View Full Version : What to fire in a LN receiver
swampyankee
07-20-2015, 03:28
As the saying goes "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing". I was going along happily for 30 years shooting my beloved 1903's until I was enlightened with the knowledge that my treasured guns could blow up in my face. I still shoot them but I'm no longer comfortable doing it, So the question, what can I shoot in it? I do not want to convert with a .22 sleave. I have heard some guys are using a pistol caliber insert or just shoot lead or load way down. There has to be something? Any suggestions?
If the rifle hasn't blown up after a hundred years service it isn't likely too with standard loads. Many of them served through WWi and again in WWII and if a Marine or GI couldn't break them they are likely actually safe. Michael Petrov had several that had been redone by the great smiths of the 20s and 30s and he had no qualms about full power loads, but, again, never tried to hot rod the rifles. That said many, probably most, of the Low Number receivers are very brittle and prudence would dictate treating them gingerly. I use mine with cast bullets only and I don't hot rod. The High Number double heat treated and nickle steel actions are safe with any reasonable load.
Jerry Liles
Most that did blow were because of other reasons, according to Hatcher. Most people seem to mock Hatcher but I think he knew what he was about!
swampyankee
07-20-2015, 06:17
In one of the gun rags I was reading Mike Venturino was shooting 30-06 training ammo, I've never seen it, has anybody else. It appears to be safe.
As I said I still shoot mine but now I have that little voice in my head telling me not too. I hate the internet, ignorance is bliss.
chuckindenver
07-20-2015, 06:45
this one 700,k serial failed 2 days ago. with a published hand load. cast bullet..
keep shootin..
swampyankee
07-20-2015, 06:54
How did it fail? Ruptured case, double charge or just pulling trigger on normal load?
Published cast bullet load? Who published it? Do we know for a fact that the case didn't hold a double or triple charge of powder? (Hard to tell once the powder has been burned, no?) Was the bullet from the previous shot lodged in the barrel? Are there witnesses who can vouch for the QC during the whole process from the loading bench to the firing line? A pic of a wrecked LN receiver is truly disturbing, but until I'm satisfied as to the provenance of the circumstances that caused it, I'll withhold judgement on this one.
IMO the LN rifles have a pretty low margin of error and an egregious act (shooter error) that wouldn't unduly strain a more modern action could indeed rupture it.
Just as in incidents of crazy people going on killing sprees, are we going to rush to judgement and blame the gun and not the shooter?
Need a better picture, a picture of the case and the bolt and what load was supposed to have been used.
chuckindenver
07-20-2015, 07:25
have plenty of SHT failures, that have happened in the last 5 years... dont sugar coat the deal...
dont care if you shoot them.
just know the facts and dangers..
SHt 1903s dont survive a simple common case head failure.
chuckindenver
07-20-2015, 07:27
another..
chuckindenver
07-20-2015, 07:33
from the owner of said rifle,,
It was a 14 grains of unique with a 311284 bullet cast with lyman #2 alloy and gas checked
PhillipM
07-20-2015, 07:58
Published cast bullet load? Who published it? Do we know for a fact that the case didn't hold a double or triple charge of powder? (Hard to tell once the powder has been burned, no?) Was the bullet from the previous shot lodged in the barrel? Are there witnesses who can vouch for the QC during the whole process from the loading bench to the firing line? A pic of a wrecked LN receiver is truly disturbing, but until I'm satisfied as to the provenance of the circumstances that caused it, I'll withhold judgement on this one.
IMO the LN rifles have a pretty low margin of error and an egregious act (shooter error) that wouldn't unduly strain a more modern action could indeed rupture it.
Just as in incidents of crazy people going on killing sprees, are we going to rush to judgement and blame the gun and not the shooter?
I think he double charged it, some say it was the semi-mythical detonation where the powder goes off like a bomb, the case head ruptured and had to hammer it out, but of course he denied it could possibly be his reloads. Then he mentioned in another comment it was strange because he had been shooting 35 regular power loads just before with no problems.
If you elect to shoot a low number, my advise is to use standard milsurp ball or standard loads with slow burning powder like 4895, 4350, and 4831 and stay far away from pistol powders like Unique. If you double charge with pistol powder, you blow up, if you double charge with rifle powder, you have a mess.
I don't shoot mine, but I wouldn't be scared to, because I have high numbers just like the low numbers that shoot great.
Good advice from Phillip.
The rifle in question certainly had one of the brittle receivers however it had nicely survived regular full power loads only to succumb to a low power cast bullet load. I'd bet sugar cookies that it was a double charge. I'd really like to see the bolt and case.
A double charge of pistol powder is a rifle wrecker. A savage 110, a strong action, let go at the local range last weekend for the same reason. That said the LN '03 is known to have problems. I shoot mine.
Jerry Liles
PhillipM
07-20-2015, 09:10
Good advice from Phillip.
The rifle in question certainly had one of the brittle receivers however it had nicely survived regular full power loads only to succumb to a low power cast bullet load. I'd bet sugar cookies that it was a double charge. I'd really like to see the bolt and case.
A double charge of pistol powder is a rifle wrecker. A savage 110, a strong action, let go at the local range last weekend for the same reason. That said the LN '03 is known to have problems. I shoot mine.
Jerry Liles
He didn't show the bolt. Caption, "13 grains of unique 200 grain lead bullet cci 200 primers. This is the case I beat out of the chamber"
Other comments he made: "The bolt looks to be undamaged. Took a block and a hammer to get pOpen and a1/4 steelrod to get the case out"
"My son is a safe reloaded and has not had any problems with the many hundreds he has loaded"
"The sad part or good part he had just fired 35 full power loads"
"It was a 14 grains of unique with a 311284 bullet cast with lyman #2 alloy and gas checked"
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1903loverscollectors/
StockDoc
07-20-2015, 09:22
from the owner of said rifle,,
It was a 14 grains of unique with a 311284 bullet cast with lyman #2 alloy and gas checked
save your fingers Chuck, you will not convince them. Let them add ammo to "Gun Grabbers" that guns are dangerous. "Rifle blows up killing/injuring shooter, guns are unsafe"
swampyankee
07-20-2015, 10:03
Some how we got off track, I asked if there was any safe way of shooting them besides converting to .22 or do you think that will blow them up also. How about those pistol cartridge inserts. How about that practice ammo with the plastic ball. The receiver can't be that fragile ,or it would shatter just closing the bolt.
I collect them but don't shoot them. I'm really surprised as how the price on them has jumped considering they should NOT be fired. It was a great way to collect 03's.
Disclaimer - while most low number rifles are probably safe with good mil spec ammo; I personally don't shoot them.
I understand that a good many of the failures were with "Guard Cartridges." These were reduced velocity cartridges for use on guard duty in locations out of combat zones. They were often loaded with pistol powder. Pistol powder seems to be especially bad mojo with these rifles.
Most of the L.N. failures were caused by failure of the cartridge case head so modern mil spec ammo of good quality is probably safe in most of them, note I said mil spec. If I were reloading for a L.N. rifle I would use mild loads and not push my luck on the brass at all. Using the M1 Garand data available from sources like the Hornaday Handbook and backing off maybe 5%-10% from the max would be my choice. All brass I would use if I were reloading for a low number rifle would be virgin or once fired.
Just my thoughts.
