.

mb might want to reevaluate his statements. There weren't many receiver failures, and some of those that did fail included HN's.

I did my research, and as a result, I now shoot all my LN 03's.

jt:1948:

[mhb]

I don't think so.

As I said, Hatcher and his co-workers did not simply take the fact that some of the rifles had failed as proof positive that they were no good.

They believed that the failures indicated there was a problem.

They then went to considerable effort to determine exactly what the problem(s) might be and how they could be fixed.

All of this is covered in his book, as are the findings and conclusions they arrived at.

At the end of their work:

"The Board Found:

(1) That low-numbered receivers are not suitable for service use in their present condition.
(2) That means have not yet been determined for making such receivers suitable for service use.
(3) That is considered impracticable, if not imposssible, to re-heat treat these receivers in such a manner as to make them serviceable.

The Board recommended that the receivers be withdrawn from the service and scrapped.

After considering the proceedings of the Board, the Chief of Field Service, Brigadier General Samuel Hof, on February 7, 1928, made the following recommendation to the Chief of Ordnance, which was approved as a policy:

'Our ammunition is getting worse and accidents may be somewhat more frequent. On the other hand, some of these early rifles have been in use for many years and undoubtedly some of them have worn out several barrels. I do not think the occasion merits the withdrawal of the rifles of low numbers in the hands of the troops until the rifle is otherwise unserviceable. On the other hand, I do not think we are justified in issuing such rifles from our establishments. I recommend that we instruct our Ordnance establishments to no longer issue rifles with these questionable receivers, that such rifles be set aside and considered as a war reserve and the question of the ultimate replacement of the receivers be deferred. When rifles are turned in from the troops for repair the receivers having these low numbers should be scrapped.' "

I'm not sure where your researches may have lead you, but cannot see anything in Hatcher to give you your apparent sense of security. If you have other sources of information Hatcher did not discuss, or are able to factually contradict the information he did provide, or show where he and his co-workers failed to properly assess the nature and scope of the problem, perhaps you will be good enough to share such information with us.

Many people, in discussing this issue over the years claim to have read Hatcher's work, and some still claim that the information is incomplete, erroneous, or actually says something other than what his clear language actually says in so many words.

Feel free to quote any part of the work which you feel sheds any doubt on what I find he actually said, then we can discuss any differences in interpretation.

If you feel complete confidence in shooting all your low-numbered 1903s, that should be sufficient for you. If you want to convince others that there is really little or no risk, you will have to be prepared to support your statements when you take such a position in open discussion.

mhb - Mike

And, FWIW, I did notice your little thumbnail chart: If it is what I believe it is, and came from where I suspect it did, and you want to put that forward as contrary evidence, I am prepared to comment on the proper uses of statistical analysis, and the complete and egregious misuse of it to 'prove' anything about the safety of low-numbered 1903 rifles or any other manufactured item wherein a safety issue is suspected. You will gain no mileage or respect with statistical BS, especially if you are the perpetrator, as I believe you are not.

[QUOTE=Marine A5 Sniper;

mb might want to reevaluate his statements. There weren't many receiver failures, and some of those that did fail included HN's.

I did my research, and as a result, I now shoot all my LN 03's.

jt:1948:[/QUOTE]

[chuckindenver]

no argument..my only statement...was if you choose to shoot a low number 1903 great..just take care when telling someone else to do so.
it wasnt a flame on anyone, or any type of weapon..
ony not to tell anyone to fire a weapon thats known to have issues handling a simple case head failure..
why is that so hard? let someone read and make the choice themselves.
as i said...no only do the people that ask, but anyone can see these statements simply by a coogle search...think about this,,,really..
someone says,,,go shoot that low number, and said person do so, and drops in a hot or bad handload...and it has a case head failure...and the rifle is destroyed and or the shooter hurt... see the point...
this isnt a shoot or dont shoot...its a think before you tell someone else that may not know all the facts to shoot.