Just saw the picture of the cartridge case. Sure looks like a case head failure with expanded primer pocket. Suggests high pressure. A similar failure will take apart a Pre-64 Mod 70 in the same way. The Savage M110 I mentioned earlier also succumbed to case head high pressure failure.
While I don't advocate using high pressure loads in a LN '03 I do have to note the pre-64 Mod 70 was also often heat treated to a brittle state and with its Springfield like cone breach has just as much cartridge head hanging out and will come apart in exactly the same manner with case head failure yet you never hear of warnings not to shoot an old Model 70.
That said there is just enough smoke that I tend to stick to very mild loads in my '03 and have no desire to hunt down an Old Mod 70. I'd rather have a Double Heat Treated '03.
My two cents
Jerry Liles
There was this same debate not only just a few weeks ago here. That was a lengthy debate. They all end up the same. Open to debate again.
I shoot my LN Sa a bit but the loads are just enough to operate my M1's and the only powder I use is 4895.
Chuck finally found another exploded 03 to boast about. Let me see,,, I think about 5 M14's and a handful of Garand blew in that time. He actually banned me from a Face Book board when I asked great questions for his screaming "FIRE" all the time. I proved him dead wrong but his feelings were hurt. Sad.
Original Poster. Just shoot real G.I. 30-06 and you should have no problems. I have looked all over the net for people dying or even having these blow but can find hundred of other type rifles before I find more than 3 1903's. Rick B
Receiver ring failures similar to low number 03 failures....
http://www.milsurps.com/showthread.php?t=20626&page=2
31681
http://castboolits.gunloads.com/showthread.php?106437-Catastrophic-Failure-Swedish-Mauser-m-1896
31682
http://www.hipointfirearmsforums.com/forum/f281/kaboom-picture-thread-267359/index17.html
31683
slamfire
08-07-2015, 06:47
First I am going to give my safety lecture on these old receivers:
The first and foremost risk associated with low number receivers is lack of material property consistency due to non existing temperature controls. A burnt billet of steel cannot be improved through heat treatment or any process. Burnt is burnt. Steels forged and heat treated as inconsistently as the low number Springfield’s are going to vary widely in hardness and structural integrity. As Hatcher says, in Hatcher’s Notebook page 222: In one of the experiments at Springfield Armory, 48 receivers were carefully re-heat treated, after which 16, or one-third, failed on high pressure test. Some people may consider a 33 1/3% failure rate acceptable, :icon_jokercolor: but I don't think so.
As for heat treatment, I have read Crossman, Sharpe, and others, and it is clear to me, all they know is heat treatment. They carp about heat treatment this and heat treatment that, but they are totally clueless as to the real problem in the Arsenals: lack of temperature instrumentation. Every time a metal part was exposed to heat there was no temperature gage to determine the temperature. Pyrometic cones go back to the 1780's, but there is no evidence that Springfield Armory was even using that simple temperature technology. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrometric_cone Instead, Springfield Armory was using medieval process controls: human eyeballs. There is a short article in my 1914 Machinery Handbook about the unreliability of human eyes in determining steel temperatures, but I guess no one within the Ordnance Department paid any attention to that issue. It was inevitable that steel parts were being made brittle because humans can't accurately judge steel temperatures with their eyeballs. At least not within the forging temperature limits of the steels they used.
This is an excellent post by Firstflabn
http://www.jouster.com/forums/showthread.php?52980-LN1903-Debate-question-%28NOT-for-the-reason-you-re-thinking%29/page2
A sure sign this discussion is in big trouble is when I have to save it with my metallurgical expertise. But, since in the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king, I'll do like OJ and take a stab at it.
First, Hatcher was no metallurgist. Even in the context of the science of his day, he was a beginner. I think he says he took ONE course in metallurgy. He says a couple of really stupid things in his Notebook, but that discussion can wait for another day.
A couple of comments:
1. According to a chart prepared by the Tempil stick folks (if you don't know what a Tempil stick is, stop reading and go find out, you won't benefit by going further now), there is only about a 100 deg F difference between the top of the safe forging temp range and the bottom of the burnt temp range. Therefore, it is ludicrous to believe SA didn't have pyrometers in their forge shop, Hatcher or no. Further, the FY18 report in Brophy's SA book says they installed improved pyrometers in the hardening shop. Why would they have the good stuff - and upgrade it - to use on a much less critical operation at a 1000 F lower temp and none at all in the forging shop?
If the pre-1918 forge temp range is the same as the 1942 spec presented in Brophy (p. 549) - 2300-2340 F - then SA is into the 100 deg F no mans land between safely forging and burning.
2. The plot thickens - as carbon content rises, the burnt temp drops. Brophy shows a carbon range of .30 to .38 for receivers. Moving from .30 to .38 LOWERS the burnt temp by about 30 deg F. Interestingly, the FY18 report celebrates their brand new chemical lab which allows them to (apparently for the first time) do a chemical analysis "for all the steel entering into components or tools." This smells like they previously had only checked the paperwork from the outside supplier providing the receiver blanks. 30 deg may matter if you're bumping up against the safe max temp already.
3. According to the Tempil chart, the forging range is a bit over 600 F wide. Thus, SA wrote specs to operate at the tippy top of the safe range. They might have been worried about forging laps, etc., but that kind of defect would probably have been revealed in proof firing - so, they were concerned about budget (in peacetime) and production (in wartime), not burnt steel.
4. Interpreting the Tempil chart on my ancient monitor, there is no discernable difference in color between the top of the safe range and the bottom of the burnt range (100 F, remember). I'd have to ask someone with foundry experience, but Hatcher's story sounds suspect to me - he may not have known enough to call BS on the "cloudy days" cover story.
3. Another reference I have warns that care must be taken when working forgings that have been heated to near the max safe forging temp as getting in too big a hurry (whomping with the whomper) will raise the forging's temp from friction. My bet is that when that happens, the chewy chocolate center is hotter than the outside, so even modern pyrometers would not help.
I suspect this knowledge existed in heavy industries doing really big pieces - locomotive, ship building, hydropower, etc., but that the combination of stodgy old ordnance officers and budget parsimony created an avoidable (but inevitable) f*ck up.
What I wish I could find out is whether the acid etch test (to identify burnt steel) was available in those other industries before WWI. I have no experience with it, but from my materials lab knowledge it doesn't look too tough to perform and interpret. It's a destructive test, but I wonder if the edge of the tang or one side of the recoil lug could be tested and still have a functioning receiver (with possibility of leaving no more than a blemish). I'm no longer in the testing business, so I don't know who to call for a freebie. If it could be done and only leave a minor boo boo, somebody could have a booming business. The test is 100% reliable, though the interpretaion is visual, so might need a practiced eye.
I'm tired of hearing myself type, so I'm out.
Currently there is an interesting program on the history channel: Forged in Fire. Four knife/sword makers are given three hours to forge a knife blade from some blob of steel. It is worth watching this part, as even though the contestants are highly skilled, they forge by eyeball and there are a surprising number of burnt knife blanks that get created in the rush. The steel gets a little too hot, and the blade either breaks on the anvil, or there are visible cracks in the blade. I saw one episode where the tester refused to test one blade with multiple cracks as it was highly likely the blade would fail and the tester would be injured in the test. I have seen a number of knives that looked OK, but on chopping tests, proved to be too brittle by losing big half moon chunks out of the edge, or the blade simply breaks.
It is also likely that Springfield Armory created a perverse incentive in the forge shop. I have heard that the workers were paid piece rate. It would have been in their economic advantage to crank the temperatures up, make the billets softer, and stamp out more parts in a given time period. Management created these incentives and if management created an incentive with encouraged the creation of defective parts, then whose fault is it if the parts come out bad?
Another issue with these old receivers is the single heat treatment as practiced by Springfield Armory was just a heat and a quench, which is actually a very poor heat treatment. Even period books, my first edition Machinery’s Handbook shows they should have done a heat, quench, and temper, to relive stresses. As primitive the heat treatment of these early receivers, so was the process technology at the steel factories that produced the steel which these rifles were made from. People without a historical understanding of technology just don’t know how little the people back then knew, and how primitive the process controls of the period. Primary instrumentation was often a human’s sense of sight, smell, taste, touch. The end result was that the steels of that period had a lot of slag and impurities. The exact same steel made today would be cleaner and have better material properties. These same steels are being made today but used as rebar, or rail road ties. These are applications which are not high stress and where ultra low cost is the most desired property.
The plain carbon steels used in the single heat treat and double heat treat receivers were technologically obsolescent in 1918. If you remember, the British used nickle steel in the P1914, and so did we in the P1917 rifle. In a few short years plain carbon steels were being replaced with alloy steels for a number of very good reasons. Metal technology advanced quickly in the first and second decade of the 20 century, and even more rapidly after 1920. Post WW1 it was painfully obvious that the use of plain carbon steels in safety critical or stressing environments was not technically justifiable. The American metallurgist Edgar Bain, http://www.nasonline.org/publications/biographical-memoirs/memoir-pdfs/bain-edgar-c.pdf in 1932 published conclusive experiments on carbons steels. Bain heat treated identical plain carbon steel coupons under identical conditions and examined the coupons afterwards for hardness depth. Etched coupons steel, show that these plain carbon steels have erratic hardening depths, given that all else is equal. These steels were called in WW2 era text books as “shallow hardening”. This was meant not as praise but as a pejorative. Inconsistent hardening provides inconsistent material properties. It is undesirable to create parts some of which will be hard through and through but others soft below the surface even though the heating processes are the same for all parts. But use plain carbon steels, and you will create such inconsistent parts, just by the nature of the material.
Therefore, you would expect even properly forged, properly heat treated single heat treat and double heat treat receivers to vary considerable in hardness depth, which then affects the properties of the end part.
Yield is an extremely important material property, for above yield, the part deforms. Once a steel part yields it is no longer safe to use. What happens after yield is unpredictable, often it takes less load to cause more deformation, ultimate load is the load it takes to break the part. Alloy steels always have a higher yield, typically about 20% more for the same carbon content. There is another material advantage with alloy steels: increased toughness. For a device, such as a receiver, which is going to be subjected to impact loading, toughness is a highly desirable property. Toughness is directly related to fatigue lifetime, which is the number of loading cycles to failure. Assuming the yield is sufficient for the load, the tougher material will have a longer service life. Alloy steels have a greater toughness than plain carbon steels. Alloy steels take more energy to shear, Charpy impact tests are a direct predictor of a steel’s fatigue lifetime. It is a revelation to see just how shear energy decreases with temperature, and at low temperature, alloy steels take several times the energy to shear as do plain carbon steels.
Old single heat treat receivers are a very significant unknown quantity. We know they were made in a factory that did not have temperature controls, we know that the material varies considerably in properties after heat treatment, and that the service life of the part will always be less to one made out of a good alloy steel. Just how many service lives have these old receivers been though? How many more load cycles will they take before failure? How will they react in an overpressure situation?
Based on all the pictures of blown receiver rings, these things will fragment. I am always surprised when I run into people who at first blush, appear educated and intelligent. But it was a surprise to be told by a “03 expert” that low number receivers are safer than later production because they fragment. That is when I found that crazy people can look the same as sane people. The concept this expert had was that a rupture somehow dropped pressure and that made everything OK. :icon_scratch: It is my opinion that having a fragmentation grenade in front of my face is far more dangerous than not having a fragmentation grenade in front of face.
Literally millions of people have been killed by metal fragments flying around at high speed. You can look at old cannon balls, Civil War examples abound, the things are filled with cast iron balls and gun powder. When fuses got better, artillery used shrapnel. If any one remembers, the Boston bombers packed their pressure cooker full of metallic objects to increase the lethality of the device. When one of these old receivers fragment, there are chunks of metal flying about at high speed and in unpredictable directions. It is amazing that no one was killed or seriously hurt in the pictured example of a low number 03, but don’t doubt for a second that there is not enough power in that blowup to blow a chunk of steel to the back of your skull. Then, you die.
Therefore, regardless of the desires of the Hatcher fan base and the hoopla around double heat treat receivers, plain carbon steels are inferior in all aspects to alloy steels. As a class low number receivers have a number of identified risks. The process control technology they were made produced 300,000 thousand structurally deficient rifles and a number of people were severely injured when their rifles blew up. The steels of the era were inconsistent in composition and inherently inconsistent in final properties after heat treatment. Also, these steels were rather primitive, by WW2, called low grade, due to their lack of strength and ductility. It is my opinion that a combination of false economy and just reluctance to change by the Chief Metallurgist is why Springfield Armory kept using plain carbon steels even when early in the 20th century, it was obvious that these steels were rapidly becoming obsolescent, and by the 1920’s, they were obsolete for this application. All of these receivers have been around a long time. Some have been through a number of service lives, at some point they will fail through structural fatigue, just when, I don’t know.
However assessing risk on a large population is a lot easier than assessing risk on an individual receiver. I am not going to say, sight unseen, and untested, that any low number receiver is safe or defective. I can’t. But I can say, as a population, there is a lot of risk in the group.
A simple test of a low number receiver, to determine brittleness, is to do what the Marine Corp did. Take the action out of the stock, take the bolt out, and hit it sharply with a heavy steel hammer a number of times. Make it ring, make it ring loudly. Whack it on the receiver ring, the right rail, and the rear bridge. If it shatters, you had a defective low number receiver, and you saved yourself from potential injury.
As for loads, if your receiver is one of those structural deficient types, then really no load is safe. At some round count in the future, the receiver is going to fail. Its failure will be accelerated compared to a “good one” because the material is compromised. It would be nice of one of those experts around here measured the receiver seats, and the ring sidewalls, and gave an estimate of the fatigue lifetime of “good one”. I am of the opinion that it is not infinite even though these were designed before the concept of fatigue failure was well defined. Today, a small arm of this type is designed to a service life, which will be an estimated number or rounds till failure. For a light duty item, which a service rifle is, about 10,000 would be the upper limit, probably 6,000 rounds being the lower limit. Six thousand rounds is the endurance test requirement for M1 Garands, M14’s, and M16’s. After 6,000 rounds the rifle has completed its service life, goes back to rebuild, and anything and everything can be replaced as necessary. I talked to Roland Beaver, USMC gunsmith, he worked on a Garand rebuild line and they tossed lots of Garand receivers in the scrap bin.