[mhb]

No points of disagreement here.
But I've several times previously encountered a particularly nasty piece of 'statistical analysis' purporting to show that there is really little or no risk associated with shooting the low-numbered 1903 rifles.
It is totally bogus, and apparently undertaken with no thought to the confusion it might cause to the uninformed or incautious. I have to wonder about the actual motivation of its originator.
I'll continue to call BS on the thing whenever it rears its ugly head, and see no reason not to do so whenever and whereever I get a whiff of its unmistakable aroma, whether it is named or not.
The risk is real, the facts are known, and no smoke-and-mirrors statistics changes a damned thing.

mhb - Mike

[Marine A5 Sniper Rifle]

No points of disagreement here.
But I've several times previously encountered a particularly nasty piece of 'statistical analysis' purporting to show that there is really little or no risk associated with shooting the low-numbered 1903 rifles.
It is totally bogus, and apparently undertaken with no thought to the confusion it might cause to the uninformed or incautious. I have to wonder about the actual motivation of its originator.
I'll continue to call BS on the thing whenever it rears its ugly head, and see no reason not to do so whenever and whereever I get a whiff of its unmistakable aroma, whether it is named or not.
The risk is real, the facts are known, and no smoke-and-mirrors statistics changes a damned thing. mhb - Mike

Where exactly did you see any statistical analysis in my post? BS. There isn't any, and that is a plot of the data in the reports Hatcher used in his report - nothing else. What you obviously haven't discovered in your weak a$$ analysis is that Hatcher made more than a few errors, and based his work on very little actual data. If his report had been a thesis in a good engineering school, he would have had to find a whole lot more data points to support his conclusions. Since you seem to be prone to pontificate on a subject without thorough research, I'll let you find Hatcher's errors yourself.

I have made no recommendations on shooting LN 03's at all, and I won't. But I am calling BS on your bogus BS.

jt

[jgaynor]

Most of the blow ups reported in the Hatcher Data actually occurred well after the conversion to the new manufacturing process and some involved rifles that had been in service for a decade or more. The conclusion is that the decision to make the manufacturing change in the first place was based on experience with a very small number of receivers.
The one piece of data i have never seen is:
How many '03's blew up in proof firing? Hatcher just makes a veiled remark that "proof firing eliminated most of the weak ones".

It's also kind of interesting that the '03 failure rate, (burned receivers) again according to the Hatcher data, is about twice that of SA. However, when it comes to Rock Island's paperwork people have absolutely no problem accepting that the arsenal can track a production change right to a specific serial number. :icon_rolleyes:

Regards,
Jim

[John Beard]

I have no desire to become embroiled in the "shooting a low number" debate. But, I will rise to PhillipM's defense.

When one journeys to the National Archives and collects hundreds of pages of Ordnance documents pertaining to the heat treating problem and rifle overhaul, the conclusion he reached is inescapable.

J.B.

[mhb]

I never said you had used the term. But you saw fit to attach your little chart to your post without comment, after stating that you had conducted full research into the matter. If you are unaware of the 'statistical analysis' itself, you haven't done your research - if you subscribe to it... It does nothing to support whatever position you are attempting to defend.
In fact, your posts have been amazingly fact - free as to any basis for dismissing the Ordnance decisions on the problems they addressed and solutions they devised.
I haven't claimed to have made a personal analysis, but have stated that I fully subscribe to the description provided by MG Hatcher, and some of the reasons why I find his statements credible. You say you have carried out such research which now makes you feel safe in shooting any of your low-numbered 1903 rifles.
Then, while claiming to have read and understood Hatcher's book, you seem to have missed the point that he, himself, alone, neither collected all the data, conducted all the testing (and Ordnance did extensive testing in resolving the issue, the whole of which Hatcher only summarized), nor made the final decisions in the matter.
You apparently haven't read anything I've actually said about the topic, either, since I've offered you full opportunity to discuss any point I may have raised, quote from Hatcher, provide other source data the rest of us seem to be ignorant of - and the most you can come up with is ad-hominem diatribe.
If this is the best you can do in debate, you need to study-up.
And, if one of my soldiers or NCOs had tried your kind of tapdance on any technical matter he was supposed to know, I'd have had his ass on remedial training for a month of Sundays.

Mr. Beard and Mr. Gaynor:

If either of you feel strongly that the information MG Hatcher summarized in his book is in error, or that the work done to resolve the issue was mis-directed or incomplete, or the ultimate conclusions and recommendations they reached were erroneous, please feel free to state the contradictory evidence you may hold.

If you, Mr. Beard, feel that PhillipM's conclusion is 'inescapable', please summarize what you think that conclusion is, and what evidence supports it, if it is different from the Ordnance findings, recommendations and subsequent actions, and Hatcher's summarization thereof.

Do either of you seriously believe that Ordnance stopped rifle production at RIA, changed the heattreatment of the standard battle rifle in the middle of the largest war the world had ever known, later changed the basic material of which the action and bolt were made, and carried out extensive testing to resolve an issue which was of no real import, or that their methodology was incomplete or technically insufficient, and their conclusions and final recommendations were improper - or do you doubt that these things actually happened?