So for loads, the period load was a 150ish grain bullet around 2700 fps at less than 50,000 psia. As powder technology developed, pressures decreased. I have seen 1930's data where match ammunition was in the low 40,000 psia range. The stuff was used in machine guns but I don't know if they measured port pressure. But given that the port pressure was OK, the round was loaded to a velocity as it was unlikely with IMR pressures that the pressure limit would be exceeded. Upon testing of ball ammunition, I find that vintage ball ammunition is not that hot, by today's standards.
I have shot tens of thousands of 30-06 rounds in NRA competitions. Don't shoot the old smoke pole as much as I used to, but I did a lot of testing over a chronograph to determine what was going one with my loads.
M98 26" 1-10 Wilson Barrel
150 gr FMJBT TW 56 Ball
24 Mar 04 T= 70 ° F
Ave Vel = 2680
Std Dev = 31
ES = 78
Low = 2620
High = 2698
N = 6
150 gr FMJBT 1966 Ball
14 Nov 2011 T= 68 ° F
Ave Vel = 2596
Std Dev = 47
ES = 190
Low = 2498
High = 2688
Group Size: Surprisingly good ammunition.
150 gr Sierra Match HPBT 47.5 IMR 4895 CCI#34 WW2 cases
OAL 3.290"
24 Mar 04 T= 70 ° F
Ave Vel = 2722
Std Dev = 26
ES = 76
Low = 2673
High = 2749
N = 10
Group Size: All in ten ring, very mild load,
A match load, I have shot thousands of 168 Match bullets in my match 30-06’s and it is a superlative bullet.
A very accurate 200 yards standing and sitting load is a 168 with 42.0 grains IMR 4895. I chronographed that load with a 175 FMJBT .match load
175 FMJBT 42.0 grs IMR 4895 wtd WLR WW2 brass OAL 3.30"
17 Sept 00 T=72 ° F
Ave Vel = 2451
Std Dev = 15
ES = 51
Low = 2429
High = 2480
N = 9
My standard match load was a 168 grain Match over 47.0 grains IMR 4895.
168 gr Nosler Match 47.0 IMR 4895 thrown lot L7926 FA/LC cases WLR (brass) OAL 3.30"
Greased to case shoulders by dip and twist in Lubriplate AA130
13 Aug 2014 T = 80 °F
Ave Vel = 2650
Std Dev = 16
ES = 46
High = 2675
Low = 2629
N = 8
I have shot all of these loads in my M1903A3 and it shoots, more or less, to the sight settings. The 47 grain load can be cut a grain or two and it won’t hurt anything.
Slam fire, This was a great posting!! Very educational not just an opinion. You should copy and post this to the "Ln1903 not what you think" post as it's also a very heated debate. Thanks for you input.
Griff Murphey
08-08-2015, 08:11
I got interested in military firearms in Junior ROTC beginning in 1964, and I enjoyed cruising the ZM Military Research, Service Armament, INTERARMS, and Ye Olde Hunter catalogs and ads which provided many happy hours of fantasy shopping. Those ads, if they were for 03's, ALWAYS described them as low or high number. As I recall the going rate for high numbers and A-3s was $39.95 and low numbers were $10 to $15 lower.
We also had WHB Smith's BOOK OF RIFLES in the den, which explained the issue thoroughly. I just find it interesting that the OP collected for 30 years and only recently heard of the issue. I guess part of that issue is: it was such common knowledge that at a certain point people simply stopped talking about it.
Slamfire's post really IS great.
swampyankee
08-09-2015, 04:23
[QUOTE=Griff Murphey;
. I just find it interesting that the OP collected for 30 years and only recently heard of the issue. I guess part of that issue is: it was such common knowledge that at a certain point people simply stopped talking about it.
I never said I collected for 30 years. I said I shot these rifles, as I always liked them. There was no internet back then and when your working and raising a family you don't have time to read about guns 24/7 like now. There are I'm sure many shooters today who have no idea about LN 1903's. When I bring a 1903 to the range many shooters ask if it's an M1 or a Mauser and don't even know what a 1903 is.
[QUOTE=Griff Murphey;
There are I'm sure many shooters today who have no idea about LN 1903's. When I bring a 1903 to the range many shooters ask if it's an M1 or a Mauser and don't even know what a 1903 is.
I once met a highway patrolman who thought that all 1903 Springfield's were 1903A3's. He had never seen another type of 03. He went on and on about how wonderful the rifle was and how it was used throughout WWI. I tried to explain to him how there was another 1903 Springfield that was made using Milled steel and not stamped sheet metal for furniture. He hadn't a clue of what I was trying to describe.
Another person I know who's one of my best friends of 45 years has never seen a 1903 Springfield either. He does own a 1903A3, but he's never held a 1903. He's a Dentist in Springfield, MO now and so he cannot take a look at my rifles first hand. However I've sent him photo's of them. He's never before handled one and is unfamiliar with their sights.
slamfire
08-09-2015, 05:54
I am glad that what I wrote was well received. I am going to say that even since I wrote that, I have learned even more about low number receivers, and that was due to the contributions of other posters in another thread. People are such a great resource and I have learned so much from others. I am grateful that forums such as this exist where people can share knowledge and experiences. The next time I write a long missive about low number Springfields I am going to add what I learned to the narrative, but basically what I learned is that the problems of low number receivers is more than just bad forge shop workers, but rather, that Springfield Armory had a lot more problems that Hatcher omitted to mention.
SlamFire....it's very interesting how the Marine Corps had that very simple approach for testing low number receivers. I have a couple of low number receivers without barrels. I would like to try this method and just see what happens. Would it be better to have a barrel installed first?
musketshooter
08-09-2015, 06:51
Failure when shooting with lead bullets indicates that the powder detonated rather than burned. This is a common problem shooting pistol powder in large capacity cases.
kragluver
08-09-2015, 09:08
Failure when shooting with lead bullets indicates that the powder detonated rather than burned. This is a common problem shooting pistol powder in large capacity cases.
You are referring to SEE (secondary explosion effect). This can occur with small charges of SLOW powders in large cases. Powder quickness slower than 3031 can be dangerous with reduced loads. Fast powders are safe with reduced loads when used properly. See the book Firearms Pressure Factors. Blowups that occur with fast powders are typically due to double charges.
PhillipM
08-09-2015, 09:16
You are referring to SEE (secondary explosion effect). This can occur with small charges of SLOW powders in large cases. Powder quickness slower than 3031 can be dangerous with reduced loads. Fast powders are safe with reduced loads when used properly. See the book Firearms Pressure Factors. Blowups that occur with fast powders are typically due to double charges.
Yes, but no one wants to admit they double charged the case and blew the gun up!
kragluver
08-09-2015, 09:33
Agree - I see the SEE detonation phenomena reported as reduced loads of fast powders very often on various forums. Whereas it is reduced charges of slow powders that cause SEE.
slamfire
08-09-2015, 09:41
SlamFire....it's very interesting how the Marine Corps had that very simple approach for testing low number receivers. I have a couple of low number receivers without barrels. I would like to try this method and just see what happens. Would it be better to have a barrel installed first?
I would not go to the expense or bother of installing a barrel. In the May- June 1985 issue of Rifle, Hugh Douglas took three or four low number receivers, without bolt or barrel, and hit them with a nylon faced hammer. He held the receiver in the left hand, hammer in the right. All of the receivers he whacked, included a double heat treat, broke.
I have the tools in install a barrel and a few worn barrels. Is this what the marine corps did? I would think that hanging the receiver would work better but probably with the same results.
Thanks Louis
kragluver
08-09-2015, 10:11
Back to the original question about what to shoot - .22LR after you convertthe rifle. Otherwise, test the receiver first by whacking it smartly as described above.
StockDoc
08-09-2015, 11:32
Keep shooting them, with each destroyed rifle the intact rifles go up in price:banana100:
Griff Murphey
08-09-2015, 02:43
I think weird stuff happens firing lead bullets - whichever theories you prefer: the double charge theory or the loose gas check theory. I have a friend who dented the chamber on the perfect 98 Krag using mild lead bullet loads.
Incidentally, no dissing of Swampyankee was intended. My time in the hobby is 50 years - back then I think there was just more reading, also a lot more emphasis ON the milsurps... That aspect took up a lot of magazine articles and ad space. Buying, shooting and back then CONVERTING them.
And stay away from those late HRA's :) http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?p=16815456
Why would anyone risk firing a rifle whose receiver will shatter just by hitting it with a ball peen hammer? If a qualified experienced gunsmith recommends not firing a lsn 03, I'd heed the warning.
Marine A5 Sniper Rifle
08-30-2015, 05:21
I love these LN 03 discussions that crop up on a regular basis. Good thing the Marines didn't know how unsafe these rifles are, or they might have surrendered at Belleau Wood without firing a shot. Needless to say, the Corps ignored any warnings and wore out many barrels with those old receivers. Of all the WWI USMC 5th and 6th Regiment 03 serial numbers I have collected, all but two are LN rifles, generally in the 200K to 400K range. I, like the Marines, shoot my LN's without reservation or fear of destruction. I use ball ammo for the most part. When I hear of any rifle blowing up, there is usually a handload involved.
Many people might not admit to blowing up a rifle with their own handloads, but I am not one of them. I blew up a fine 257 Roberts built on a 98 Mauser action back in the 60's. It was unpleasant to say the least. My major injury was a wooden splinter stuck to the bone in my left forearm. Velocity was a big deal back in those days, and I was inching up the velocity, and simply over did it. If I remember correctly, the powder was 4895, and I was at or exceeding what was considered max loads. My shooting glasses were etched from either brass or burnt powder. I have a collection of severed case heads from everything from 22-250's on up. As Clint says, "I ain't like that anymore". I did blow a primer in a LN 03 several years ago. All I saw was a puff of smoke and the floor plate fell off.
I hunt with a LN 03. It has been in my family for many decades, and all the previous owners have gone to their just rewards. I will pass the little rifle on to someone in my family when I go. By the way, I salvaged the receiver from that 257 Roberts and rebuilt the rifle. It is my favorite hunting rifle to this day. It sports a P&S Sales light weight barrel, a Mod 70 type safety, a Weaver 4x12 scope in Buehler mounts, and a 3/8" wide Timney target trigger with external adjustment (VERY light trigger pull), with all highly polished parts. It is in a Claro Walnut stock, glass bedded receiver, free floated barrel, and refinished many times through the years, and it is currently rust blued to a beautiful iridescent blue. I dropped it in a lake one night many years ago while spot lighting beavers. It stayed in the lake for several days until I could get it out (it was very cold). There was no water in the scope. I made my best hunting shot with that rifle - an off hand shot at 474 measured yards that killed an 8-point buck instantly (Hill Country, Texas 1981).
Good luck with whatever you choose to shoot.
jt
Shot this beauty long time ago before we knew of the scare and would shoot it today if I still owned it. It sold for allot of money due to its condition so I cannot shoot it anymore. It ws given away by the US Government Mottled receiver and all. Rick B
http://imageshack.com/a/img912/9492/IapgWx.jpg
http://imageshack.com/a/img673/8494/OQf5uJ.jpg
http://imageshack.com/a/img673/8494/OQf5uJ.jpg
http://imageshack.com/a/img673/2764/ZzOLBa.jpg
http://imageshack.com/a/img908/7923/xJDrLS.jpg
http://imageshack.com/a/img911/94/oCcrpP.jpg
http://imageshack.com/a/img661/4849/qrrP1e.jpg
http://imageshack.com/a/img540/7428/jF8Ih6.jpg
Rick the Librarian
09-03-2015, 05:43
Rick, I've got your former rifle's slightly "younger brother" - #477541 - also an NRA Sales rifle. Never have and probably won't shoot it.
http://www.fototime.com/287DFBB5B4134E7/standard.jpg
http://www.fototime.com/C7541FC0BF4A6B9/standard.jpg
http://www.fototime.com/B179C95A682E285/standard.jpg
http://www.fototime.com/CA779D6D2BACB6A/standard.jpg
http://www.fototime.com/A16F94A3963A8BC/standard.jpg
Plain Old Dave
09-04-2015, 06:16
Read the entire thread, and have a couple thoughts.
The biggest issue with LN 1903s is what happens when (not if) you have a case failure and 50K PSI gas gets about in the action. The double heat treat receivers will let go, too, but they won't grenade like LNs will. The steel is brittle in the LN receivers due to the inconsistent TLAR heat treatment; some were burned and others weren't gotten hot enough. The following link explores the problem from the vantage point of a medical doctor trained in epidemiology:
http://m1903.com/03rcvrfail/
I concluded a while back that the US replaced a fine magazine rifle (the Krag) with one that simply had capabilities beyond present metallurgy for reasons of political expediency; Elihu Root used the "slow firing Krag" controversy to cover his revolutionary changes in the War Department. The down side is the US did not have a shoulder arm superior to the Krag until fairly late in the 1920s and the adoption of nickel steel recievers for the 1903 to solve the receiver failure issue and M1 Ball to solve the jacket fouling issue, which IMO at least contributed to receiver failures along with Mobilubricant. Both increased chamber pressure and therefore bolt thrust and stress on cartridge cases, increasing the probability of cartridge case failure and receiver failure in single and double heat treated 1903s.
Bottom line here is there are plenty of Nickel Steel receiver 1903s to shoot and no real reason to shoot a low number 1903.
Rick the Librarian
09-05-2015, 07:06
This may be starting a discussion which drifts away from the original purpose, but here goes:
I would disagree that the Krag was superior on several points:
1) Lack of a magazine charging system. One account I read of the S/A War said you could follow American units in action by the cartridges dropped trying to reload their rifles.
2) The Krag could not "support" a truly powerful cartridge
3) The 24' barrel of the M1903 was much more handy for the infantry and removed the need for a cavalry carbine.
4) The "thin" part of the stock around the Krag magazine was subject to constant breakage.
Marine A5 Sniper Rifle
09-05-2015, 08:42
....The down side is the US did not have a shoulder arm superior to the Krag until fairly late in the 1920s and the adoption of nickel steel recievers for the 1903 to solve the receiver failure issue and M1 Ball to solve the jacket fouling issue, which IMO at least contributed to receiver failures along with Mobilubricant. Both increased chamber pressure and therefore bolt thrust and stress on cartridge cases, increasing the probability of cartridge case failure and receiver failure in single and double heat treated 1903s.
Bottom line here is there are plenty of Nickel Steel receiver 1903s to shoot and no real reason to shoot a low number 1903.