This is, and always was, a safety issue. Ordnance resolved it (properly, in my view) over 80 years ago. Yet people are still confused about an issue concerning which there should be NO confusion.

mhb - Mike


Where exactly did you see any statistical analysis in my post? BS. There isn't any, and that is a plot of the data in the reports Hatcher used in his report - nothing else. What you obviously haven't discovered in your weak a$$ analysis is that Hatcher made more than a few errors, and based his work on very little actual data. If his report had been a thesis in a good engineering school, he would have had to find a whole lot more data points to support his conclusions. Since you seem to be prone to pontificate on a subject without thorough research, I'll let you find Hatcher's errors yourself.

I have made no recommendations on shooting LN 03's at all, and I won't. But I am calling BS on your bogus BS.

jt

[jgaynor]

[snip}

Mr. Beard and Mr. Gaynor:

If either of you feel strongly that the information MG Hatcher summarized in his book is in error, or that the work done to resolve the issue was mis-directed or incomplete, or the ultimate conclusions and recommendations they reached were erroneous, please feel free to state the contradictory evidence you may hold.

If you, Mr. Beard, feel that PhillipM's conclusion is 'inescapable', please summarize what you think that conclusion is, and what evidence supports it, if it is different from the Ordnance findings, recommendations and subsequent actions, and Hatcher's summarization thereof.

Do either of you seriously believe that Ordnance stopped rifle production at RIA, changed the heattreatment of the standard battle rifle in the middle of the largest war the world had ever known, later changed the basic material of which the action and bolt were made, and carried out extensive testing to resolve an issue which was of no real import, or that their methodology was incomplete or technically insufficient, and their conclusions and final recommendations were improper - or do you doubt that these things actually happened?

This is, and always was, a safety issue. Ordnance resolved it (properly, in my view) over 80 years ago. Yet people are still confused about an issue concerning which there should be NO confusion.

mhb - Mike

Mike calm down a bit.
A few points:

1. You didn't say so but I assume the statistical analysis you are referring to is the modern report prepared by Doctor Joseph Lyons. The report contains a few technical errors regarding the manufacturing processes but the comments on the relative dangers of shooting a low number rifle are what they are. Interested parties can read the report on oldguns.net.

2. He didn't say so but presumably PM's conclusion is "why didn't both arsenals just switch to nickel steel immediately" as it was being used for P14/M1917? Good point. Switching materials would seem to be such a simple and elegant alternative if it was viable at the time one wonders why it was not done. Perhaps it just wan't an option. I won't speculate on the reasons but the ordnance guys were not stupid.

3. Lastly, and perhaps I didn't say it very well, but if you go through the detailed accident reports in Hatcher you get, in most instances, the serial number of the destroyed rifle and the arsenal which allows you to determine when and where it was made. You also get the date of the accident. The important point is that most of the accidents (out of a total of 60 or so) occurred in 1917 or later even right up into the 20's when left over WW1 ammunition was being fired at training facilities all over the country. So the decision to change the manufacturing process in WW1 was not based on a universe of 60+ in service accidents but in fact a much smaller number. UNLESS, there was also a corresponding high incidence of failures in the arsenals during proof firing.

If the internal quality control reports indicated that say one rifle in "X" was blowing up during proof firing. The add to that the reports of rifles which made it through proof and blew up in service it puts the whole matter in a different light. It would also blow the Lyons report out of the water. As I mentioned before Hatcher implies proofing was eliminating some rifles but he never tells us the rate of failure.

Ordnance could, I suppose, be criticized for hanging on to material choices and manufacturing processes left over from Krag days. After all they went from a relatively low pressure, rimmed cartridge to a rimless, high pressure design. However it must be remembered that in the days leading up to WW1 both arsenals were literally hanging on by their fingernails. ( See Crowell, "America's Munitions" 1919)

I agree that stopping production during a war was an act of substantial courage.

Regards,

Jim

[chuckindenver]

all BS asside, the OPs rifle is a nice one, and a good idea, i built one a few years ago for display at a local militaria museum, and yes, i used a SHT 1903, i knew the rifle would not be fired, and would set behind glass.

[Rick the Librarian]

First, I'd like to have a dime for each discussion on this subject I've seen over the fifteen years or so I've been interested in this subject - I'd be able to afford that Springfield M1911 I've been looking for!