I find it amazing that you would shoot a Krag but not a LN 03. I consider the Krag the most dangerous (to shooter) of all milsurp rifles. The 03 proved itself in WWI beyond any reasonable doubts. Where was the Krag?
jt
Plain Old Dave
09-05-2015, 09:44
Firstly, in Springfield Armory's testing conducted postwar between 1893 Spanish Mausers and Krags, no significant difference was found in sustained rate of fire.
Second, the .30 Krag is a virtual ballistic clone of the .303. A record holding elk that for decades was a biggest killed in North America was killed by a rifle chambered for .30-40 in 1899, and as late as the WW1 era, Townsend Whelen recommended the 30-40 for grizzly.
Third point, maybe. This was addressed with the Board of Ordinance and Fortifications rifles just the same.
Fourth point in period reports was attributed to improperly seasoned wood, and most of the reports came from China in the Boxer Rebellion.
In 30+ years, I have never even heard of a catastrophic Krag failure. There are several pictures of just that with 03s on this thread alone.
Is the 03 a better rifle than a Krag? With a nickel steel receiver and ammo that postdates the M1 Ball change, yes. I will stay with my assertion, though. The low number 1903, especially with lower quality ammunition, is an inferior arm to the Krag.
and with all this above I can show 20 fold M1A and Garand receivers that have failed and they have not been around as long as all the 1903's out there that are not exploding. Point being the Hype is there and people run with it. One guy runs around and makes a point of trying to show the National Ordinance receivers but there is only one on the net in pictures. I hear about Big Foot all the time but no one ever sees him.
Overload the cartridge and bad things happen. Screw with head space and bad things happen. Build a rifle and bad things happen. Many factors are involved in this mess as we see with many modern rifles blowing up due to Rocket Science bullet building today. Blame the rifle instead kind of like how they blame guns for crime. Rick B
There are hopefully nobody using WW1 ammo and WW1 German ammo. And nobody is greasing up thier ammo I don't believe. So there should only be M1 ball in a LN 03. I would for myself keep away from reloads if I'm not doing them myself and I won't cause I'd probably blow myself up in my shop lol. Personally I know the M16 did have receiver failures in the military years ago. So the USMC did not seem to have any problem with LN 03's. And there are a lot of sporterized USMC 03's out there. So far I don't see the problem using M1 ball ammo in these rifles. But I know there are s lot of you insisting otherwise.
Plain Old Dave
09-05-2015, 02:58
As to National Ordinance receivers, my now-retired gunsmith here in East TN quit working on National Ordinance M1903s in the early 1970s. They were soft and invariably developed headspace issues due to setback in the locking lug area. Their M1 Garands were rewelds and almost never worked right. Given how and where it let go, the M1 Kaboom video that made the rounds on Facebook a while back was probably a National Ordinance.
Here's the problem with the LNs. IF you don't have a cartridge case failure, you'll have a lot less chance for problem with a heat treated 1903 of any pedigree. Candidly, a lot of the problem can probably be traced to improperly annealed WW1 .30 cal and galvanic corrosion between cupro-nickel jacket metal and brass cartridge cases.
But metal being metal, there's no way to NOT eventually have some form of cartridge case failure other than NOT shooting.
And when cases fail, LN M1903s invariably grenade.
DRAGONFLYDF
09-05-2015, 05:02
I have 570454, also a NRA sales rifle with mottled finish. Oct 1913
https://scontent.fphx1-2.fna.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpa1/v/t1.0-9/11692530_1634467426793334_7950350226382372158_n.jp g?oh=bdb0854dc95376c4f5fa8780fcebb178&oe=561F186C
https://scontent.fphx1-2.fna.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xaf1/v/t1.0-9/18787_1634467583459985_1850484237510692256_n.jpg?o h=289f9615c8a746b56283bbcf1a835501&oe=565A23F5
https://scontent.fphx1-2.fna.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xfp1/v/t1.0-9/11666215_1634467586793318_5293016746490793349_n.jp g?oh=152c9dbe22fef6b775390aa3e663ed65&oe=56182493
https://scontent.fphx1-2.fna.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpf1/v/t1.0-9/11012643_1634467803459963_2264933255355515362_n.jp g?oh=2fd74cdd41670dbbe768a113651355d4&oe=560E56A1
Plain Old Dave
09-06-2015, 03:50
Nice NRA rifles.
Point of information: M1 Ball is not ball ammunition for M1 rifles. M1 Ball was adopted in the mid 1920s primarily to give medium and heavy 30 caliber MGs better range and secondarily to address the fouling problem that had plagued the 1903 for its entire service life. Had a 172 grain copper jacketed boattail bullet moving at @2600 f/s, and M72 Ball is more or less M1 Ball with more quality control steps.
You're correct I've should have said M2 Ball. All I'm trying to say is we aren't using surplus ammo from WW1 nor surplus German ammo from WW1. Heck I don't know anyone even using surplus WW2 ammo. The quality of the ammo we use today compared to back then is much better. I know there are variations. But come on now this was all new back then and there is a learning curve. Like I said early M16 rifles also had a problem nobody was condeming them.
DRAGONFLYDF, Love what looks like 5 slashes on the back of the one rifle. Rick B
. . . . . Like I said early M16 rifles also had a problem nobody was condeming them.
Does anyone remember the PBS broadcast back in the 60's about the "Sen. Ichord committee hearings" on the M16 failures in early Vietnam?
There were PLENTY of people condemning the M16 of that era!
No cleaning maintenance leading to what the broadcast said were "rim-shears" of cartridge cases remaining in the non-plated chambers!
I wish I could re-visit that PBS broadcast!
Anyone else remember? --Jim
Yea I remember. They condemned it but kept it. Thanks for reminding me. I also saw photos of piles of m16 receivers that had failures don't remember where I saw those. I had an oldie in 1970 during my Usmc time didn't blow on me but they taught us about the bad receivers.
The Usmc seemed not to have a problem with low number 03's in WW2. They where used on Guadalcanal and of course every Marine used them on the firing ranges. No problem. I have Sydney Phillips 03 serial number it was in the 300k.
Plain Old Dave
09-06-2015, 12:26
The Marines (AFAIK) didn't have any 03s fail at Guadalcanal, that's true enough. The MD that wrote this study, though, says 2-3 should have failed in a population of 100% LN 03s.
http://m1903.com/03rcvrfail/
Shooting an LN 03 is a gamble, at best. And, sure enough, people go to Vegas and beat the odds. Apparently the Marines on Guadalcanal did just that, not that they had a choice. They were at war. We're not.
Here's this, though. In Vegas, if you lose you're just broke. If (when) the odds catch up with you, at minimum you're looking at a wrecked gun at least. And maybe more.
The question is, is the risk of permanent injury and total loss of the rifle worth playing the odds, ESPECIALLY when there are so many 03s around that are significantly safer to shoot?
Dave this could go on forever. We have our thoughts on this seemingly never ending subject. I'm sure in 6-8 months it will come up again. But makes an interesting debate. Probably well into the next century lol.
What is safe to fire in low number 03s? Blanks, of course! Dry firing is even safer.
PhillipM
09-07-2015, 01:16
I will say this though. An LN action is so smooth it'll make you want to toss an 03A3 in the river.
Herschel
09-07-2015, 10:04
Thankfully we live in a country where we can choose to risk firing a low number 1903. I wonder how many of our group would not fire a LN but
would hop on a motorcycle and ride away without a concern? I sold my motorcycle when noticed that nearly every day there was a mention in the newspaper
of an experienced rider being killed while riding.
swampyankee
09-07-2015, 11:31
If LN 1903's blow up so easily, then after 100 years of us stupid people shooting them, shouldn't they all be destroyed by now? How can any of them still be left if just touching them with a hammer or dropping them, they shatter in pieces. But yet still around.
5MadFarmers
09-07-2015, 11:45
Thankfully we live in a country where we can choose to risk firing a low number 1903.
Strongly agreed.
I wonder how many of our group would not fire a LN but would hop on a motorcycle and ride away without a concern? I sold my motorcycle when noticed that nearly every day there was a mention in the newspaper
of an experienced rider being killed while riding.
False analogy. "I wonder how many of our group would not fire a LN but would hop on a motorcycle with faulty brakes and ride away without a concern - insisting that there was absolutely nothing wrong with the brakes."
That.
I don't care if you ride a motorcycle with faulty brakes or shoot an LN. I'd just rather that you do it knowingly. Let's alter the debate. Your grandson is going to shoot reloads. Do you hand him the NS '03 or the LN? If your answer is "depends on his age and after he knows the issues" I think you have the win. Know the concerns and exercise DUE caution. Nobody is asking for UNDUE caution.
Plain Old Dave
09-07-2015, 12:34
False analogy. "I wonder how many of our group would not fire a LN but would hop on a motorcycle with faulty brakes and ride away without a concern - insisting that there was absolutely nothing wrong with the brakes."
That.
THIS.
5mad, did you get my email a couple weeks back?
5MadFarmers
09-07-2015, 02:32
THIS.
5mad, did you get my email a couple weeks back?
Yup, I suck at responding to email. Well I've been procrastinating on many things. Follow the ordering instructions and it'll appear in the mail. I procrastinate on getting mail out also but I mentioned that.
People mention that the Army and USMC used stuff after the issues became clear. They also sent early M16s to VN. They also had crews take off in overloaded B-29s from very hot tropical islands when the engines were known to overheat even in more temperate locations. It's called "calculated risk." Not "risk denial."
Every time you see a well built girl jogging down the side of the road, heading in the same direction as you, and you look at her after you pass her you take a calculated risk. "Does the front match the back in quality?" If you didn't look you'd never be disappointed. Calculated risk.
I compare firing a lsn rifle to driving a Voltwagen Bug or Corvair with the engines in the rear. Remember these. The idea is that a car with the engine in front offers more protection in a head on collision. Nowadays, people are driving smart cars. I use to drive a Chevette Scooter in 79. Now I drive a big pickemup truck.
Point is whether a firearm or auto, chose something offering the best survivability should the unexpected happen.
The cmp advises not to shoot reloads in a Garand. I have for 35 years without incident. OK, maybe a few head separations and split cases but nothing catastrophic.
ridgerunner
09-08-2015, 05:07
I 'used' to ride bikes. From 1960 to 2005. Junk bikes, super bikes. You name it. I consider some bikes, unsafe, or very unforgiving. Death wobble and such. Quit riding because of the deer.
I choose to not shoot a low number 1903, because there is always the possibility of something bad happening. Kind of like shooting a Damascus barreled shotgun. It may not blow up, with the right loads. But, there is a very good chance, that it might.
There are stronger and safer firearms available, for very reasonable prices. And as I do not like gas and other such stuff in my face, I prefer to shoot them.
As to the military, it has been my experience, that they do not always have your best interest, in mind. As 5 Mad stated, Calculated risk.
Of course, this is just my opinion, therefore................
Plain Old Dave
09-08-2015, 06:28
As you can tell from my Profile, I'm a Navy Reservist. It occurred that looking at shooting an LN 1903 from the standpoint of Operational Risk Management may be enlightening. These are the five basic steps we use.
Identify hazards. We've done this pretty extensively on this thread. The inconsistent heat treatment makes some single heat treated 1903 receivers considerably more brittle than others, and there's no real way to tell HOW brittle a particular 1903 is except destructive inspection.
Assess the hazards. This, too. The unsupported case head in the 1903 design makes gas control in event of a case failure a significant issue. With a double heat treated rifle or a nickel steel rifle, wear proper PPE and you'll probably be OK. But evidence suggests that low number 1903s have a considerable propensity to catastrophically fail when the cartridge case does.
Make risk decisions.
Here's the rub. Is the risk of catastrophic failure worth the benefit of shooting a low number 1903?
Implement controls. We've discussed this. It appears as though the incidence of "kabooms" decreased considerably in the later 1920s and that may be due to expending the WW1 production ammunition and concurrent reduced cartridge case failure. It might be safely inductively reasoned that the lack of "kabooms" on Guadalcanal can be traced to use of newly manufactured ammunition, as well. That said, even brand-new brass can fail.
Supervise and watch for change. That's where threads like this come in. Chuck's "kaboom" pictures are enlightening. Before this thread, I didn't know ANY 1903s had kaboomed since the later 1920s.
I think it's like driving a vehicle without insurance or without wearing a seat belt. Everything will be just OK unless or until sh!t happens.
Jeez these analogies are telling of what we've become. Yes I driven trucks and cars without seatbelts because they never had them until the 70's and yes I've driven bad motorcycles back when HD was not what is is today. They fell apart when you didn't constantly tighten their parts. I didn't know we have risk assessment in the military. I thought being in the military and taking objectives was risky. Oh and there were plenty more risks taken more on the past than now. That was normal back then. I look at things not of fear but knowledgable from a lifetime point of view and not be afraid of the world. That's why we are where we are today in my opinion. Which doesn't mean much. There are plenty of pistol and rifle failures today. Probably more than the old 03. Mostly due to bad reloads or Chinese ammo. Didn't someone point out that the Chuck photo was because of a bad reload? A risk assessment Dr. Sees the world as a risk. They, like engineers see things differently and they have a really dry sense of humor. How did we get this far without taking risks? These are mine and your opinions and everyone takes a risk every time we load a weapons hell just waking up and getting out of bed. So fire the old 03 or not that should be an individual choice not preached at why someone shouldn't do it. How often do you clean your weapon and examine it carefully for cracks and other things that may become dangerous? That's a risk not to take no? Jee wiz you guys take things to the extreme sometimes.
In one of the gun rags I was reading Mike Venturino was shooting 30-06 training ammo, I've never seen it, has anybody else. It appears to be safe. As I said I still shoot mine but now I have that little voice in my head telling me not too. I hate the internet, ignorance is bliss.
Years ago I bought a bunch of .30-06 training ammo. It has a plastic (maybe nylon) bullet. Very accurate out to 50 yds. After that I have no ides where it goes. It will penetrate a 1' pine board at 25 yds. I haven't seen any since.
ElWoodman
08-31-2016, 05:34
They're not very forgiving of bad headspacing either...I run Hornady Custom Lite 125gr in my sht 03s.
cplnorton
08-31-2016, 07:05
I wish someone would make a .22 conversion kit like the Numrich one years ago. I think there would be a big market for this if the price was reasonable.