I do know of a number of people who shooting low numbered M1903s and that is their right. Probably, the chance of a "problem" is relatively small. That being said, when I want to shoot a M1903, I take a high numbered one to the range. While I agree the chance of something "bad" happening is small, I choose not to take it. I had a friend have a M1903 let go on him and that is enough for me.

The Ordnance Department did basically condemn low numbered M1903 receivers, but as I said earlier, did not gather all low numbered M1903s for disposal, and allowed hundreds of thousands of them to continue in use. I do realize that they were used through World War II, but that was a "war emergency", something that is not equaled by a casual trip to the range.

[Cecil]

You know maybe I've found a home for my 03 and A3 .22 conversion kit.

[Marine A5 Sniper Rifle]

I never said you had used the term. But you saw fit to attach your little chart to your post without comment, after stating that you had conducted full research into the matter. If you are unaware of the 'statistical analysis' itself, you haven't done your research - if you subscribe to it... It does nothing to support whatever position you are attempting to defend.
In fact, your posts have been amazingly fact - free as to any basis for dismissing the Ordnance decisions on the problems they addressed and solutions they devised.
I haven't claimed to have made a personal analysis, but have stated that I fully subscribe to the description provided by MG Hatcher, and some of the reasons why I find his statements credible. You say you have carried out such research which now makes you feel safe in shooting any of your low-numbered 1903 rifles.
Then, while claiming to have read and understood Hatcher's book, you seem to have missed the point that he, himself, alone, neither collected all the data, conducted all the testing (and Ordnance did extensive testing in resolving the issue, the whole of which Hatcher only summarized), nor made the final decisions in the matter.
You apparently haven't read anything I've actually said about the topic, either, since I've offered you full opportunity to discuss any point I may have raised, quote from Hatcher, provide other source data the rest of us seem to be ignorant of - and the most you can come up with is ad-hominem diatribe.
If this is the best you can do in debate, you need to study-up.
And, if one of my soldiers or NCOs had tried your kind of tapdance on any technical matter he was supposed to know, I'd have had his ass on remedial training for a month of Sundays.mhb - Mike

I was going to go through your post point by erroneous point, but I will just repeat what I said before - BS. Learn to read and comprehend what you read without adding your own perspective to what was written. For example, exactly where did I say I read Hatcher's report and understood same? Just more BS on your part. As you stated, if this is the best YOU can do in debate, YOU need to study-up.

Is that all you got, dude? Take a good look at the "little chart" and see if you spot something odd. If you can't handle it, maybe you can get one of your little soldiers to do it for you.

jt

[mhb]

Thank you for a calm and reasoned response.

1. The 'statistical analysis' I referred to is, indeed, Dr. Lyons' little work.

2. I addressed some of the likely reasons why nickel steel was not originally substituted earlier in this thread. I completely agree that the Ordnance guys weren't stupid.

3. I don't know how much attention was paid to the potential problem with the rifle's strength issues before the war, but Hatcher makes it pretty plain that the red flag went up when rifles began to fail in testing ammunition - and failing catastrophically. It is true that these failures were precipitated by really poor ammunition, but the rifles had always been intended to survive and protect the firer from just such unusual events. When they didn't, Ordnance had to take the matter more seriously - and they saw the problem as so serious and urgent that they took immediate action to correct it, during the war, and not later.

It is unfortunate that, so far as I know, no records are now available to show how many receivers and/or bolts may have failed in proof firing. However, though proof pressures were elevated considerably over service levels, proof cartridges were also manufactured with special care, and the cases were not expected to fail in firing. Nearly all the recorded failures with the 1903 are directly traceable to defective brass, or very high pressures with standard brass which caused the cartridge case to fail at the head, releasing high-pressure gas into the receiver ring with shattering effect. The 'Lyons Report' is neither a valid use of statistics in evaluating a safety issue, nor anything other than a distractor to lure the unwary: it deserves not to be blown out of the water, but flushed.

Ultimately, while the change to nickel steel resulted in a safe and satisfactory receiver and bolt, it is clear that the DHT type, made of the original low-carbon steel, was perhaps the strongest and best of the 1903 types. It was not the material which was at fault, but the processes.

And, ultimately, while it is interesting to discuss the circumstances surrounding the original determination that the low-numbered rifles are unsafe, we should never cast doubt on the fact that they are unsafe, as a class, and no one should advise that the problem is less than it is known to be, or worse, may not exist at all, unless he is prepared to disprove the known facts with hard, factual information available to all.

mhb - Mike

[mhb]

Yes, it's probably best that you just pick up your ball and go home.

You referred several times to Hatcher, as if you understood what he had to say: if you haven't read his book, what in the world are you doing in this discussion?

Finally, as you were already invited to take up the discussion point-by-point (and having dodged repeatedly, relying on mere - well - sniping), I repeat the invitation for you to take up any or all errors you see, and make your case, if able.

But I don't expect you will. Maybe you can tell us a few good sea stories....

mhb - Mike


I was going to go through your post point by erroneous point, but I will just repeat what I said before - BS. Learn to read and comprehend what you read without adding your own perspective to what was written. For example, exactly where did I say I read Hatcher's report and understood same? Just more BS on your part. As you stated, if this is the best YOU can do in debate, YOU need to study-up.

Is that all you got, dude? Take a good look at the "little chart" and see if you spot something odd. If you can't handle it, maybe you can get one of your little soldiers to do it for you.

jt

[Rick the Librarian]

Uh, gentlemen ... maybe it is time to end this discussion or take it off-line. Like EVERY other shoot/not shoot discussion on the LN M1903, this is NOT going to be settled to anyone's satisfaction. JMHO.

[PhillipM]

2. He didn't say so but presumably PM's conclusion is "why didn't both arsenals just switch to nickel steel immediately" as it was being used for P14/M1917? Good point. Switching materials would seem to be such a simple and elegant alternative if it was viable at the time one wonders why it was not done. Perhaps it just wan't an option. I won't speculate on the reasons but the ordnance guys were not stupid.

Just to recap:
1. Remington, Winchester, and Eddystone had been producing service rifles out of nickel steel since 1914.
2. RIA stopped production for 6 months and scratched their heads.
3. Started production back at 285,607
4. At 319,921 changed to nickel steel

So for six months they scratched their heads and came up with DHT to produce 319921-285607= 34,314 DHT rifles at which point they moved to nickel steel. There is more to the story, just has to be, but to shut down production for 6 months in a war so they could save 34,314 rifle's worth of stock steel just does not wash. At worst they could have sent it back to be smelted into another alloy for some other type of arm.

For the rifles that blew up during proof firing due to burnt or improperly heat treated steel, I would think they would have enough sense to test the fragments and figure out there was problem then, instead of waiting to act when troops are maimed by their own rifle.

[mhb]

Good points, but I don't think there is a good answer.

However, nickel steel was not introduced into RIA manufacture until sometime in 1919, after the end of the war - perhaps the supply of nickel steel became available only then. Also, RIA would have had to obtain Ordnance approval for the material change, taking some unknown period of time. And SA did not commence use of NS until 1927, beginning with RIA forgings, IIRC.

As to failures in proof testing, it is likely that there were not many, due to the controlled circumstances and use of specially-manufactured ammunition which was designed and intended not to undergo case failure, which contributed to many of the in-service incidents.

Only one proof shot was fired in each rifle, which, in the absence of case failure, proved only that the rifle could stand that amount of stress once.

mhb - Mike

[mhb]

You are certainly right that such discussions often shed more heat than light on the subject.

However, at bottom, it is still very much a safety issue.

It was really resolved properly long ago, but the passage of time (and the passing of those who knew the facts), plus the continued survival of large numbers of the suspect rifles has opened it up to continued discussion, often by those who don't know or understand what the problem was or how it was finally corrected, and, I suspect, by some who just like to argue, or who have some axe to grind.

So, whenever such a discussion occurs again (as it all too frequently does), those of us who do recognize the seriousness of the risk, and the potential consequences to those who choose to ignore those risks, or don't know about them, should always be willing to step up and state the facts in no uncertain terms.

I don't care that individuals may decide for themselves that the risk is acceptable - each of us has an absolute right to go to hell in his own peculiar way. But I do object (every time, and forcefully) to any contention that the risk is very small, or doesn't exist at all. And I will take exception any time such a contention is made, so that anyone who really doesn't know the facts, or who might be misled by misstatement of those facts, can make an informed decision.

mhb - Mike


Uh, gentlemen ... maybe it is time to end this discussion or take it off-line. Like EVERY other shoot/not shoot discussion on the LN M1903, this is NOT going to be settled to anyone's satisfaction. JMHO.

[Jeff L]

Uh, gentlemen ... maybe it is time to end this discussion or take it off-line. Like EVERY other shoot/not shoot discussion on the LN M1903, this is NOT going to be settled to anyone's satisfaction. JMHO.


I think we're done here.