Griff Murphey
08-31-2016, 08:37
It's kind of interesting looking at the way prices are running these days. In the 60's a high number would sell for $34.95 and a low number might be $29.95. Similarly when CMP was selling the Greek return 03s I recall the low numbers were sold for about $200 less than the high numbers, with stern warnings not to shoot them. I walked into Jackson Armory in Dallas about a month ago and the high numbers were under $1,000, generally, and the low numbers were $1200 and up. Some real collectors buying those early non-shooters. Makes you wish for a time machine; who knew? Rick, maybe...
PhillipM
09-01-2016, 04:33
It's kind of interesting looking at the way prices are running these days. In the 60's a high number would sell for $34.95 and a low number might be $29.95. Similarly when CMP was selling the Greek return 03s I recall the low numbers were sold for about $200 less than the high numbers, with stern warnings not to shoot them. I walked into Jackson Armory in Dallas about a month ago and the high numbers were under $1,000, generally, and the low numbers were $1200 and up. Some real collectors buying those early non-shooters. Makes you wish for a time machine; who knew? Rick, maybe...
If I remember, the CMP ground down the firing pins
Hpmaster
09-01-2016, 05:00
Once smoked cigarettes, drank beer and whiskey in excess, drove unlimited late model dirt cars for 40 years, had many years where I drank 3 pots of black coffee a day, worked a super high stress job, had bacon everyday, ate the fat off my 1 pound steaks, have driven well over 100 mph on the public roads numerous times, fired tens of thousands of my own reloads in competition and practice in M1s, M1As, AR 15s built by myself, had several case separations, chased wild women and had unprotected sex plus a few dozen other behaviors I know were not wise at all. But dang I have never fired a single round out of a low number Springfield because it might be dangerous!
5MadFarmers
09-01-2016, 11:13
If I remember, the CMP ground down the firing pins
You remember right. Went to the North Store at the time and gave a script letter SA in the 21K range, off the top of my head, some consideration. $200 at the time? About a decade ago. I was after other guns so I left it behind. Which is fine as I came into a more interesting LN SA later.
Selling them at all was stupid. A ground firing pin isn't going to even slow anyone down. Myself I'm glad they did but it was particularly stupid. With the product liability lawsuits in modern America they left themselves open. If somebody replaced the firing pin in one of those and injured themselves seriously they'd take the CMP to the cleaners. Selling it with a ground firing pin isn't going to be an even remotely successful defense. Val Forget sold a guy cartridges for an ancient Rolling Block back in the '60s and the guy lost an eye shooting a gimpy gun. That guy took Val to the cleaners. Cases are even more likely to succeed today. Hot coffee at McDonalds? File suit. Hurt yourself riding your lawnmower? File suit over lack of seat belts. I do not agree with lawsuits that stupid people are able to win but the realist in me knows the CMP was particularly stupid on selling those.
5MadFarmers
09-01-2016, 11:18
Once smoked cigarettes, drank beer and whiskey in excess, drove unlimited late model dirt cars for 40 years, had many years where I drank 3 pots of black coffee a day, worked a super high stress job, had bacon everyday, ate the fat off my 1 pound steaks, have driven well over 100 mph on the public roads numerous times, fired tens of thousands of my own reloads in competition and practice in M1s, M1As, AR 15s built by myself, had several case separations, chased wild women and had unprotected sex plus a few dozen other behaviors I know were not wise at all. But dang I have never fired a single round out of a low number Springfield because it might be dangerous!
Do you specialize in false analogies?
There is absolutely nothing to be gained from shooting an LN SA '03. With a caveat. Assuming you can blow the money on a gun that shouldn't be shot at all that money, less in fact, could be used to acquire a NS '03. Same exact gun. The Armory assured it. If you go through the list of items you listed there is zero direct alternatives which are identical. A tofu chunk isn't a steak, banana peels aren't tobacco, wine isn't whiskey, driving 30mph isn't driving over 100mph, and a squirt gun isn't an M1.
Do you specialize in false analogies?
If you had 10 P-51 Mustangs out back, lucky you, and 1 of the 10 was known for having the wings come off in flight - would that be the one you'd select? That wouldn't be too bright.
5MadFarmers
09-01-2016, 11:21
At the risk of further igniting a volatile subject, and mind you I'm going to do this off the top of my head without even bothering to check the documents I have to confirm it, the RIA rifles weren't affected.
Heat treating was basically a lie that Hatcher perpetuated. Covered that, and the real problem, in my book.
RIA didn't buy their steel from the same supplier and didn't get the same lots. When they pulled the -800,000 SAs they didn't list the RIA rifles as a problem. Circa 1920ish? In a document around here.
Shooting a heat treated '03, when the NS ones are readily available, is dumb. If you're the obstinate type - get the RIA edition.
We encounter enough risks in everyday life. To lose an eye because of a desire to shoot an antique rifle that was made before the art of metallurgy became a science isn't a risk worth taking.
musketshooter
09-01-2016, 01:42
It took a lot more that a cast bullet load to blow that receiver! I would bet it was a case full of pistol powder.
It took a lot more that a cast bullet load to blow that receiver! I would bet it was a case full of pistol powder.
Or, maybe an accidental double powder load. It's a good idea to weigh each reloaded cartridge on a digital scale to guard against the possibility of a double load.
If one had two double loads of ammo each fired in a sht and the other in a dht, both rifles would blow up. But the sht rifle would suffer more catastrophically than the dht. This infers that the shooter of a sht rifle that blows would suffer more catastrophic injury than the shooter firing the dht.
I wonder if this analogy is appropriate..... firing a sht rifle is like driving a car without a seat belt. If a crash occurs, risk of injury is greater; firing a dht rifle is like driving a car wearing seat belts. If a crash occurs, risk of injury is inherently less.
PhillipM
09-02-2016, 02:42
I have never seen a report of a SHT blowing up with good factory ammo. In modern times its always been some dummy that was reloading with a reduced charge that would allow the case to be double charged.
I have SA 36018 with the original bolt. Glass on glass does not adequately describe how smooth it is. It had been in a closet for 60 years or so and one day I took it to the range to show it off to my buddies and had a what the heck moment and shot a round through it just to hear it go bang. Very satisfying! I've no need to shoot it again, it fires like my other 1903's.
My shooter is a MK1. I figure if a Hatcher hole is good, a Pedersen ejection port is better.
An A3 is just sticky compared to the case hardened rifles.
blackhawknj
09-02-2016, 03:35
MCA Sports http://www.mcace.com/ makes cartridge adapters that allow you to fire 30 Carbine out of a 30/06.
When I was a kid and my dad was assigned to the USMC Equipment Board at Quantico I used to hang out around the Ordnance School there. One day they had a bunch of 1903 receivers that were in the Low Number range (they were SA's below 800,000) and one of the instructors did a demo on them with a ball peen hammer and the hit the receiver ring with a good hard rap. Several simply broke with one strike. For years I kept those ring tops with the serial numbers but eventually lost them. So, yes they do break easily, not all but some. As for me, I do not shoot my low number rifles, far too nice to risk destruction when there are lots of safe ones out there to shoot without any need to worry. At that time they were also using Johnson Rifle receivers for the students to learn how to do milling cuts, the dumpsters used to get really neat things thrown in them at the end of the day.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.